
The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane - pseudolus
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/an-225-worlds-largest-airplane/index.html
======
egorfine
I have been inside this airplane and I've got some pics to share:
[https://egorfine.com/photo/mriya/](https://egorfine.com/photo/mriya/)

~~~
shadowprofile77
Great shots. I love interior photos of old military planes and for many of
them, what's available is sorely lacking in quality, detailed exploration or
perspective. Yours are a fine contrast to those tendencies.

The spare tires had me wondering though. I mean, if one were to blow upon
landing, wouldn't that be such a disaster that having a spare inside the plane
becomes sort of irrelevant? Or does the AN-225 have so many wheels (which I
suspect given its huge size) that it could indeed blow a couple and still
continue landing stably enough for a spare to be useful afterwards? On the
other hand, in the air I assume they can hardly replace them and why would
they blow while retracted anyhow? No expert but those images in particular
sparked some extra curiosity.

~~~
nuccy
There is a nice video listed below with a pilot of this plane (in russian but
with decent english subtitles), he answers to this question. Wheels indeed
deflate (not blow) occasionally, this happens when breaks overheat and special
thermal plate (at 200C) melts and deflates the wheel gradually, which works as
an indicator of overheated break/tyre. Since it happens gradually, there is no
danger for the plane itself. The parts for this plane are not that common
(they may be shared with An-124 though), so apparently it is easier to carry
few wheels than wait for their delivery. The plane caries 10 m.tons of
equipment anyway just to load/unload the cargo, so few wheels probably are not
that much of a deal.

------
major505
2 years ago they landed this plane here in Brazil, when they camt to pick
hidroeletrical generator parts. I gone with a plane enthusiast friend to see
the thing take off. I know the phisics, but amazes me that something that big
can fly.

Theres hope that more of this are made in the next years. It looks like China
is interested in making a few units;

~~~
duxup
It always amazed me that you could strap a space shuttle to a modified 747 and
... fly.

The whole idea of "just strap it to another flying machine and move it that
way" seems like something my 4 year old would come up with.

It is clear my mental model of 'things that can fly good' is deficit when we
see things like the AN-225 and etc.

~~~
nickff
Interestingly, there was some doubt within NASA as to whether the 747
piggyback was a good idea. One of the proponents of the idea was a scale model
builder, and made a model to demonstrate it; the model's success was
persuasive enough that they continued to study the idea.

In the end, the 747-Space Shuttle combo actually has better crosswind landing
characteristics than a normal 747, but it has atrocious fuel economy.

~~~
duxup
I wonder how many great ideas have been missed out on because our most basic
filter / mental models that allow us to just choose basic candidates for
options are ... wrong.

"Wait no you can't do that, let's look into this other thing."

~~~
nickff
My favorite example of a near-miss because of that sort of opposition is lunar
orbit rendezvous.[1] Yuri Kondratyuk, Tom Dolan, and John Houbolt were the
protagonists in that instance; I generally disfavor the 'great man' theory of
history, but I think those three made a real difference.

[1]
[https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Rendezv...](https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Rendezvous.html)

~~~
duxup
TIL that. Thanks for sharing.

------
artpi
As a political stunt, Polish government has chartered this plane to deliver
medical supplies to Poland. What a sight!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnQPcMcGVZ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnQPcMcGVZ8)

However, the costs were insane - around $3 million . Transporting the same
amount of cargo with 777 would cost about $1 milion.

But the political stunt was priceless.

~~~
nuccy
Maybe it was a political stunt, but actually there are two justification of
that.

1) The volume. The masks and other protective gear is volume-demanding cargo,
since the overall density including packing (boxes) is low. The Boeing 777
Freighter (777F) has 518m3 of cargo volume on main deck [1], An-225 has 1200m3
[2], so the price per 1m3 of volume is 1930$ and 2500$ respectively (ratio
1.3).

2) The demand and the quarantine itself. During March-April demand on masks
was enormous, everyone tried to buy them, some countries even tried to take
over deliveries for other ones. China and many other countries were not
accepting flights, so arranging even a single flight was challenging (thats
why An-225 was flying through Almaty city that many times when making China-
Europe routes, all other airports simply didn't accept any planes for transit
and refueling). As a result, one huge plane was much more beneficial than 2-3
smaller ones.

[1]
[https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_...](https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_09/article_02_1.html)

[2] [https://www.antonov-airlines.com/our-fleet/an-225](https://www.antonov-
airlines.com/our-fleet/an-225)

Edit: correcting An-225 cargo volume from 1100m3 to 1200m3 using data from the
official website.

~~~
baybal2
Antonov airlines have a much more cheaper, and more available An-124 with
1000m³ useful cargo volume. An even more easily available, and thus cheaper to
hire, 747 has 500 to 600m³ volume in different configurations.

