An-225 now in Russian hands; fate uncertain

Status
Not open for further replies.
The article states that the plane is in Russian hands, Ukrainian hands, and unknown hands. That was useful. :rolleyes:
 
I saw two other news stories today, one saying it was damaged, and another saying "destroyed" :dunno:
 
I saw earlier that the hangar it was in was damaged or on fire at one point.
 
The whole thing is very unfortunate
 
Back in 1994, my wife and I were driving near the eastern edge of LAS, and as we passed a side street, I looked left and saw two massive twin vertical stabilizers and rudders suspended far above a chain link fence and a stretch of concrete paving. I almost crashed the rental car.

As I slammed on the brakes and maneuvered to make an illegal U-turn, my wife gently remarked "What are you doing?" Well, actually she kind of yelled.

Me: "The AN-225! It has to be the AN-225!"

She just shook her head. I turned down the side street, and there it was, parked in a corner of the airfield perimeter fencing, and blotting out the sun. Um, OK, that last part was exaggeration. But the plane was beautiful, and big. Really big. I took lots of photos, all the while babbling to my wife about the Antonov.

I didn't find out until a couple of years ago by reading a magazine article that after the Soviet Union fell, whoever was in charge of the AN-225 took it on a world tour, and one of the stops was Las Vegas. It was really fortunate that I glanced down that side street, especially now, because I fear some Russian cowboy is thinking destroying the huge aircraft would be a nice story to tell back home. I hope that hasn't happened.
 
I didn’t realize that there was only one of these in the world, and that it sat dormant for much of the 90s before they realized it could be used for cargo.

I do like many of the aircraft that were produced during the Soviet era, and it’s hard not to like a plane that big.
 
3393RP said:
Back in 1994, my wife and I were driving near the eastern edge of LAS, and as we passed a side street, I looked left and saw two massive twin vertical stabilizers and rudders suspended far above a chain link fence and a stretch of concrete paving. I almost crashed the rental car.

As I slammed on the brakes and maneuvered to make an illegal U-turn, my wife gently remarked "What are you doing?" Well, actually she kind of yelled.

Me: "The AN-225! It has to be the AN-225!"

She just shook her head. I turned down the side street, and there it was, parked in a corner of the airfield perimeter fencing, and blotting out the sun. Um, OK, that last part was exaggeration. But the plane was beautiful, and big. Really big. I took lots of photos, all the while babbling to my wife about the Antonov.

I didn't find out until a couple of years ago by reading a magazine article that after the Soviet Union fell, whoever was in charge of the AN-225 took it on a world tour, and one of the stops was Las Vegas. It was really fortunate that I glanced down that side street, especially now, because I fear some Russian cowboy is thinking destroying the huge aircraft would be a nice story to tell back home. I hope that hasn't happened.
Click to expand...
Airplane porn is a thing.

Ted said:
I didn’t realize that there was only one of these in the world, and that it sat dormant for much of the 90s before they realized it could be used for cargo.

I do like many of the aircraft that were produced during the Soviet era, and it’s hard not to like a plane that big.
Click to expand...

Bigger is better, right?
 
Pilawt said:
Maybe they could have if it had something more than a Garmin 196 for navigation ...

View attachment 104918
Click to expand...

One of my friends was a captain for United..he is now retired...he told me years ago he always took his handheld gps on trips even though the planes used INS.

He related a story about asking for a vector and the controller remarked " don't you have your portable gps with you today ? ".

You can always spot a Russian transport plane...they all have a " look " that is somehow a work in progress. :)
 
SkyDog58 said:
I’m surprised they didn’t fly it out before the attack.
Click to expand...
According to some EU sites the 225 had been down for mx. However a Belgium site has reported the Antonov bureau chief pilot has posted the 225 is safe and un damaged. There are other reports it was flown to Georgia prior to the air battle over its home airport but its hangar was in fact hit. Film at eleven.
 
So it's been destroyed, not destroyed, damaged, not damaged, it's still there, it's been moved to Georgia, Putin used it to ship Ukraine to a top secret location while announcing Ukraine is now his...no takebacks. Now I'm officially a reporter.
 
Lowflynjack said:
So it's been destroyed, not destroyed, damaged, not damaged, it's still there, it's been moved to Georgia, Putin used it to ship Ukraine to a top secret location while announcing Ukraine is now his...no takebacks. Now I'm officially a reporter.
Click to expand...
And a mighty fine one at that! :D
 
Lowflynjack said:
So it's been destroyed, not destroyed, damaged, not damaged, it's still there, it's been moved to Georgia, Putin used it to ship Ukraine to a top secret location while announcing Ukraine is now his...no takebacks. Now I'm officially a reporter.
Click to expand...

