Jump to content

AN-225 destroyed?!


Scotius
 Share

Recommended Posts

And now, there is one less of those majestic giants in existence:

ApTk9kpTURBXy8zNTFmZjc4NTllNjA5NmM5MWRhY

An - 225 Mrija was destroyed on Antonov Airfield in Hostomel. Barely a year ago, one of them brought a full cargo of medical equipment and supplies to fight COVID pandemic in my country. RIP and thank you for your service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Scotius said:

And now, there is one less of those majestic giants in existence:

ApTk9kpTURBXy8zNTFmZjc4NTllNjA5NmM5MWRhY

An - 225 Mrija was destroyed on Antonov Airfield in Hostomel. Barely a year ago, one of them brought a full cargo of medical equipment and supplies to fight COVID pandemic in my country. RIP and thank you for your service.

Pretty much the only one, I wonder how ula will be affected since they used her for flying first stages sometimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Confirmed destroyed:

 

 

Sad to see such a beautiful flying machine go, especially like this.

another Buran relic gone then, it's heartbreaking that so much of that program's hardware has been lost for nothing :valsob:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know anything about the incomplete second fuselage? The one China was interested in to have completed with their funds and possibly even buy the rights to build more themselves? I expect that, assuming it survives, it would be the starting point for the rebuild. Wikipedia puts it at 60%-70% complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, monophonic said:

Does anyone know anything about the incomplete second fuselage?

Yeah, about that... some are arguing thats it's the airframe on fire in the limited footage available. Pro-Russian sources broke the news well over a day before Ukrainian ones.

Also, due to certain factors, the Ukranian government has limited awareness of what is going on in Gostomel.

ocr

2 hours ago, RCgothic said:

If they can.

In their original statement, they said something along the lines of "We're going to build a new plane, and we're going to get Russia to pay for it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Also, due to certain factors, the Ukranian government has limited awareness of what is going on in Gostomel.

I mean, these particular factors are no longer with us, but it's safe to say that there are more pressing concerns regardless.

I don't think there is much point discussing how, when, and at whose expense Mrija or some new plane will be (re)built until the military situation is fully resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There only was one. Now there isn't?

Anyway, that is (was?) a very old airplane, which used outdated technology. If someone were to build a replacement, it would make more sense to start over from scratch (or at least mostly from scratch). But there is no mass market for such a plane, so you are basically talking about spending billions of dollars on one or maybe two planes. It's unlikely that would happen barring something like the original reason the plane was built -- a government needed it for a high-value purpose and had no other choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

There only was one. Now there isn't?

Anyway, that is (was?) a very old airplane, which used outdated technology. If someone were to build a replacement, it would make more sense to start over from scratch (or at least mostly from scratch). But there is no mass market for such a plane, so you are basically talking about spending billions of dollars on one or maybe two planes. It's unlikely that would happen barring something like the original reason the plane was built -- a government needed it for a high-value purpose and had no other choice.

It could be rebuilt purely for symbolism.

Although, if the second airframe was destroyed and the plane itself was likely destroyed or, in any case, will probably be destroyed, yes, building a new one- not "rebuilding"- would be necessary.

But still, symbolism could be a strong motivation to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

There only was one. Now there isn't?

Anyway, that is (was?) a very old airplane, which used outdated technology. If someone were to build a replacement, it would make more sense to start over from scratch (or at least mostly from scratch). But there is no mass market for such a plane, so you are basically talking about spending billions of dollars on one or maybe two planes. It's unlikely that would happen barring something like the original reason the plane was built -- a government needed it for a high-value purpose and had no other choice.

Then again there's no mass market for air launch platforms, yet the Stratolaunch Roc exists. There is a niche market for oversize cargo airplanes, or the Mriya wouldn't have flown after 1994. Now the Roc has not made any profit and by all likelihood never will even launch any operational payloads. The case may very well be that the market for An225 size cargo is too limited to pay for building a new airframe or even completing the second fuselage. Making a new design with modern tools may end up being cheaper, or not. I can even imagine the cargo market getting served by the Roc carrying the items in a huge pod where the rocket was supposed to be. That would be almost poetic, a lost aborted space program relic being replaced with another, completely different aborted space program relic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haisi-1 (海丝-1) SAR satellite take a photo from Hostomel Airport and... well, AN-225 situation is extremely unplesant;.;

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jypomLf0MlaXr_dXLuJNhQ

an225.jpg

an225.jpg

The yellow text from top to bottom is: 

  • The curved metal canopy should show darker shadows in the non-directly illuminated areas, but currently there are uneven bright areas, suggesting a rough reflective area, which is a sign of damage to the canopy.
  • Metal appearing on the surface of a concrete runway.
  • The southern hangar was offset on the SAR image due to its height, but the scattering was more uniform suggesting no damage.

