Update on the Antonov

Yeah, there are probably lots of folks who have some emotional attachment and would love to see it fly again...but realistically? I don't see it ever happening.
 
Jim_R said:
Yeah, there are probably lots of folks who have some emotional attachment and would love to see it fly again...but realistically? I don't see it ever happening.
Click to expand...
Kind of depends on what kind of revenue producing potential there is for the owners.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Kind of depends on what kind of revenue producing potential there is for the owners.
Click to expand...
True. The article estimates a $1B cost to rebuild. Hard to see how flying one-off cargo missions will provide a reasonable ROI, even at half that.
 
Jim_R said:
True. The article estimates a $1B cost to rebuild. Hard to see how flying one-off cargo missions will provide a reasonable ROI, even at half that.
Click to expand...
Well, they must have thought it was worth it when they originally built it.

I guess time will tell.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, they must have thought it was worth it when they originally built it.
Click to expand...
No, ROI was not a concern when it was built. It was built to be the carrier aircraft for the Buran (Soviet Space Shuttle). When the Buran program was canceled and the USSR fell apart, Ukraine had this unicorn plane land in its lap. It was essentially a freebie.

Completely different situation talking about rebuilding it today.
 
Jim_R said:
No, ROI was not a concern when it was built. It was built to be the carrier aircraft for the Buran (Soviet Space Shuttle). When the Buran program was canceled and the USSR fell apart, Ukraine had this unicorn plane land in its lap. It was essentially a freebie.

Completely different situation talking about rebuilding it today.
Click to expand...
That I did not know. Or I had forgotten. Thanks for the reminder.
 
Wasn't there another one in existence somewhere that wasn't airworthy? Maybe that one could be refurbished perhaps using parts from the destroyed one for less?
 
cowman said:
Wasn't there another one in existence somewhere that wasn't airworthy? Maybe that one could be refurbished perhaps using parts from the destroyed one for less?
Click to expand...

The way I read the article, thats the plan. The bombed one appears to be scrap.
 
cowman said:
Wasn't there another one in existence somewhere that wasn't airworthy? Maybe that one could be refurbished perhaps using parts from the destroyed one for less?
Click to expand...

There was a second one under construction that was never finished.
 
cowman said:
Wasn't there another one in existence somewhere that wasn't airworthy? Maybe that one could be refurbished perhaps using parts from the destroyed one for less?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what the article is talking about. The "up to ~$1B" cost is to bring that partial airframe to completion.
 
Not going to happen. It’s just feel good propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top