Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-5 Vs AN-124  
User currently offlineDahawaiian From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 229 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 18857 times:

What are the pros and cons of each of these giant aircraft, and in what regions of flight does either aircraft hold an advantage over the other?

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 18689 times:

-The AN-124 can lift more cargo than the C-5 (120 tons), and I believe it has a higher maximum T/O weight (392 tons).
-The AN-124 has a crew of 6 (disadvantage)
-Also, I think the An-124 has a better performance on poor and unpaved runways (Typical of a Soviet-built a/c)

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 18718 times:

Boy, I would really hate to open a can of worms on this one.  Big grin

The C-5 is so much more superior than the An-124. First off, the An-124 is just a bad copy of the C-5. It was rolled out almost 15 years after FRED and has less hours and more fatal crashes to its name. Is this a result of a bad Russian economy, I doubt it. I think it's the direct result of a poorly built aircraft that over-exceeds its limits to make it look better than its American counterpart.

Here are some advantages the C-5 has over the An-124:

1.) Fully pressurized
2.) More advanced kneeling system
3.) Better, more reliable loading system (rollers/winches vs cranes)
4.) Better avionics (although the C-5 has a dated system, it's still better then the An-124's)
5.) Inflight comfort
6.) Overall reliablility of the aircraft

I must say this too, I firmly believe that the C-5 is perfectly capable of airlifting a world-record load to alititude and breaking the An-124's records. The fact is, the U.S. government doesn't see any logic in doing this. The C-5 has had a very distinguished service career so far and has nothing more to prove when it comes to capability.

Now, on the other hand, the An-124 has one benefit. The fact that it is the largest, heaviest commercial transport allows it to overshadow the C-5, which will never be commercialized and will likely never receive the amount of press as the An-124 (for example - the EP-3 removal from China).

These are my opinions, they come from experience and personal knowledge of both aircraft, although my knowledge of the An-124's capabilities is significanly less than that of the C-5's.

Mike Neely
http://www.TheAviationZone.com/


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18702 times:

What makes you say that the An-124 is a copy of the C-5? I can see many significant differences.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineZ8 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18704 times:

> Boy, I would really hate to open a can of worms on this one.
Well, at least you could put your facts straight. I must admit I don't know much about capabilities of C-5, but I also don't pretend I do. Instead I'll just correct your FUD about An-124.

> First off, the An-124 is just a bad copy of the C-5.
Since when a general configuration of a fuselage makes a copy? Is A320 a (bad) copy of B737? You should know pretty well that it's not a shape but internals (and engines, of course) that make an aircraft good or bad. Are problems of C-17 lie with its airdynamics? I doubt it. Consider the only fact that An-124 is equipped with a fly-by-wire control system (it was the first transport in the world to have it). This makes it already different enough from C-5. I also believe that wing profiles and mechanizations are rather different, but I couldn't find any details in the Internet.

> It was rolled out almost 15 years after FRED and has less hours and more
> fatal crashes to its name. Is this a result of a bad Russian economy, I
> doubt it. I think it's the direct result of a poorly built aircraft that
> over-exceeds its limits to make it look better than its American
> counterpart.
As you might have known, there was never a crash of An-124 in commercial service. And commercial service is exactly where operators of the aircraft might want to "over-exceed its limits to make it look better than its" competitors. So you have no choice but to stick with a bad economy. Or, more precisely, with a generally poor shape of Russian military aviation these days.

> 1.) Fully pressurized
Here's an excerpt from http://www.antonovaircargo.com/eng/aircrafts_1.html: "[An-124] is capable to airlift the most awkward, sensitive and fragile shipments in pressurized cargo hold with controlled environment". I also remember a news about an An-124 airlifting a flock of sheep from Australia. Do you think they were all wearing scafanders?

> 2.) More advanced kneeling system
Could you elaborate on this one? (yes, I've read your site, but you don't provide any facts besides "more advanced" there as well).