"On February 28, the Global Times reporter learned from the Chinese commercial satellite company Tianyi Research Institute that the company's SAR satellite "Haisi-1" successfully acquired the SAR satellite image of Kiev Antonov Hostomel Airport in Ukraine at 12:47 p.m. local time on February 28.
The company's researchers analysed the vaulted canopy at Hostomel Airport, where the An-225 was parked after its final flight, and concluded that the surface of the supposedly "smooth" canopy showed multiple scattering enhancement areas, suggesting serious damage to the canopy. "The curved metal canopy should show darker shadows in the non-directly illuminated areas, but now there are uneven bright areas, suggesting rough reflective areas, a sign of serious damage to the canopy." The researcher said. In addition, the images show large reflective areas on the concrete pavement of the canopy, which the researchers said could be large metal parts scattered after the attack on the canopy, corroborating with previous images circulating online of the canopy on fire, meaning the parked An-225 is in extremely bad shape."

I know that this post will be highly controversial and it is my intention to have and only have is to share this objective fact in itself.

PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS OR ARGUE ANYTHING ABOUT WAR OR POLITICS AT BELOW. I TAKE IT REALLY SERIOUSLY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, monophonic said:

Then again there's no mass market for air launch platforms, yet the Stratolaunch Roc exists. There is a niche market for oversize cargo airplanes, or the Mriya wouldn't have flown after 1994. Now the Roc has not made any profit and by all likelihood never will even launch any operational payloads. The case may very well be that the market for An225 size cargo is too limited to pay for building a new airframe or even completing the second fuselage. Making a new design with modern tools may end up being cheaper, or not. I can even imagine the cargo market getting served by the Roc carrying the items in a huge pod where the rocket was supposed to be. That would be almost poetic, a lost aborted space program relic being replaced with another, completely different aborted space program relic.

i cant imagine it would be too difficult to build a cargo pod for the stratolaunch. but its going to eat into its payload capacity.  however it does make it so you can swap pods for different tradeoffs between bulk and mass. though im not sure if the stratolaunch was designed to land with its payload. i suppose you could either reinforce the landing gear, or drop the cargo. i suppose deployable parafoils can be used to soft land the cargo if its packaged well enough, and that may be a good option for relief supplies for natural disasters and whatnot. 

also the an225 was really just a mod to the an124. you could take any one of the still operating heavy lift aircaft and add bigger wings with more engines. the a380 isnt great at cargo (a plane that large and it can only manage 84 tons), but apparently they aren't great for passengers either. airlines want to get rid of them. they will go the way of the 747 and spend much of their lives hauling cargo. gut em and do wing/engine upgrade. its not like the world doesn't have a need for at least a couple heavy lift platforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Nuke said:

i cant imagine it would be too difficult to build a cargo pod for the stratolaunch. but its going to eat into its payload capacity.  however it does make it so you can swap pods for different tradeoffs between bulk and mass. though im not sure if the stratolaunch was designed to land with its payload. i suppose you could either reinforce the landing gear, or drop the cargo. i suppose deployable parafoils can be used to soft land the cargo if its packaged well enough, and that may be a good option for relief supplies for natural disasters and whatnot. 

also the an225 was really just a mod to the an124. you could take any one of the still operating heavy lift aircaft and add bigger wings with more engines. the a380 isnt great at cargo (a plane that large and it can only manage 84 tons), but apparently they aren't great for passengers either. airlines want to get rid of them. they will go the way of the 747 and spend much of their lives hauling cargo. gut em and do wing/engine upgrade. its not like the world doesn't have a need for at least a couple heavy lift platforms. 

