|
My Antonov sighting is better that your Antonov sighting. I didn't take the picture, that was a staff report for a local newspaper, but I was there. Also, that wasn't even the only Air Force VIP-painted plane practicing that day. There was also a C-32 (757) and a C-40 (737).
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:My Antonov sighting is better that your Antonov sighting. Bring it on.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Back when I was based in YYZ there was one antanov 124 that was a regular visitor. I probably have some old photos corrupting on an old hard drive somewhere. But back in the late '90s? Early 00's? when the vancouver port went on strike, they were flying I think pretty much the whole fleet of them in, freighting in the car components from Japan and god only knows what else to keep the ontario factories running. Once I even saw what could only have been a 225 (though for some reason my brain insists it had 6 props, not jets) taking off. drat thing looked like it would clip the fence at the end of the runway, and based on its ascent angle, it probably reached cruising altitude somewhere over saskatchewan. I've never seen such a freakshow of an aircraft. That's my antanov story, and if I ever find those old pictures, I'll post them here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Back when I was based in YYZ there was one antanov 124 that was a regular visitor. I probably have some old photos corrupting on an old hard drive somewhere. But back in the late '90s? Early 00's? when the vancouver port went on strike, they were flying I think pretty much the whole fleet of them in, freighting in the car components from Japan and god only knows what else to keep the ontario factories running. Maybe it was the An-22?  
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Bring it on.  Antonov 225 "Mriya" (UR-82060) by BigtimeYYC, on Flickr  Antonov 225 "Mriya" (UR-82060) by BigtimeYYC, on Flickr  Antonov 225 "Mriya" (UR-82060) by BigtimeYYC, on Flickr  Antonov 225 "Mriya" (UR-82060) by BigtimeYYC, on Flickr  Antonov 225 "Mriya" (UR-82060) by BigtimeYYC, on Flickr Your move.  She visited us in YYC just over a year ago. What an awesome sight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Maybe it was the An-22? That is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
So, those giant Antonovs of various flavours are currently operated by a private corporation, and they ship whatever cargo civilians contract? I assume they operate the largest aircraft available to the civilian market for cargo transport. Also, I see that YYC is the Calgary Intl Airport code, it's a frequent stopover (or destination?) for super/Antonov cargo flights?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
movax posted:So, those giant Antonovs of various flavours are currently operated by a private corporation, and they ship whatever cargo civilians contract? I assume they operate the largest aircraft available to the civilian market for cargo transport. Pretty much. They also do quite a bit of work supporting ISAF, especially with the countries that have limited/no strategic lift assets (i.e., basically everyone there except for the US and maybe the UK/Aussies)...IIRC the Canadians were relying pretty heavily on them to get their heavy poo poo like tanks in/out of Afghanistan before they bought C-17s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Pretty much. They also do quite a bit of work supporting ISAF, especially with the countries that have limited/no strategic lift assets (i.e., basically everyone there except for the US and maybe the UK/Aussies)...IIRC the Canadians were relying pretty heavily on them to get their heavy poo poo like tanks in/out of Afghanistan before they bought C-17s. Interesting; so literally the only existing example of the An-225 + its slightly smaller (But still gigantic) cousins are supporting civilian/military operations around the globe. I guess Wiki says a second An-225 is "partially completed" and Antonov is begging for money for it. I guess it just strikes me as faintly ridiculous that an (essentially) Eastern European cargo airline is the only thing keeping certain industrial and military operations afloat (and speaking of afloat, I'll just go ahead and assuming marine shipping isn't a cost-effective option for a lot of the companies involved). lll
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
movax posted:Interesting; so literally the only existing example of the An-225 + its slightly smaller (But still gigantic) cousins are supporting civilian/military operations around the globe. I guess Wiki says a second An-225 is "partially completed" and Antonov is begging for money for it. Go read this book for the black market side of this -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/outlaws-inc-matt-potter/1100667308
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
movax posted:I guess it just strikes me as faintly ridiculous that an (essentially) Eastern European cargo airline is the only thing keeping certain industrial and military operations afloat (and speaking of afloat, I'll just go ahead and assuming marine shipping isn't a cost-effective option for a lot of the companies involved). England, France, and Germany would like to direct your attention away from the very late Airbus A400M.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