> 3.) Better, more reliable loading system (rollers/winches vs cranes)
I fail to see how rollers/winches could be an advantage w.r.t. cranes. I would call it a disadvantage. If you need to load many boxes of only 2m height, I don't think you'll have much success in putting them on top of each other with
rollers. BTW, An-124 has winches and rollgang as well (see, for example, http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/an124/index.html), but they are used to load only a very heavy cargo.

> 4.) Better avionics
See FBW above.

> 6.) Overall reliablility of the aircraft
Do you call a necessity to rewing the aircraft because of cracks and stuff after just 10 years in service (info taken from your site) an "overall reliability"?

Sincerely,

--- Alexander.

P.S. When I see posts like "American planes sux", they make me sick. But so do the posts with a symmetrical opinion. Or wise-versa.

P.P.S. A question to a specialist on C-5s: can Galaxy lift a really large cargo (like 100t) in one piece? I know An-124 has special "load-distributing bars" in order to accomplish this. And C-5?


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 18695 times:

I must say that I am not familiar with the loading system of the C-5, but, as far as I know, the system the An-124 uses is very advanced, in fact, the Antonov design beaureu is known for its advanced loading systems on its a/c.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineDahawaiian From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 18691 times:

I know that the C-5 can be in-flight refuelled, but I don't think the AN-124 can. I have also heard that the C-5's range with maximum payload is greater, and it is faster. The fact that the AN-124 has a much greater payload capability cannot really be disputed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 18694 times:

Since when a general configuration of a fuselage makes a copy? Is A320 a (bad) copy of B737? You should know pretty well that it's not a shape but internals (and engines, of course) that make an aircraft good or bad. Are problems of C-17 lie with its airdynamics? I doubt it. Consider the only fact that An-124 is equipped with a fly-by-wire control system (it was the first transport in the world to have it). This makes it already different enough from C-5. I also believe that wing profiles and mechanizations are rather different, but I couldn't find any details in the Internet.

There is no doubt that the An-124 was designed using the C-5 as a role model. This was pretty easy to do. The C-5 had been out for almost 15 years, so the Russians had plenty of time to study its design. What they didn't get to study were the avionics, the kneeling system, and the pressurization system. That's why these things are different between the two aircraft. FBW technology was not widely used (if used at all) when the C-5 was designed.

As you might have known, there was never a crash of An-124 in commercial service. And commercial service is exactly where operators of the aircraft might want to "over-exceed its limits to make it look better than its" competitors. So you have no choice but to stick with a bad economy. Or, more precisely, with a generally poor shape of Russian military aviation these days.

I can't really respond to this remark as I don't have any data to go by.

Here's an excerpt from http://www.antonovaircargo.com/eng/aircrafts_1.html: "[An-124] is capable to airlift the most awkward, sensitive and fragile shipments in pressurized cargo hold with controlled environment". I also remember a news about an An-124 airlifting a flock of sheep from Australia. Do you think they were all wearing scafanders?

The An-124's cargo hold is pressurrized, but it is not pressurized at the same level as the upper decks. Anyone downstairs in flight would need to be on oxygen when at altitudes greater than 10000 feet. If an An-124 was carrying live animals down there in flight, they likely flew at an altitude below 10000 feet or they were in a pressurized container of some sort.

Could you elaborate on this one? (yes, I've read your site, but you don't provide any facts besides "more advanced" there as well).

First off, I can not publish the entire C-5 dash 1 tech order to my site, as it would bore most people.

If I'm not mistaken, the An-124's kneeling system has only one position -- down. The C-5 offers three kneeling positions -- forward, level, and aft. This makes it possible to load/offload the same type of cargo from both ends, especially on a C-5C model. The C-5's landing gear and kneeling system is very complicated, maybe Galaxy5 can shed more light in this area.

I fail to see how rollers/winches could be an advantage w.r.t. cranes. I would call it a disadvantage. If you need to load many boxes of only 2m height, I don't think you'll have much success in putting them on top of each other with rollers. BTW, An-124 has winches and rollgang as well (see, for example, http://www.airforcetechnology.com/projects/an124/index.html), but they are used to load only a very heavy cargo.

