Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by uriah1, Dec 21, 2017.
Just cool. That thing is massive. I did not know they were still around.
Wow thats pretty cool
Wow that’s big.
hate to have to buy tires for that rascal
I think they only built two of them, so seeing it land at your home field is a rare sight indeed. I've seen An-124s come into our airport to pick up planeloads of cigarettes from Philip Morris, but never a -225. I'm jealous!
So.... what did they need a plane that big for in Perth?
I remember this as a transport plane for Saturn V rocket stages...
I want to know who makes the tires, and whether or not they make tires for cars.
The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming.
Both this and the 124 it's built on are bigger than the C-5 Galaxy. (20%?)
But the USAF has a 130 C-5s (there is only 1 flying 225 and 55 of the 124s) and they can get them just about anywhere in the world really f'n fast with all their in-flight refueling infrastructure.
We've got em sorely beat if you actually have to move a gazillion tons of stuff really fast.
Hard to tell too.. cargo records can be manipulated by changing fuel loads.
I keep seeing it referenced that at the air shows the Russian fighter planes are just about empty on fuel for the show to be more impressive for the crowd and ours are getting sent up to perform aerobatics with full loads because that's more impressive to the potential customers who know what is really going on. Same kind of thing.
I used to have a plane like that.
No place to park!
Sold it on E-Bay.
Guess the Ruskies have it now.
Seeing the size of the body in comparison to the wings, it reminds me very much of a puffin
One would wonder why nobody has built one larger...
Nowhere to land larger airships I imagine. Except, perhaps, a calm bay like the
old spruce goose.
When I was a kid my father was commander of an air base and that plane happened to be there on a layover for a few days. Knowing I would get a kick out of it he brought me to work with me so I could get to go inside of it. I remember being completely blown away. It just didn't seem possible that it could fly.
Lads, I bought a Tele and added a few more pickups to it, whaddya think?
The pregnant guppy!
Yes and no, but mostly "no" when the logistics and economic issues are studied closely. The "yes" is only from the standpoint of adventure and drive to push technology and best competitors.
That is a big, heavy airplane that needs a heavy duty runway and plenty of room to maneuver, and it is not a practical airplane on many fields. It needs a lot of runway to takeoff at max takeoff weight. It is too heavy to taxi on the taxiways and aprons of a lot of airporches because they were not designed or built for that kind of weight.
It is expensive to operate because of the number and size of the engines, and the size of the crew and onboard relief crew that rotates. It also burns a lot of fuel. They need to push, push, push to make the aircraft pay for itself, and it bills out at a high rate.
Aircraft, and particularly large aircraft, are expensive to design and build, especially in low numbers. It is the same for large turbofan engines, and few western producers (if any) would want to take on design of an entirely new engine on their dollar for a very low volume aircraft. For perspective, the engines on the Boeing 787 cost about $5MM each. Furthermore, an aircraft requires an entire ecosystem similar to a particular model of a car that includes everything from fixtures and jigs to replacement part specification/certification, a hangar (or several) for parking and repair, diagnostic equipment, manuals, trainers, and training programs to keep them flying. It's all expensive, and helps explain why we see the published prices we see for the F-22 and F-35, and even the C-130J, etc.