Sign in to follow this  
Guest

AN124 ---> AN225?

Recommended Posts

Hello,the AN125 is a very nice aircraft isn't it?Is it possible to stretch the 124 to build the AN225? Or can the builder of the AN124 build the AN225? Having the biggest Aircraft on the world in FS2004 would be very cool.Cu,Eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>the AN125 is a very nice aircraft isn't it?I personally don't like it. It reminds me too much of soviet lack of technological finesse - build big, heavy, fat because you can't build anything else and if you don't have advanced engines to power the beast - just double number of engines. *:-*Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>the AN125 is a very nice aircraft isn't it?>>I personally don't like it. It reminds me too much of soviet>lack of technological finesse - build big, heavy, fat because>you can't build anything else and if you don't have advanced>engines to power the beast - just double number of engines.>*:-*>>Michael J."lack" of technological Finesse?....you are joking right?they build THE biggest aircraft on earth,and manage to gewt it off the ground...and then it is asked all around the earth to move heavy loads,amongst which are 737 hulls,and parts of the ISS....and you find that the AN225 lacks technology?if i were you i'd go and find some info about the AN225...i think you'll come back from your "lack of technology" statement.regardsTom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>"lack" of technological Finesse?....you are joking right?no I am not. They can build BIG things but very crude at the same time. Ever seen a soviet aircraft close-by ? With rivets sticking out, leaky engines, not to mention that their electronics simply is 20 years behind. You do need any technological finesse to build aircraft that weighs 500 ton and get it off the ground. If their aircraf were so advanced they would have competitive aircraft industry - in fact nobody is buying russian commercial aircraft these days unless it has western engines and western avionics - and even those sell very seldom.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then how come no one else has built anything even remotly as huge as the An-225?Remember that the An-225 could in theory carry an empty 747-400 (if it could fit inside the carg hold, or fit on top...) and still load up much more without passing it's maximum load limit (which is 250 000kg according to http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=389)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Then how come no one else has built anything even remotly as>huge as the An-225?>Are you even serious asking such question ?Because no one else needs it or would consider such a product economically viable. Boeing and Airbus could build any plane they possibly conceived but if there is no customer for it - it is a huge waste of money. No private company is in a business of throwing money down the drain.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one love the 124 and 225. Beautiful and very useful aircraft. No load is too big or too heavy for a 225. If you need it moved - this'll do it for you. Besides, technology isn't everything. The more you put into it, the more it's likely to break down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the original question.......A 225 is being made by the author of the 125.Go to the Screen Shots forum and search for 225 or something to see more info on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They DO lack finesse.They do by raw power what they fail to do by more elaborate means.Noone else built something like the 225 because it's a useless aircraft except for some very specialist purposes and for those alone it's not economically viable (but it WAS viable to the USSR as a show of communist superiority).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>(but it WAS viable to>the USSR as a show of communist superiority)."size matters" that was a basic a motto of the old Soviet Empire. In order to prove their superiority thay had to have everything heaviest, biggest. In their economy what mattered only was how many tons of steel, cements, bricks, etc they could produce. Quality and whether someone wanted to buy this stuff was of secondary importance. They wanted to have biggest monuments, biggest submarines, etc. And if 40% of population had no running water or access to plumbing at the same time - who cares. I still recall during my youth while growing up in communist Poland how propagnada portrayed the race to the Moon - it was very important to the communists that Soviet rockets were heavier, bigger. When relatively light US Gemini spacecraft in 1965 could perform all sort of in-orbit manouvers (including orbit change and docking) that soviet Voschod spacecraft could not - again, to propaganda what mattered only was that Voschod was much heavier - this is what generated headlines. And this "size" mania really "paid off" - look what remains of Russian aerospace industry today - basically a pile of rubble.