Can the An-124 perform cardo airdrops? I don't see how without rollers. Why does the An-124's cargo floor require a plywood-type covering, is it not strong enough without it?

Cargo loading operations with a C-5 will not usually consist of floor loading a bunch of cargo. Almost all non-rollerized cargo is placed on pallets then loaded. This method is very efficient and more organized. The C-5's winches are primarily used for loading/offloading non-powered rollerized items (helos, power carts, tow bars, etc.).

Do you call a necessity to rewing the aircraft because of cracks and stuff after just 10 years in service (info taken from your site) an "overall reliability"?

Are you going to tell me that all new aircraft, especially ones this complicated and advanced for its time, goes from the drawing board to production to service without any glitches? You should read the story of how this wing problem happened to begin with, then comment. Remember, the jet-powered "heavy lifter" concept (C-5 and 747) had been around (in service) for 15 years when the An-124 finally came along. By that time, most of the "kinks" had been worked out.

Can the Galaxy lift a really large cargo (like 100t) in one piece? I know An-124 has special "load-distributing bars" in order to accomplish this. And C-5?

According to the charts, I would say yes, but I don't think it's ever been done. Also, it would greatly depend on how large the item is -- the larger the better. If the weight of the item is ditributed over a small area, floor loading limitations will certainly play a role and some special adjustments would need to be made.

Now, let me say this -- as I said before -- I really don't want to get into a big pissing contest on this issue. Both of these aircraft are very capable of accomplishing the tasks they were designed to do. However, I must look at the C-5 as being the "original" jet-powered heavy lifter. It has an outstanding track record for excellent performance and capability for its size and weight.

Mike




User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 18688 times:

I know that the C-5 can be in-flight refuelled, but I don't think the AN-124 can. I have also heard that the C-5's range with maximum payload is greater, and it is faster. The fact that the AN-124 has a much greater payload capability cannot really be disputed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

To my knowledge, the An-124 has no inflight refuelling capability. And yes, the C-5's unrefuelled range is greater than the An-124's (at the same weight). As for speed, I've done Mach .82 in a C-5 (with a heavy tailwind). I would think the An-124 is capable of about the same.

Mike


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 18682 times:

No, the An-124 is not capable of inflight refueling.
Obviously, the An-124 was designed as a response to the C-5, but that certainly doesn't mean that it is a copy of the C-5. The Ruslan has a regular tail while the C-5 has a T-tail, the An-124's landing gear is different from the one used on the C-5. The engines are obviously very different. Western experts were very surprised that the USSR was capable of developing such an engine.
The An-124 is not capable of airdrops?! It was developed as a military freighter, the An-124-100 civil version only came along about a decade ago. Why would the USSR need a 120 ton freghter that cannot airdrop heavy military equipment? Anyways, I'm pretty sure I've heard about (from Western sources, BTW) an An-124 dropping a battle tank in training. I cannot see how this can be done without the use of rolers though, but since the last time I was inside a Ruslan I was about 5 (been inside a C-5 a month ago though) and I don't remember much, I'll have to take your word for it. I'll try to find out and get back to you on that issue.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18682 times:

Actually, what if the pallet (assuming there is one) that the equipment that is being air-dropped is strapped to has rolers? That would make air drop possible, wouldn't it? The Il-76 is deffinetely capable of air drop, does it have rolers in its cargo hold?

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineWhistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 18672 times:

The C-5 has it's share of problems and has had a few fatal crashes (especially the C-5A).

The US seems to like the AN-124, look at what happened to the EP-3  Big thumbs up.


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4229 posts, RR: 37
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 18672 times:

Ive seen film of palletized cargo getting rolled out of the back of a C-5 before. The stuff that is on the pallet is strapped to it... and the parachute is attatched to whatever is on the pallet.. be it an APC or whatever.


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineWasilenko From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18665 times:

Great post Z8!