You can always print your retraction in small print on page 23.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Now I'm officially a reporter.
Click to expand...
Now's your chance to get the exclusive and maybe an air to air! If you do FB go to the Antonov page where the chief pilot supposedly made the post the 225 is okay. This could be Pulitzer territory....:)
 
Bell206 said:
According to some EU sites the 225 had been down for mx. However a Belgium site has reported the Antonov bureau chief pilot has posted the 225 is safe and un damaged. There are other reports it was flown to Georgia prior to the air battle over its home airport but its hangar was in fact hit. Film at eleven.
Click to expand...

According to ADS-B, the AN-225 last flew into Kiev on February 5th and hasn't moved since.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
I saw earlier that the hangar it was in was damaged or on fire at one point.
Click to expand...
I saw that too, but wasn't sure if it was in reference to the second unfinished one

The guy who flies it, and has an awesome YouTube channel, Dmitry Antonov, posted late yesterday that the plane was 'whole' .. so hopefully it is spared!


midwestpa24 said:
According to ADS-B, the AN-225 last flew into Kiev on February 5th and hasn't moved since.
Click to expand...
The crew films most of their flights.. they're an impressive bunch and should quell many Russian/Ukranian/Slavic aviation myths. These guys often shoot dicey approaches down to minumums. This is the flight in question you referenced:

Their vids are flying, with all sounds and audio.. no garbage music or 'SMASH THE LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE BUTTON!' and they don't try to sell you crap either.
 
Doug Reid said:
One of my friends was a captain for United..he is now retired...he told me years ago he always took his handheld gps on trips even though the planes used INS.

He related a story about asking for a vector and the controller remarked " don't you have your portable gps with you today ? ".

You can always spot a Russian transport plane...they all have a " look " that is somehow a work in progress. :)
Click to expand...
They're the best looking planes out there, and built like absolute tanks. Politics aside, you have to hand it to the individual engineers and craftsman who built and fly these things, despite all the headwinds faced politically, economically, etc.

Check out Alrosa flight 514. The thing crashed into a forest, was patched up, and flown out..

https://www.airlinereporter.com/201...-tu-154-alrosa-flight-514-crash-and-recovery/
upload_2022-2-25_10-29-14.png

edited to add, the recovery effort was filmed here, basically a rag tag group of villagers with chainsaws and farm equipment got the thing flying again
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
According to ADS-B, the AN-225 last flew into Kiev on February 5th and hasn't moved since.
Click to expand...
In the reports of it being moved to Georgia they specifically mention it was done with "no tracking equipment activated" which may have led to further assumptions it was still in its damaged hangar.???
 
Tantalum said:
They're the best looking planes out there, and built like absolute tanks. Politics aside, you have to hand it to the individual engineers and craftsman who built and fly these things, despite all the headwinds faced politically, economically, etc.
Click to expand...
As an engineer myself, Russian engineer is absolutely supreme. Engineering for reliability over all else has them come up with elegantly simple solutions for countless tasks. Their helicopters use large diameter, low pressure hydraulics to make the fittings cheaper, and easier to repair in the field. The T34 didn't actually capture the track hinge pins on both sides, but rather had a pusher that just pushed the pins back into place each revolution. Really fantastic stuff.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Really fantastic stuff.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on your point of view. Sure they had some really neat quirks unfound in western designs but in general the one core design item is most were originally designed as expendable/throw away equipment or to be repaired on a much different scale than what we would consider a repair. And this is straight from the Antonov and MIL reps I knew and interacted with while in SA. For example, originally on the MI-17 helicopters the main transmission had a 1500hr limit. Not an overhaul limit but a life limit as that was how it was designed to be a throwaway. This is one of the reasons a lot of Russian equipment isn't allowed in western countries. They've tried to redesign things so that they could meet those international standards but as the MIL guy stated once you design something to be scrapped it becomes a bit harder to redesign it to last longer.

Even Lycoming tried that route with the LTS101 turbine engine which was initially designed as an expendable item for the first cruise missiles in the mid-60s but when that fell through someone had a great idea to put them in helicopters. It took 30 years to finally keep the turbine wheels from leaving on occasion but by then nobody wanted the engine. Regardless the Russian stuff is pretty neat within their niche and it was neat to fly in them and help work on them due to my friendship with those reps. The wildest ride was on an MI-26, the worlds largest helicopter and came with 2 parts lockers and a crew of 7.
 
Much of Russian design is to build things cheap, and build a lot of them. The philosophy for a war against the West was to make it one of attrition, send 100 MiGs to fight 10 F-15s, knowing the people of the Western countries wouldn't have the stomach to endure such heavy losses. Western philosophy has been to gain the technical advantage over our opponents.