movax posted:I guess it just strikes me as faintly ridiculous that an (essentially) Eastern European cargo airline is the only thing keeping certain industrial and military operations afloat (and speaking of afloat, I'll just go ahead and assuming marine shipping isn't a cost-effective option for a lot of the companies involved). I try to avoid thinking about the logistical pipeline in/out of Afghanistan because it just makes my head hurt. And forget being cost-effective, marine shipping flat out isn't an option for a lot of that stuff...unless you're shipping to somewhere that is very close to the ocean there's a pretty good chance that the surface transportation network you'll need to travel on to get to your destination from the nearest port isn't going to be up for transporting whatever very heavy oversized poo poo you need to transport. holocaust bloopers posted:Go read this book for the black market side of this -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/outlaws-inc-matt-potter/1100667308 Seconding that as a very, very, very good book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 09:02
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Think they'd be busy replacing those pushrod tubes and the fuel rail...though I see no reason why a power washer wouldn't work. Plane can be flown at 300MPH in a driving rain, so it follows... That's not a fuel rail, that's the ignition harness. IIRC, the intake and exhaust plumbing on an R-2800 is on the aft side of each jug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
movax posted:I guess it just strikes me as faintly ridiculous that an (essentially) Eastern European cargo airline is the only thing keeping certain industrial and military operations afloat (and speaking of afloat, I'll just go ahead and assuming marine shipping isn't a cost-effective option for a lot of the companies involved). It's kind of a unique situation, because normally rear-cargo-ramp military transports are way overbuilt and too expensive for a civilian or quasi-civilian operator to use profitably, but the Soviet Union releasing dozens of surplus examples onto the used market makes it possible for a few specialists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Here's an older one, was under a -53 as it was taking off:
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
movax posted:Also, I see that YYC is the Calgary Intl Airport code, it's a frequent stopover (or destination?) for super/Antonov cargo flights? We get a few flights a year with the 124's, sometimes cargo and sometimes because we are a good fuel stop coming from the states up to Anchorage (as was the case with the 124 on Wednesday). After the Gulf War a couple of 124's came in to pickup firefighting gear for the burning wells in Kuwait, they've also flown in engines for stranded aircraft before too (an Air Transat A330 springs to mind). When the 225 came here last year it was picking up natural gas plant components and taking them to Nigeria I believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And forget being cost-effective, marine shipping flat out isn't an option for a lot of that stuff...unless you're shipping to somewhere that is very close to the ocean there's a pretty good chance that the surface transportation network you'll need to travel on to get to your destination from the nearest port isn't going to be up for transporting whatever very heavy oversized poo poo you need to transport. One of the advantages that the Antonovs have is they can load up oversize items that would otherwise be impractical to ship to a seaport by road or by rail. This was the case when the -225 came to YYC last year; the equipment wasn't particularly heavy but it was very large and somewhat time-sensitive; too large to go west through the mountains overland and too urgent to go east as well. It should also be noted that most industries don't rely on them for normal logistics; rather, they get called in when things have gone badly. As we've discussed before, if it cost a million dollars a day to stop some operation because of a breakdown or a lack of supplies, all of a sudden it's pretty cheap to call up Volga-Dnepr or Antonov Airlines to help your company get rolling again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
When I was in Bagram AFB it was mostly Antonovs coming and going all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Student was ejected out the canopy during a negative G dive. Crazy poo poo. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17521724-pilot-ejected-when-small-airplane-dives-near-chattanooga-search-under-way
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Understeer posted:England, France, and Germany would like to direct your attention away from the very late Airbus A400M. The A400M isn't anywhere near as capable as any of the Antonov freighters. The A400M's 37t payload fits between the C-130 (30t) and the Ilyushin IL-76 (50t payload) in terms of size and performance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Student was ejected out the canopy during a negative G dive. Crazy poo poo. Who the hell flies without a seatbelt? Even in WWI they were at least tying themselves in with rope...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
My god, that's horrifying. I don't even like the fractional gs we get when roller coasters go over hills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
This thread reminded me to set up a FlightAware alert for the AN-225. I'd be willing to drive a few hours to see it, if it ever came to my area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The A400M isn't anywhere near as capable as any of the Antonov freighters. The A400M's 37t payload fits between the C-130 (30t) and the Ilyushin IL-76 (50t payload) in terms of size and performance. Is it a dumb question why Airbus worked so hard to make a transport with less capacity than the Il-76, which dates from the 70s?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is it a dumb question why Airbus worked so hard to make a transport with less capacity than the Il-76, which dates from the 70s? Lighter gross weight allows for more landing options. It was intended to compete with the C-130 more than the Il-76 or C-17 (but eat away at their proportion of business as well).