Ok, do you people know that An-124 came to replace An-22! When first flown An-22 was the haviest aircraft until C-5 came out.

Take a look at both aircraft, both An-22 and An-124 look very similar, can see that Antonov had all the right to design An-124 the way it is.

An-22

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Tony Rogers


An-124

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Dietmar Schreiber



An-124 looks similar to C-5 because Boeing 767 looks similar to A300!

By the way currently Russian Air Force An-124s are being modified to loach rockets in to space!

Wasilenko


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 18660 times:

It looks like my theory was right. Apparantley, the Soviets didn't put rolers on the floors of the cargo hold of their military a/c, instead they put the equipment they needed to airdrop on a platform with rolers on its bottom. A typical Soviet airdrop "package" would include the equipment being airdropped, strapped to the platform and a set of parachutes. The platform is equipped with small rockets that are started when the platform is a few of yards above the ground, to smooth the platform's landing on the ground.
So, the An-124 is deffinetely capable of air drop. After all, if it wouldn't be capable of it, why would it need a rear cargo door?

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 18662 times:

The C-5 has it's share of problems and has had a few fatal crashes (especially the C-5A).

The US seems to like the AN-124, look at what happened to the EP-3


The C-5 has had two fatal crashes, one in 1975 and one in 1990. I'd say that's an excellent record for a 35-year old aircraft!!!

The U.S. didn't have a choice with the EP-3 situation. The Chinese government would not allow a U.S. military aircraft to come over and pick it up. Hell, it could have flown out under its own power, but they wouldn't allow that either!


User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 18663 times:

Ok, do you people know that An-124 came to replace An-22! When first flown An-22 was the haviest aircraft until C-5 came out.

Take a look at both aircraft, both An-22 and An-124 look very similar, can see that Antonov had all the right to design An-124 the way it is.


Yes, the An-22 did replace the An-124. Yes, the An-22 was the heaviest aircraft in the world until the C-5.

To me the C-5, nor the An-124, like nothing like the An-22! The An-22 is a completely different aircraft in design, performance, and capability. Performance and capability -wise, you're better off comparing the An-22 to the Douglas C-133.



User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 18662 times:

It looks like my theory was right. Apparantley, the Soviets didn't put rolers on the floors of the cargo hold of their military a/c, instead they put the equipment they needed to airdrop on a platform with rolers on its bottom. A typical Soviet airdrop "package" would include the equipment being airdropped, strapped to the platform and a set of parachutes. The platform is equipped with small rockets that are started when the platform is a few of yards above the ground, to smooth the platform's landing on the ground.

So, the An-124 is definetely capable of air drop. After all, if it wouldn't be capable of it, why would it need a rear cargo door?


Where did you get this info? Are you saying the An-124 uses this method to airdrop cargo? If so, where did you get that info? Why do you say the An-124 must have airdrop capability because it has a rear cargo door?

The main reason for a rear cargo door is so the aircraft can be onloaded and offloaded at the same time. Or, onloaded/offloaded via the drive-in configuration through the front with a truck-bed configuration in the rear, and vise-versa. Are the overhead cranes even capable of loading through the front while in a truck-bed loading configuration?


User currently offlineZ8 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 18657 times:

I've finally found a source of some if not technical then at least more detailed information about An-124. I'll quote it intensively in my reply. Unfortunately it's in Russian so I'd like to apologize in advance for the lousy translation.

There is no doubt that the An-124 was designed using the C-5 as a role model.

Well, there is a big difference between "using as a role model" and being "just a bad copy". Should I say more?  Smile

FBW technology was not widely used (if used at all) when the C-5 was designed.

Sure. I just wanted to say that C-5 and An-124 are pretty darn different.

I can't really respond to this remark as I don't have any data to go by.

Why did you make such nasty remarks in your original post then? As far as I loosely remember (I've read it 3 or 4 years ago and don't even remember the source), there were 2 fatal crashes of An-124 besides the well-known one in 1997 in Irkutsk (it was a chartered military plane there, BTW). Both of them happened in the middle of 80th during test and/or delivery acceptance flights. What is the statistics for C-5?