So far these theories haven't been truly tested against each other...
 
midwestpa24 said:
Much of Russian design is to build things cheap
Click to expand...
but is that by choice or necessity? It's hard to compare the resources available to Boeing and Airbus (et al) next to what Antonov / Sukhoi / Tupolev / Ilyushin / etc., have to work with. Cheap is going to be more of a necessity than conscious design choice.. or desire to build things 'crappy' which is often what "cheap" is associated with

Bell206 said:
designed as expendable/throw away equipment
Click to expand...
.. a design philosophy that may have merits in some applications. If you're building something for war, and potential (if not likely) destruction I can see the logic in that. Sort of like shaving with cartridges you throw away or having a strop you sharpen it with each morning
 
Image trying to get parts....
 
Tantalum said:
but is that by choice or necessity? It's hard to compare the resources available to Boeing and Airbus (et al) next to what Antonov / Sukhoi / Tupolev / Ilyushin / etc., have to work with. Cheap is going to be more of a necessity than conscious design choice.. or desire to build things 'crappy' which is often what "cheap" is associated with
Click to expand...

I think at least to an extent it is choice. The US will spend $334 million on a single F-22. Russia would rather have have 14 $24 million MiGs. We spend a lot of time and money on technology, they keep the aircraft cheap and simple and mass produce them.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
As an engineer myself, Russian engineer is absolutely supreme. Engineering for reliability over all else has them come up with elegantly simple solutions for countless tasks. Their helicopters use large diameter, low pressure hydraulics to make the fittings cheaper, and easier to repair in the field. The T34 didn't actually capture the track hinge pins on both sides, but rather had a pusher that just pushed the pins back into place each revolution. Really fantastic stuff.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it "superior." I would call it "different philosophy". I've often equated Russian engineering to redneck engineering at its finest. Yes, often times elegantly simple in the design and execution, but usually giving things up elsewhere. Their nuclear programs being good examples.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I think at least to an extend it is choice. The US will spend $334 million on a single F-22. Russia would rather have have 14 $24 million MiGs. We spend a lot of time and money on technology, they keep the aircraft cheap and simple and mass produce them.
Click to expand...

pilot/crew survivability is another consideration. It's not just about the cost of the airframe.
 
Lowflynjack said:
So it's been destroyed, not destroyed, damaged, not damaged, it's still there, it's been moved to Georgia, Putin used it to ship Ukraine to a top secret location while announcing Ukraine is now his...no takebacks. Now I'm officially a reporter.
Click to expand...

Not with that level of grammatical correctness and absence of spelling error you aren't. :D
 
Bob Noel said:
pilot/crew survivability is another consideration. It's not just about the cost of the airframe.
Click to expand...

And that goes back to the culture and philosophy. Our culture values every single life, and mourns the loss of even one. Others are a little more comfortable with a war of attrition. The gamble is that our side would not be able to stomach the loss of life in such a war, and would withdraw.
 
I was lucky enough to see the smaller version, an 124, I was coming into kbfl, I was vectored out, to allow for heavy, once I was vectored to final, I could see ahead on the tarmac the 124, It took a few min to determine what it was,
It was quite impresive
 
Tantalum said:
but is that by choice or necessity?
Click to expand...
By choice. The design is also influenced by "Russian doctrine" in how they operate things. For example, under that "doctrine" the MI-17 requires a crew of 4. Not because the aircraft technically needs 4 people to fly it but how that doctrine requires 4 people to make it fly: 1 pilot to fly it; 1 pilot to handle radios and navigation; 1 flight engineer to start engines and monitor, and 1 load master who has the keys to open the door. There's a reason only Mig pilots were able to defect. And in most circles where Russian instruction was the dominant focus you will be hard pressed to find one pilot who knows how to start a turbine engine at least on the helicopter side. As mentioned the Russian design philosophy is based on attrition whether at war or not and it is very hard to reverse that. More is better in their world. However, they have been trying with newer aircraft in some cases.
 
AKiss20 said:
It does? Not my takeaway from the past two years…
Click to expand...
We wrecked our economy by locking up the brakes and steering it into a ditch, resulting in massive inflation and supply chain issues to save what ended up to probably be one or two people, so yeah, I'd say we "care". :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
Much of Russian design is to build things cheap, and build a lot of them. The philosophy for a war against the West was to make it one of attrition, send 100 MiGs to fight 10 F-15s, knowing the people of the Western countries wouldn't have the stomach to endure such heavy losses. Western philosophy has been to gain the technical advantage over our opponents.

So far these theories haven't been truly tested against each other...
Click to expand...

The fact that those theories haven’t been tested is probably lucky for us.
 
SkyDog58 said:
The fact that those theories haven’t been tested is probably lucky for us.
Click to expand...
The dangerous thing, it seems to me, is that the quantity approach only works out if you actually use them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top