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is it a dumb question why Airbus worked so hard to make a transport with less capacity than the Il-76, which dates from the 70s? Undoubtedly because the military wanted something with a particular capacity, and going above and beyond that means you're going to make sacrifices in performance and efficiency that the other bidder on the contract won't; it's why people don't cross-shop an Escalade and a Prius.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Go read this book for the black market side of this -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/outlaws-inc-matt-potter/1100667308 I own this book / mentioned it in this thread, it's just been sitting on my shelf so far though (I think I got an excerpt of it in Wired or something), I need to fix that today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Lighter gross weight allows for more landing options. It was intended to compete with the C-130 more than the Il-76 or C-17 (but eat away at their proportion of business as well). Basically this. Lockheed has built something like 2500 C-130s (to say nothing of the hundreds of An-12s and early IL-76s still in service), the vast majority of which are over 20 years old now. Sooner or later, they're going to need to be replaced, so Airbus decided they want a piece of that action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
movax posted:I own this book / mentioned it in this thread, it's just been sitting on my shelf so far though (I think I got an excerpt of it in Wired or something), I need to fix that today. You really do. You're going to love it. I think my favorite story (and believe me, there are many) is still the one about the dudes who got contracted to airdrop a couple million in ransom to some Somali pirates on board the vessel they had seized. MrChips posted:Basically this. Lockheed has built something like 2500 C-130s (to say nothing of the hundreds of An-12s and early IL-76s still in service), the vast majority of which are over 20 years old now. Sooner or later, they're going to need to be replaced, so Airbus decided they want a piece of that action. And like Godholio said, if you can do it with something that allows you to pitch it as a suitable sub for C-17 class aircraft as well, so much the better. "Well Mr. Defense Minister, you could buy some C-17s to fill your strat lift requirement, but you're already buying A400s to replace your Hercs...it's a pretty capable aircraft with similar speed and range to the C-17, why not standardize on a single type to simplify your logistics?" Or, more likely "Well Mr. Defense Minister, you could buy C-130Js, but is that really a capable enough aircraft for an air force of your country's stature? The A400M gives you the rough field capability of a tactical transporter like the C-130 with the truly strategic range and speed of a strat lift asset like a C-17. It's the best of both worlds!*" *Cost and delivery timeline may not in fact be the best of both worlds. Or really the best of anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Seconding that as a very, very, very good book. Thirding this. It's a fast-ish read, and it's very eye opening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Militaries are supplied by politicians, so it's not just 'whats the best option in the budget'... theres years of arguing about job creation and international stature and military independence and technology development and yadda yadda yadda. Basically everyone that bought A400Ms would be better served, and more cheaply, with C-17s and/or C-130s like Canada but hey... at least we get more variety! And the A400m looks pretty cool with its big scimitar props: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Thirding this. It's a fast-ish read, and it's very eye opening. yea, it's a wuick read, but keep in mind it's not well-written. The author can get super redundant with re-stating stuff. The accuracy of such events comes across as dubious at best. Regardless, it's a fun read even if most of it is true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Militaries are supplied by politicians, so it's not just 'whats the best option in the budget'... theres years of arguing about job creation and international stature and military independence and technology development and yadda yadda yadda. Scimitar props, in service  Your move Airbus. (those extra 2 blades sure do make a difference) edit:In all seriousness, it does look like a plane that would fit nicely in the middle ground between a c-130 and c-17. Unable to land where a -130 does, unable to carry what a C-17 does. Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Mar 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=nQW6ThGILq4 Sorry for the mobile link but take a look at this A380 landing, why someone didn't make the decision to go around is beyond me! Also have some IL76 ice fun! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6P9Y-KkdbWU monkeytennis fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
I think by the time that landing got really nasty, it was too late to go around. They were already on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:Also have some IL76 ice fun! Russians: Not giving a single gently caress since 1992.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
In the related vids, speaking of the An-22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69ATnys2gRk&t=149s 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Russians: Not giving a single gently caress since 1992. I was expecting this video, which still makes me  every time I watch it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThoZNxy2JZk
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
I love how desperate the commentator is trying to sound all unflappable and Aussie and totally fails at "You can pull it up any time you like now"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
So I saw this today out of the blue and thought you guys might like to see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 04:57
|
|