The An-124's cargo hold is pressurrized, but it is not pressurized at the same level as the upper decks. Anyone downstairs in flight would need to be on oxygen when at altitudes greater than 10000 feet.

It appears, you're partially right. The quote: "Pressurization of the cargo compartment provides a pressure difference of at least 25kPa. This allows one to ferry passengers at altitudes of up to 8000m without an oxygen equipment". Not that bad after all. Does C-5 have any limitations?

If I'm not mistaken, the An-124's kneeling system has only one position -- down. The C-5 offers three kneeling positions -- forward, level, and aft.

The following diagram from the old Volga-Dnepr site shows that at least forward and aft kneelings are possible. I'm not sure about the level one (but why not?) On the other hand, I don't see any reason for An-124 operators to use a level kneeling. C-5 needs it to simplify loading of cargo from trucks (am I right?), but cranes solve this problem for An-124 (see also below).



This makes it possible to load/offload the same type of cargo from both ends, especially on a C-5C model.

Just go and see: http://www.antonovaircargo.com/cargo/cargoes.en

Can the An-124 perform cardo airdrops? I don't see how without rollers.

Yes, it can. "[An-214] is designed for ferrying of combat and support equipment for great distances, chute airdrops of cargos and combat equipment with crews, ferrying of oversized and heavy industrial cargos". And "the pressurized cargo compartment provides [....] chute airdrops of cargos of up to 100t on pallets and also specially prepared cargos and equipment without usage of pallets". Finally "the cargo compartment is equipped with two on-board loading cranes with maximal load of 10t each and moving floor-located electrical winches with maximal pulling force of 4.5t each. The rolling equipment found in the aircraft allows one to load and unload single-piece cargos of up to 50t".

So An-124 does have winches and does have rollers. But it does have cranes as well. May I now safely state that the cargo-loading equipment of An-124 is more advanced than the one of C-5?  Big grin

Why does the An-124's cargo floor require a plywood-type covering, is it not strong enough without it?

No ideas. Does it? The cargo floor of An-124 is made of titanium alloys to allow ferrying of main battle tanks, according to numerous sources. I guess titanium should be at least as strong as plywood.  Smile

Cargo loading operations with a C-5 will not usually consist of floor loading a bunch of cargo. Almost all non-rollerized cargo is placed on pallets then loaded.

This works in most of the cases except when loading/unloading directly from trucks. You must admit that cranes are unrivaled in this case. And it's not that rare nowadays: most of the relief aid operations need it.

Are you going to tell me that all new aircraft, especially ones this complicated and advanced for its time, goes from the drawing board to production to service without any glitches?

No, I'm not going to say this, I've never said this, and I never will. What I was saying was just that it's not at all obvious (and possibly dubious) that C-5 is better than An-124 in terms of reliability. Do you see the point? If you simply said that overall reliability of C-5 is great, it would be just fine. But since you wrote (at least implied) that it's better than the one of An-124, you need to back your claims somehow. Especially in light of obvious (though natural) initial problems with C-5.

Remember, the jet-powered "heavy lifter" concept (C-5 and 747) had been around (in service) for 15 years when the An-124 finally came along. By that time, most of the "kinks" had been worked out.

Definitely. So it wouldn't be a shame for C-5 to be even less reliable than An-124, would it?  Big grin Since I don't have any facts to compare the two in this respect, I have to stick with the conjunctive mood. Do you?

Now, let me say this -- as I said before -- I really don't want to get into a big pissing contest on this issue. Both of these aircraft are very capable of accomplishing the tasks they were designed to do.

You must admit now that this sentence is very different from the temper of your original post. "poorly built aircraft" are not the worst words you used to describe An-124. The discussion is more mature now, isn't it?  Wink/being sarcastic

However, I must look at the C-5 as being the "original" jet-powered heavy lifter.

I see nothing wrong with this one.

--- Alexander.