~~~
nuccy
Yes, An-124 is indeed a good cheaper alternative with comparable capabilities
for this kind of cargo, but in March-April it seems there was a high demand on
all Antonov fleet [1] plus the PR factor is not playing the last role here.

[1] [https://www.dw.com/uk/protydiia-koronavirusu-mriia-y-
ruslany...](https://www.dw.com/uk/protydiia-koronavirusu-mriia-y-ruslany-
zavaleni-zamovlenniamy/a-53095824) or
[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dw.com%2Fuk%2Fprotydiia-
koronavirusu-mriia-y-ruslany-zavaleni-zamovlenniamy%2Fa-53095824)

------
Slump
"...20 tons of fuel per hour..." holy cow. Pretty impressive statistics all
around, apparently the A380 uses closer to 12.5 tons per hour to put it in
perspective.

~~~
baybal2
Pretty impressive given that:

    
    
      Type MTOW [kg] ICAO category
      Antonov An-225 640,000 Heavy
      Airbus A380-800 575,000 Super
    

and that 225 is made with much less than an ideal aerodynamics, heavy frame, 6
thrust reversers, and oversized control surfaces to accommodate external
cargo.

Its 6 engines are also prehistoric. D-18T was made with a much more focus on
getting the highest take off thrust over cruise speed performance.

Such a large, wide wing apparently gets very little aerodynamic losses, even
with all above considered.

~~~
perl4ever
Why is 60% more fuel for 10% more weight "pretty impressive"? I mean, you just
listed several reasons why it might be "not bad", but what's your baseline
expectation that makes it impressive?

~~~
baybal2
One is a passenger airliner, made with relatively new engines, and material
technology, designed with the aim of flying as economically as possible,
another is a one of a kind cargo plane, that from the start had, uniquely, no
design aim of flying efficiently.

Also, for that 20t per hour, we need to know if it is for the loaded, or a
ferry flight.

~~~
perl4ever
Yes, that is why it is not surprising if it uses 60% more fuel. My question
was why is it impressive? What would you _expect_ given all the things you
have mentioned? Twice as much fuel? Ten times? 100 times?

I'm not arguing against your opinion, just asking for context that seemed to
be missing.

~~~
baybal2
> What would you expect given all the things you have mentioned? Twice as much
> fuel?

Pretty much. Most 4 engine airplanes can fly with just 2, or 1. Take off
thrust is few times the cruise thrust an all jet airplanes. In flight, the
engines needed to achieve the take off thrust are dead drag, and dead weight.

This is why one of crazy ideas for very early large jet planes was to have
parachutable, jettisonable engines, or having RATO on civilian planes.

~~~
souprock
Speaking as a passenger, the right solution is CATOBAR. Passenger airports
should install linear motor catapults that can get a 500-ton aircraft up to
Mach 0.85 in about 10 seconds. (it can support the plane, allowing launch with
already-retracted gear) They should also install arrester cables, or something
better, such as a moving platform that could handle both tasks.

~~~
baybal2
A much cheaper solution is just having really long runways.

~~~
souprock
That doesn't really work for Monaco, Vatican City, or Gibraltar. War is not
cheap.

There is no reasonable way to expand London City Airport. Bulldozing London's
financial industry to make more room for runways would mean bulldozing the
primary customers.

Also, as a passenger, I just want CATOBAR.

------
0x737368
Small correction with regards to AN-124's name, Ruslan doesn't stand for
"condor", condor is its NATO reporting name, Ruslan is just a popular Russian
name.

------
iagovar
Antonov is really struggling to keep the shop open, I wonder if it's possible
to keep such plane operational with the manufacturer on the brink of
bankrupcy. Las time I checked Boing was supplying some parts that couldn't get
imported from Russia now, but AFAIK the are not really having many customers.

~~~
aww_dang
I don't see Antonov disappearing anymore than GM, Boeing or Volkswagen. I'm
sure the Russian state will continue to protect them in one form or another.

~~~
Maakuth
Antonov is a Ukrainian state enterprise, no problem for Russia to see them go
under.

~~~
cm2187
By the way, is there any Russian made cargo aircraft?

~~~
iagovar
Both Tupolev and Ilyushin are still producing commercial aircrafts. Maybe some
others too, but AFAIK this are the two main russian companies.