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ever want to hear about an interesting project, read about how the Soviets basically copied the B29 rivet for rivet.History Channel (or Wings) recently had a special on how Stalin, towards the end of WWII felt it was of primary importance to have a heavy bomber.They took the B-29 and copied it as close to rivet to rivet as they could. The incredible story is here, and elsewhere if you look on Google.http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/shortstori...ussianclone.htmThis happened near the end of WWII and we had gotten our bomber crews back, so no one was really raising a stink.Then we saw the TU-4 show up during an October Parade. Initially, Western "onlookers" wern't surprised to see a B-29 sillouette in the air because we knew they still were holding on to three of them. So we figured it was one of the three...Then came the second....The third.....About the time Number 4 and 5 came into view the "observers" nearly had a heart attack, and it was then we realized what they had done.Amazing story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wathomas,Interesting story. I love the History channel and Wings stuff! Especially, when it covers aviation related topics. Discovery ran a series called "Airline Story" or something like that a couple years ago. One of the segments was really cool on Bush Flying and showed some in-flight cockpit shots of a B737 landing at Dutch Harbor, Alaska.http://www.flight1.com/imgmain/jsbanner2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>look what remains of Russian aerospace industry today - basically a pile of rubbleThe reason the whole space industry is in the crapper is simply because of lack of funding and political failure; not because of any particular technical reason. The reason russian aircraft don't sell well is because people just don't want to fly on them; they're outdated, old, rickety aircraft in the public's opinion. Russians put the first man into space. Russians built the Mir station. Russian ships resupply the ISS.. the only reason Russia isn't a big player right now is because of the lack of funding, but NASA is in that same situation.... think about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And this "size" mania really "paid off" - look what remains of>Russian aerospace industry today - basically a pile of>rubble.or should that be "pile or ruble" :)Yes, the USSR was very big on numbers over quality. Always been that way, probably because they realised full well they couldn't win the quality battle (heck, without smuggled Texas Instruments microchips their nuclear missiles would never be able to fly even today...).In the 1920s or early 1930s they built the largest aircraft ever for no practical reason than to show off.It was comissioned as a flying propaganda show, complete with on-board sound studio and printing presses to supply far-off regions of the USSR with propaganda flyers and play party slogans through loudspeakers slung under the fuselage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not just the B-29. They also copied the C-47 and several other aircraft.The Tu-144 is now understood to have been created in large part from technical design documents relating to an earlier concept of Concorde smuggled out of the Aerospatiale offices by a communist sympathiser.This concept had proven non-viable but the USSR didn't realise that and went ahead to build it without elaborate wind-tunnel testing.As a result the aircraft didn't perform anywhere near as expected and was actually dangerous to fly.Rather than redesign the wing (which the British and French could now do with their new advanced computers which the Soviets lacked) they designed the retracting canards on top of the fuselage which helped some but not enough to fail the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm...then why is it those planes (AN124/225) can do things no boeing or airbus can do?that alone is a "technological finesse" to mei think we westerners should learn that THERE ARE things they can do better.i also think boeing/airbus lack "technological finesse"but hey,who am i...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes man, and just because of these "very special purposes", the 225 had been build. the only purpose she had been build for was to carry the sovied shuttle "buran" same as nasa uses a 747 to transport their shuttle fleet. using a standart an-124 would not do the job since burans empty weight was 75 metrical tons which is too much to be carried "piggyback" plus heavy aerodynamical problems caused by their tail and wing (upper wing instead of the lower wing of the nasa-747)design.now, instead of creating a complete new aircraft, the soviets stretched an existing 124 and added two more engines. thats what i would call cheap, easy and economical instead of paying billions to create a complete new aircraft design just to be build a single aircraft.today she