The real selling point of the Mriya was never the mass of the cargo, but dimensions. Not many other aircraft types can transport anything longer than c.37 meters, and none at over 6 meters wide. There aren't that many of loads that absolutely require that volume, I know. That's why there ever was one Mriya and even that one mostly transported smaller things, cargoes that a pair of Ruslans would have handled just as well. But when someone absolutely needs that humongous paper machine part moved from one side of the planet to the other side and is losing millions every hour that passes until it is installed, they are willing to pay a premium for a supersize plane. That's the niche where An-225 earned its reputation.

The Stratolaunch absolutely should be capable of landing with its payload. Things don't always go as planned. It would suck to be the pilot when the rocket refuses to launch and won't detach either, if landing with a hung store was not an option. Customers don't like if their expensive satellites explode, let alone get dropped in the ocean either. If anything the bigger issue is whether the hardpoint is capable of carrying the requisite mass to haul even low density supersize cargo. Wikipedia says 250 tons, or on par with the Mriya. That would have to include the pod, but otherwise should be ok.  Range might be severely limited compared, though. Only 1200nm to launch point so double that to 2400nm for point to point. That's barely enough to cross the Atlantic via the shortest route. And that was with a supposedly quite aerodynamic if heavy payload attached. A bulky cargo pod will add a lot of drag even if it isn't heavy. Did I mention the plane is also busy supporting the hypersonic development program?

You won't get very good cargo haulers out of passenger planes either. The only reason the 747 makes such a great freighter is because it was the opposing proposal in the competition that produced  the C-5 Galaxy. Boeing built in the design good passenger qualities as a hedge, which proved very fortunate when they did lose the competition. You can't install a cargo loading door at the front or back of the A380. The airframe integrity just cannot handle hinges and latches replacing solid plating. Those features have to be built in from the beginning.

Well, whatever happens, something will eventually fill that niche. Things have a tendency to happen when a lot of money is on the line. Waiting for that let's hope for peace to prevail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, monophonic said:

Then again there's no mass market for air launch platforms, yet the Stratolaunch Roc exists.

Because one of the world's richest people decided to fund it as a personal project.

1 hour ago, monophonic said:

You won't get very good cargo haulers out of passenger planes either. The only reason the 747 makes such a great freighter is because it was the opposing proposal in the competition that produced  the C-5 Galaxy. Boeing built in the design good passenger qualities as a hedge, which proved very fortunate when they did lose the competition. You can't install a cargo loading door at the front or back of the A380. The airframe integrity just cannot handle hinges and latches replacing solid plating. Those features have to be built in from the beginning.

There are other reasons why the world freight market is dominated by Boeing airplanes. Mainly it has to do with MZFW. Boeing planes are generally designed to carry more payload weight than they need for passengers, which makes them a lot easier to convert to freighters. Airbus freighters have mostly competed in the package freight business, in which payload volume is more limiting than payload weight. (Think cardboard boxes mostly full of air and Styrofoam.) Boeing has mostly captured the general freight market (for denser cargos).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Because one of the world's richest people decided to fund it as a personal project.

A lot of niche markets tend to be served by people's personal projects. A lot of those projects never turn any profit either. That's all the more reason a niche market might get served by a repurposed project from another niche. I doubt the An-225 ever recouped its development costs either. Of course China just might decide they want to one up the Mriya and build an even larger cargo plane just to show they can. I don't see much market for multiple airframes at that size, so that would be it for any other ideas. No matter how fantastical.

17 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

There are other reasons why the world freight market is dominated by Boeing airplanes. Mainly it has to do with MZFW. Boeing planes are generally designed to carry more payload weight than they need for passengers, which makes them a lot easier to convert to freighters. Airbus freighters have mostly competed in the package freight business, in which payload volume is more limiting than payload weight. (Think cardboard boxes mostly full of air and Styrofoam.) Boeing has mostly captured the general freight market (for denser cargos).

Of course there is a lot of nuance involved. But still only the 747 (that I'm aware of) can have the nose door that allows loading very long items. Outside dedicated transport aircraft obviously. I was interested only in the (very) niche loads that are too long even for an An-124 yet wide and/or tall enough that a 747 cannot swallow them. Maybe 1-2 of those per year at most? Usually they travel by sea but every once in a long while someone needs one in a hurry.

Yeah, I know I am overly interested in these weird corner cases and such... That's the privilege of not being actually involved in the business in any way. I can fulfill my morbid curiosities at will without letting reality get in the way. Note that I am not advocating doing any one thing or another at all. Just musing about what might come to pass should someone decide to fork out a pallet or three full of cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...