User currently offlineZ8 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 18651 times:

Mike,

It seams we are now both in the forum despite the timezone difference  Big grin. I've got a couple of questions for you.

First, here is another diagram from Volga-Dnepr's site (it's for one-piece cargos only!). Comments?



And another one. The same source as I've used before says that the An-124's range with a 40t payload is 11000km and states that it's better than the one of C-5B. Is it true? The range with a maximal 120t payload is listed as 5600km. Since the payload/range graph is linear, I estimate that the range with a 100t payload (maximal for C-5?) is 6950km. What are the figures for C-5?

--- Alexander.


User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 18652 times:

The same source as I've used before says that the An-124's range with a 40t payload is 11000km and states that it's better than the one of C-5B. Is it true? The range with a maximal 120t payload is listed as 5600km. Since the payload/range graph is linear, I estimate that the range with a 100t payload (maximal for C-5?) is 6950km. What are the figures for C-5?

I can't give you an exact answer because I no longer have an C-5 performance charts to refer to. If I had to guess, I'd say the C-5A/B is capable of carrying this load the same distance or greater. It all depends on how much fuel is required for the distance. And I'm sure you're referring to "unrefuelled" distance.

Mike


User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 18652 times:

As far as I loosely remember (I've read it 3 or 4 years ago and don't even remember the source), there were 2 fatal crashes of An-124 besides the well-known one in 1997 in Irkutsk (it was a chartered military plane there, BTW). Both of them happened in the middle of 80th during test and/or delivery acceptance flights. What is the statistics for C-5?

C-5 loses can be found here:
http://www.theaviationzone.com/facts/tailnums.htm

It appears, you're partially right. The quote: "Pressurization of the cargo compartment provides a pressure difference of at least 25kPa. This allows one to ferry passengers at altitudes of up to 8000m without an oxygen equipment". Not that bad after all. Does C-5 have any limitations?

The C-5 can carry 270 passengers in the lower deck with no ceiling restrictions and without requiring them to use oxygen.

C-5 needs it to simplify loading of cargo from trucks (am I right?), but cranes solve this problem for An-124 (see also below).

C-5 loading operations don't usually consist of floor loading small objects, they are almost always palletized. And yes, I can see how a crane would be an efficient tool for this loading method on the An-124, however, the C-5 really doesn't need them.

Yes, it can. "[An-214] is designed for ferrying of combat and support equipment for great distances, chute airdrops of cargos and combat equipment with crews, ferrying of oversized and heavy industrial cargos". And "the pressurized cargo compartment provides [....] chute airdrops of cargos of up to 100t on pallets and also specially prepared cargos and equipment without usage of pallets". Finally "the cargo compartment is equipped with two on-board loading cranes with maximal load of 10t each and moving floor-located electrical winches with maximal pulling force of 4.5t each. The rolling equipment found in the aircraft allows one to load and unload single-piece cargos of up to 50t".

I'm not saying it can't be done. Although, I have never read or head of the An-124 performing airdrops other than troops. Also, if troops can be dropped, so can small pieces of cargo, I was more interested if it can drop tanks and such. Are you sure this is possible? Has it ever been done?

No ideas. Does it? The cargo floor of An-124 is made of titanium alloys to allow ferrying of main battle tanks, according to numerous sources. I guess titanium should be at least as strong as plywood.

The An-124 I loaded had wooden planks covering the entire floor. I would have asked the crew why this was since the floor was titanium, but none of them spoke good enough english to respond to my questions.... or they just didn't want to respond. See my photo of the floor....

http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/personal/bin-1/mn_41.jpg

Alexander, I'm impressed how well you've backed up your statements. However, these super long posts are hard to respond to in this forum's format. Could you email me in the future, I'd love to keep this conversation going.... just not in this format.  Smile

Anyone else wishing to converse with me more on this issue is welcomed to do the same.

Mike





User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 18645 times:

I guess I should have been clearer, yes, I'm saying that the An-124 uses the method I described earlier to air-drop cargo.
If you want to know my source, look at my profile, if you still can't figure it out, e-mail me.
I guess this will be my last reply to this thread, but if anyone wishes to know my opinion on related matters, you can email me...