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>then why is it those planes (AN124/225) can do things no>boeing or airbus can do?AN225 can carry big loads but if you take its max weight, useful load, fuel consumption, maintenance costs, etc - it is a very inefficient and poorly designed/executed aircraft. If you call it "finesses" - you invented your own use of this word. There is probably as much "finesse" in AN225 as in the Great Wall of China - which also can do things no other wall can :-lol .Yes, certain things they can do better - building basically cheap, gas guzzling, overweight equipment that no other western manufacturer would be willing to put their name on. And then they can lease it or put it to use at marketable prices. BTW, enjoy AN225 since nothing like this Russians will be building soon (ever ?). Now the era of state propaganda is over and russian aircraft manufacturers understand they must make $ to survive and the only way to do that is build aircraft that meet international standards for economy and quality.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Yes, certain things they can do better - building basically>cheap, gas guzzling, overweight equipment that no other>western manufacturer would be willing to put their name on.>And then they can lease it or put it to use at marketable>prices. Thanks for your "expert" opinion.>Now the era of state propaganda is>over and russian aircraft manufacturers understand they must>make $ to survive and the only way to do that is build>aircraft that meet international standards for economy and>quality.Irrelevant for cargo aircraft. The An124 set a NEW standard for it's type, added a whole new capability that no western jet (not counting the military-only C-17) can yet match.The 124 has made extremely oversize and overweight lift capabilities available for commercial use. Dneiper, Volga, Antonov, and other heavy-lift companies make good money leasing these aircraft to people who need that capability. These monsters are everywhere doing missions no other civilian aircraft can do. And soon the 225 will only compliment the burgeoning heavy lift business.EDIT: The Progress engines on the 124 are comparable to the GE CF6-80 series and PW4000 series of American engines. ANY aircraft that has to haul the weight that it does will necessarily guzzle a lot of fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well said Tom.i get sick and tired of people who think we in the western world do everything better.granted,we may have a technological advance,but we also tend to search for technological(read:more difficult than it has to be) solutions,and not only that,but we even brag about it!....how's that for propaganda?when boeing is capable of landing a 230 ton aircraft on a grass strip,and shows it,people can rave all they want about russian planes being ineffective,but to this date,the only plane capable of doing this,happens to be a russian one,so yes,they made a technological step forward,and with finesse i might add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really must agree with you tom & tom, russian aircraft in general and the an-124 in particular are really amazing equipment in their own right. Comparing them with boeings and airbuses is like comparing apples with peas, when calling it old-fashioned and fuel-guzzling you have to remember that operating costs weren't much of an issue in the former soviet union, what was the issue was the possibility to land on badly paved runways and even grass runways, to be robust enough to be able to fly with minimum maintenance et.c. I find it quite amazing how the engineers at tupolev, antonov, ilyushin et.c. could keep on making such amazing a/c:s in a totalitary system as the soviet union!rgrds fredrik (Oh, and the last time I looked Antonov Airlines made quite a lot of money moving air cargo with these old-fashioned, fuelguzzling crappy aircrafts! :-) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I find it quite amazing how the engineers at tupolev, antonov,>ilyushin et.c. could keep on making such amazing a/c:s in a>totalitary system as the soviet union!It was actually very simple: engineers at tupolev, antonov or ilyushin belonged to a privilaged class in the former Soviet Union since this was part of the Military Industrial Complex and soviet taxpayer paid for everything regardless of cost and nobody asked his permission. The same soviet taxpayer had no access to indoor plumbing, fresh vegetables (such decadent luxury), or decent apartment but soviet engineers had plenty of money to design their aircraft or send spacecraft to Venus.So next time you marvel about soviet aircraft - think of millions of poor russian peasants or regular folks who paid for all this with their substandard (3-rd world like) living conditions. :-eekMichael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:-roll Here we go again with Pro-West Anti-East BS again... As I grew up in the Former Soviet Union, in RUSSIA not Poland I take offense to having my countryland mocked in such ways, sure alot of it is true, but not all! I find it funny that when Russians make an aircraft that looks conceptually similar everyone shouts espionage, but when an American firm literally signs a contract to licence build a European airliner, and then pulls out only after collection enough data to make their own knock-off, no one cares? ;-) (no Offence) DC-9 and SE210 look at them ;-), F-15 is indeed a copy of the MiG-25 this is why it was made!The Li-2 was not a DC-3 copy It was a license produced aircraft ;-)People should note, that the Free French Airmen, given the choice of any Allied fighter, chose the Yak-3!Look at the Su-27 type engine the Lyulka Al-31F Has a comparable lifespan to an PW F100, Produces more power, And is more fuel efficient. hmmmm :-rollPS I await for the AN-225 Tom, looks awesome, just like the real thing does! ;-)Ya ne panimayu vas...:-roll Perevedite, Duroch... :( Poka! :DBest Regards Derek Beal :-wavePROUD RUSSIAN/CANADIAN! :D http://www.x-plane.org/users/ilyushin/derek_small.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this