AN-225 disabled ("destroyed")
03-02-2022, 10:08 AM
#21
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,995
Originally Posted by FNGFO
How much it costs has nothing to do with the issue. What I said was that they largely have the tooling to build another if they still have the tooling to build more 124’s. Maybe they don’t, and thus the cost. Maybe they were trying to build one with more modern systems, avionics and engines. Or redesign the center wing and tail since it’s not required to carry an orbiter.
You’re no more informed on the subject than anyone else, but you are emotional about it.
You’re no more informed on the subject than anyone else, but you are emotional about it.
Emotional? Hardly.
The ability to make a 124 fuselage does not mean that Antonov has the tooling.
The cost of a project has everything to do with the future of that project.
03-02-2022, 10:37 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,788
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
It's nothing to do with being informed; Antonov attempted to build a second, it didn't work. They shelved it for decades, attempted for three years to continue, abandoned it, and has stated that it will cost too much...which was before the invasion. After?
Emotional? Hardly.
The ability to make a 124 fuselage does not mean that Antonov has the tooling.
The cost of a project has everything to do with the future of that project.
Emotional? Hardly.
The ability to make a 124 fuselage does not mean that Antonov has the tooling.
The cost of a project has everything to do with the future of that project.
Cost without context is meaningless. Were they just trying to produce a duplicate or significantly upgrade and alter it? Regardless, a significant heavy lift capability has been lost. The market will decide if it’s needed or not, and therefore if its cost prohibitive or not.
And yes, emotional. The “yeah, you go tell Antonov how to do it” BS is a juvenile retort that had no bearing on the conversation.
03-02-2022, 11:02 AM
#23
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,995
Go tell antonov they're wrong. Do it.
Antonov has 60% of the tooling, yet couldn't make a second airplane in 34 years, despite six years of dedicated effort on that one, specific, second airplane, abandoning it after the second three-year construction period, with the statement that it would take another three hundred million, and another three years of dedicated construction, to complete, and it still remains at 60% constructed? Right.
Ukroboronprom has stated that a rebuild is estimated at three hundred billion.
Sounds like they have all the tooling. You must be right. Tell them. They'll listen to you.
Antonov has 60% of the tooling, yet couldn't make a second airplane in 34 years, despite six years of dedicated effort on that one, specific, second airplane, abandoning it after the second three-year construction period, with the statement that it would take another three hundred million, and another three years of dedicated construction, to complete, and it still remains at 60% constructed? Right.
Ukroboronprom has stated that a rebuild is estimated at three hundred billion.
Sounds like they have all the tooling. You must be right. Tell them. They'll listen to you.
03-02-2022, 02:34 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,788
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Go tell antonov they're wrong. Do it.
Antonov has 60% of the tooling, yet couldn't make a second airplane in 34 years, despite six years of dedicated effort on that one, specific, second airplane, abandoning it after the second three-year construction period, with the statement that it would take another three hundred million, and another three years of dedicated construction, to complete, and it still remains at 60% constructed? Right.
Ukroboronprom has stated that a rebuild is estimated at three hundred billion.
Sounds like they have all the tooling. You must be right. Tell them. They'll listen to you.
Antonov has 60% of the tooling, yet couldn't make a second airplane in 34 years, despite six years of dedicated effort on that one, specific, second airplane, abandoning it after the second three-year construction period, with the statement that it would take another three hundred million, and another three years of dedicated construction, to complete, and it still remains at 60% constructed? Right.
Ukroboronprom has stated that a rebuild is estimated at three hundred billion.
Sounds like they have all the tooling. You must be right. Tell them. They'll listen to you.
03-02-2022, 04:18 PM
#26
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,995
Originally Posted by FNGFO
There’s that emotion again. You don’t have the first clue as to the reasoning or context of the issues involved, but you’re prepared to get butthurt and have outbursts on the internet over it.
Humorous that you think anything that's been said has the slightest element of emotion, but that's reflective of you. Good luck convincing Antonov to see your error-ridden view, and good luck setting them straight. They could have used your valued insight into their own failings, in 2009 when they tabled the second airplane. Perhaps you can explain to them that the 225 is simply just a 124. They'll get right on it.
Originally Posted by FNGFO
This message is hidden because FNGFO is on your ignore list.
Originally Posted by trip
Sure, more then the cost of a squadron of F-35's then.
03-06-2022, 06:12 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,978
Originally Posted by FNGFO
They were thinking of restarting the 124 production line as the current airframes are getting long in the tooth. Do that and cobbling together another 225 like design might be feasible. Depends on how badly the heavy lift is needed around the world.
Checked on google:
A second An-225 was partially built during the late 1980s for the Soviet space program. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the cancellation of the Buran program, the lone operational An-225 was placed in storage in 1994.[7][8] The six Ivchenko-Progress engines were removed for use on An-124s, and the second uncompleted An-225 airframe was also stored. In the 1990s, a cargoliner bigger than the An-124 was clearly needed. The first An-225 was restored by 2001.[9][10]
By 2000, the need for additional An-225 capacity had become apparent, so the decision was made in September 2006 to complete the second An-225. That second airframe was scheduled for completion around 2008 but was subject to delays.[11] By August 2009, the aircraft had not been completed and work had been abandoned.[12][13] In May 2011, the Antonov CEO reportedly said that the completion of a second An-225 Mriya transport aircraft with a carrying capacity of 250 tons requires at least $300 million, but if the financing is provided, its completion could be achieved in three years.[14] According to different sources, the second aircraft is 60–70% complete.[15][16][17]
By 2000, the need for additional An-225 capacity had become apparent, so the decision was made in September 2006 to complete the second An-225. That second airframe was scheduled for completion around 2008 but was subject to delays.[11] By August 2009, the aircraft had not been completed and work had been abandoned.[12][13] In May 2011, the Antonov CEO reportedly said that the completion of a second An-225 Mriya transport aircraft with a carrying capacity of 250 tons requires at least $300 million, but if the financing is provided, its completion could be achieved in three years.[14] According to different sources, the second aircraft is 60–70% complete.[15][16][17]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
