ANTONOW 225 flying again ???
Guest
Posts: n/a
ANTONOW 225 flying again ???
In the official press release of the Paris airshow Le Bourget June 2001 one of the mentioned aircraft that will be there for static and flight display is the 6-engine An-225.
As I thought to know that only one was built, but has been grounded for the last few years at Kiew I would like to know if the press information was too optimistic or if the An-225 "Miryia" is in fact in the air again. Any confirmed facts about this unbelievably BIG iron ( MTOW 600 tons ) ?
I have had a look inside the simliar An-124 "Ruslan" and I would love to see the even bigger An 225.
------------------
This Airbus is o.k., but why did it come with a RENAULT key ??
As I thought to know that only one was built, but has been grounded for the last few years at Kiew I would like to know if the press information was too optimistic or if the An-225 "Miryia" is in fact in the air again. Any confirmed facts about this unbelievably BIG iron ( MTOW 600 tons ) ?
I have had a look inside the simliar An-124 "Ruslan" and I would love to see the even bigger An 225.
------------------
This Airbus is o.k., but why did it come with a RENAULT key ??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boeing built a big freighter then put some seats in it and called it the 747. It made them King of the World to this very day.
So why doesn't anybody want to put seats in the Antonov? Or the Galaxy for that matter?
Also - why are these military freighters high wing?. Is it to allow the fuselage to be nearer the ground?
So why doesn't anybody want to put seats in the Antonov? Or the Galaxy for that matter?
Also - why are these military freighters high wing?. Is it to allow the fuselage to be nearer the ground?
Guest
Posts: n/a
twistedenginestarter,
I would guess that high wing = engines furthur from ground = less chance of FOD at rough strips. Also allows the U/C legs to be shorter, which would mean that going over an obstacle, leads to less force at the attachment points of the U/C.
I would guess that high wing = engines furthur from ground = less chance of FOD at rough strips. Also allows the U/C legs to be shorter, which would mean that going over an obstacle, leads to less force at the attachment points of the U/C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pdub,
My guess is rather the advantage of having a spacious single cargo hold, whereas with a low-wing aircraft a comparatively high cargo hold floor is required to have enough space for the main spar. The low cargo floor is also advantageous for the operation of aircraft like Antonov 124 or 225 where no external ground equipment is required to load/unload the aircraft. The aircaft is able to retract the landing gear up to a point where the belly almost touches the ground, so there is only a small height difference between the apron and the cargo hold floor which can easily be handled by the built-in ramp and the two cranes running in rails on the cargo holds roof.
My guess is rather the advantage of having a spacious single cargo hold, whereas with a low-wing aircraft a comparatively high cargo hold floor is required to have enough space for the main spar. The low cargo floor is also advantageous for the operation of aircraft like Antonov 124 or 225 where no external ground equipment is required to load/unload the aircraft. The aircaft is able to retract the landing gear up to a point where the belly almost touches the ground, so there is only a small height difference between the apron and the cargo hold floor which can easily be handled by the built-in ramp and the two cranes running in rails on the cargo holds roof.