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineZ8 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18636 times:

I was more interested if it can drop tanks and such. Are you sure this is possible? Has it ever been done?

I'm mostly sure (as much as a person who never touched a real An-124 can be sure) that An-124 was designed with such a possibility in mind. Thus trials had to be made during the test flights. I couldn't find any confirming information in the Internet though, and I don't have any other sources at my disposal right now. LY744 in one of his earlier posts stated that he's heard about battle tanks being airdropped.

The An-124 I loaded had wooden planks covering the entire floor.

Look at the following picture. The floor is obviously made of a kind of metal, and I guess I can see rollers as well. What are those small horizontal dashes every meter or so otherwise? Do they differ from the ones of C-5?


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Paul Dopson



However, these super long posts are hard to respond to in this forum's format.

You're completely right. I'm more accustomed to mailing list discussions and so are my replies  Smile What I usually do is I copy a message from the forum to an editor, prepare my reply there, run it through a spell-checker and then copy it back. Slow but effective  Big grin I hope this message was short enough to be posted here.

--- Alexander.


User currently offlineCrewChief32 From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 418 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 18632 times:

Hello Gentlemen,

a very interesting topic so far, so I have a question for you:
A few years ago, in the mid-90`s, there was a fatal AN-124 crash in Northern Italy (I belive it was near Bergamo, but defenitely NOT at Milan).
Was that a civil AN-124 (Polet, ADB or Volga-Dnjepr) or was it a AN-124 of the Russian A.F.????

Sincerely,

CC32


25 Post contains links and images Z8 : CC32, I must admit I've never heard about this crash Here's what I was able to find right now (did a search for "124 crash Italy" on Google). Detailed
26 Notar520AC : The Antonovs are the largest cargo liners in the world but fully loaded can't travel as far as the C-5. Both planes serve their purpose well, each des
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-5 Vs AN-124
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Presidential Helicopters, Shipping Vs Ferrying posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:01:14 by Boeing Nut
Great Picture Of An Unpainted F-22A posted Thu Oct 19 2006 19:57:59 by Egronenthal
Is This AN AA 747 Carrying A Space Shuttle? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 02:25:45 by Fll2993
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
Libyan Air Cargo AN-124s posted Mon Sep 25 2006 21:45:17 by Cruisertk421
Fail-Safe Vs Dr.Strangelove posted Fri Sep 22 2006 19:30:52 by B741
Soyuz Vs Shuttle? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 20:30:45 by Mt99
An AFB Like No Other? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 03:27:33 by RampRat74
B-1B Vs KC-135A Which Was Louder posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:34:09 by 747400sp
F-16 Vs F/A-18 posted Thu Aug 10 2006 03:25:49 by Da man
Sweet Video Of AN-124 Departing Charleston AFB posted Thu Feb 7 2008 16:04:51 by KPDX
Antonov An-124-300 posted Sat Oct 20 2007 15:03:55 by SCAT15F
AN-124 Landed At Miramar Yesterday (8/6/07) posted Wed Aug 8 2007 03:30:10 by Lehpron
V-22 And AN 124 Coming To DAY Airshow posted Thu May 17 2007 18:11:55 by DAYflyer
C-5 Vs AN-124 posted Wed Aug 1 2001 07:17:45 by Dahawaiian
Another Look: AN-70 Vs A400M posted Mon Jan 26 2009 11:36:20 by SCAT15F
S-IC Stage Vs. SRBs Question posted Sat Mar 24 2012 10:00:30 by Thrust
Amazing Video Of An Apache Crash In Afghanistan posted Thu Mar 22 2012 14:13:20 by HaveBlue
Iran Vs. The Super Tankers posted Tue Jan 3 2012 16:08:48 by cmb56
Would You Consider Applying To Become An Astronaut posted Mon Nov 21 2011 05:41:01 by boacvc10

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format