------
prehistoricdog
here is a great tour inside the aircraft with 1 of it's pilots (in russian,
but with a comprehensible English subs):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TX9L62_Eac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TX9L62_Eac)

~~~
myself248
Wow, just wow.

I knew it carried its whole crew with it, but the cabins are almost a little
hotel, two kitchens! Three sleeping quarters! And that's all just tucked into
the parts that aren't used for cargo.

I got a few good chuckles out of the back-and-forth, just from the subtitle,
I'm sure it's even better if you speak Russian. Well worth a watch, thank you
for posting it!

~~~
prehistoricdog
There was a piece, where the pilot explained why airports are not in favor of
accepting AN225 for landing and takeoff on theirs runways: they have to check
the runway surface after landing/takeoff. but even more crucial (not now, but
in those times) is that suitable for landing airports are in most cases are
those with high throughput of aircrafts and tight schedule and according to
the international safety regulations it is possible give permittion for the
next takeoff only after 7-10 min due to turbulent wake(is it the right term?).
while common passenger flights have an interval of 30 sec

------
scottlocklin
Jeez CNN is really terrible. The Myasishchev VM-T didn't "carry the spacecraft
unassembled" as anyone with eyes can plainly see, and the AN-225 was designed
as a replacement for the VM-T (and, truth be told, as a sort of stunt).

[https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30930668...](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30930668/vm-
t-atlant/)

~~~
rob74
Well, the plane shown in the first photo is clearly carrying an incomplete
spacecraft. To find out that it was in fact able to carry the completely
assembled Buran, you'd have to actually read the article ("During another
flight in 1988 — this time with a flight-worthy Buran orbiter"), and that's
probably too much to ask nowadays...

------
clon
I never knew they had a second, unfinished, airframe ready for assembly.

~~~
LeonM
I remember a Discovery program showing what supposedly was an AN-225 airframe
parked in a field somewhere. The story was that it was finished, but never
certified for flight, and was eventually used for parts to keep the one 225
operational.

I can't find evidence online to back this story up though. Not sure of this
was the second airframe shown in the article, or that this may have been a
third airframe.

------
kd5bjo
The H-4 Hercules could plausibly be considered larger. It has a larger
wingspan, height, and cargo volume, but only ever flew once (for about a mile)
and has significantly lower weight capacity. It was also bult several decades
before the AN-225.

cf
[https://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/hk1_specs.asp](https://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/hk1_specs.asp)

~~~
avmich
Stratolaunch has widest wingspan, Hercules has highest height and Mriya is the
longest/heaviest. So... they are all demonstrations for how we learned to
build extreme aircrafts.

------
pseudolus
There's no shortage of documentaries on Youtube on the AN-225 [0][1].

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsh2GSHM2TA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsh2GSHM2TA)

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sggQqdvqHs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sggQqdvqHs)

------
Synaesthesia
I saw it once at an air show in Pretoria, along with some other cool planes
like the Sukhoi SU-35. The Russians actually loaded up all their other planes
into the Antonov, and flew it straight from Moscow to Pretoria in one shot!

------
jupp0r
It's crazy how this can be economical with economics of scale=1. Every
replacement part for maintenance must be custom-made, there must be no market
for trained pilots and technicians on that particular plane, etc.

~~~
sbalea
They cross-train for AN-124, which is quite similar, though obviously smaller.

------
Animats
Paul Allen's Stratolaunch has a wider wingspan, but less cargo capacity.
Wonder where that monster will end up. It's intended for high-altitude rocket
launches and not useful for much else.

------
coldcode
Whatever its future, that is one monster plane I would love to see fly. Given
the 747 has no future now and even the A380 is not that popular and might
vanish, we may never see such a huge plane again.

~~~
kilroy123
747s are still used for cargo. I saw one fly over my head just yesterday.

~~~
kjs3
Yeah...while there probably won't be many/any new 747s built, they'll probably
be flying cargo for many decades. Last II knew, FedEx was still flying 25 or
so Douglas DC-10 cargos, more than 30 years after the last one was built.

------
hedgehog
Hour-long video showing parts of a whole mission:
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=eNxTq9RrOs0](https://youtube.com/watch?v=eNxTq9RrOs0)

------
m0zg
I don't think it's the "Cold War" that created it per se - it was the Space
Race. We need another one of those, doesn't matter with whom.

~~~
smabie
And the space race was created by the Cold War. Without the Cold War, I doubt
we would have ever sent a man to the moon.

~~~
m0zg
True. But I feel like Space Race eventually took a life of its own, and it was
not military in nature. You don't do joint space programs if you're having a
"war".

~~~
usrusr
But military requirements seem to have played a significant role in how the
Shuttles became what they were. A purely civilian space race wouldn't have had
shuttles at all, or at least a very different design.

------
codeduck
largest by payload - unless the Stratolaunch gets uprated.

------
jonplackett
They don’t make ‘em like they used to

