shez wrote:

Missed that post. Sounds risky that it even flew the previous mission with all those maintenance issues.

No one has said or implied that it flew with maintenance issues. It’s last flight was approximately three weeks before it was destroyed, not unreasonable that it was going through some maintenance in that period. The gear issue is something that could have occurred on its last landing.

crownvic wrote:

shez wrote:

Begs the question, why did the Ukranians fly it back to Gostomel only a few days before the attack. Should have kept their prize asset in Poland or wherever it was on a mission.

You have to take a few minutes and read the posts on this thread, its very informative...It was mentioned that it was unflyable due to several maintenance issues including one or more engines and supposed nose gear issue.

It's not like it was undergoing heavy maintenance just before the war and couldn't be readied for flight in time, this is the last photo of her on a.net taken in Denmark just 19 days before the beginning of the war, it should've stayed out of Ukraine at this point.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

crownvic wrote:

shez wrote:

Begs the question, why did the Ukranians fly it back to Gostomel only a few days before the attack. Should have kept their prize asset in Poland or wherever it was on a mission.

You have to take a few minutes and read the posts on this thread, its very informative...It was mentioned that it was unflyable due to several maintenance issues including one or more engines and supposed nose gear issue.

It's not like it was undergoing heavy maintenance just before the war and couldn't be readied for flight in time, this is the last photo of her on a.net taken in Denmark just 19 days before the beginning of the war, it should've stayed out of Ukraine at this point.

Paying rent for a stand or hangar to park it in for that long, especially with necessary maintenance pending would have been exceptionally expensive. Especially when at the time, war wasn’t a certainty. It’s easy to say now that it should have been done, but someone had to make those decisions based on the reality of their info at the time.

trnswrld wrote:

Studying the pictures a little more, does it look as if the explosion originated inside the front of the aircraft? In the nose section laying on the ground I’m seeing metal parts pushed outward. No clue if this was a device dropped or launched from another aircraft or not, but if it wasn’t, it almost appears that maybe a device was planted inside the Mriya.

Exactly, looks like a direct hit with explosion inside the forward fuselage or cockpit section. This is why I don‘t believe it was accidentally hit when fighting around the airfield, I think it was intentionally targeted. Otherwise there would be more random and outside damage.
Antonov did a lot work for NATO, this would be more than enough justification to make every Antonov plane including AN 225 a prime target, not just collateral damage.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

crownvic wrote:

shez wrote:

Begs the question, why did the Ukranians fly it back to Gostomel only a few days before the attack. Should have kept their prize asset in Poland or wherever it was on a mission.

You have to take a few minutes and read the posts on this thread, its very informative...It was mentioned that it was unflyable due to several maintenance issues including one or more engines and supposed nose gear issue.

It's not like it was undergoing heavy maintenance just before the war and couldn't be readied for flight in time, this is the last photo of her on a.net taken in Denmark just 19 days before the beginning of the war, it should've stayed out of Ukraine at this point.

Criticisms of Antonov for returning the plane to Ukraine are about as compelling as criticisms of a crime victim for walking in a bad neighborhood.

Except it wasn't a bad neighborhood. It was a civillian airport 600 km from the region of conflict at the time.

It was a Ukrainian plane returning to its home in Ukraine. They flew to China, then to Kyrgyzstan, then to Denmark, then home on February 5. To me, it makes every bit as much sense as the fact that almost everyone in Kyiv stayed in Kyiv right up until the invasion started.

Yes, there were troops in Belarus by that time, but dozens of miles from the border. The US, UK, and France were starting to openly discuss the possibilities, ranging from a local action in Donetsk and Luhansk to a raid on Kyiv, but it wasn't until February 11th that the US recommended even US citizens leave. It was only when Putin made his great big lecture 2 days before the invasion implying Ukraine never had a right to leave the USSR that some Ukrainians started to leave their homes, mainly in the border regions.

The world was shocked when Russia actually launched a full scale invasion, and one of the first targets was a cargo airport on the far side of one of largest rivers in Europe from the main body of their forces.

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the Ukrainians are determined to rebuild her.......... as much as I admire their national pride..... I think that would be impossible.

I think a repost of this video is appropriate here:

http://youtu.be/l65NY4-s23M?t=239

rj777 wrote:

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the Ukrainians are determined to rebuild her.......... as much as I admire their national pride..... I think that would be impossible.

It was just a social media post made with unclear information how much damage there is, in the middle of a war from which the economic toll remains to be even estimated.

Until the country is stable again, a good cost estimate is known, and someone is actually working on securing the funds, any discussion about rebuilding the An-225 should be viewed as an ambition, not a concrete plan.

DL_Mech wrote:

I think a repost of this video is appropriate here:

http://youtu.be/l65NY4-s23M?t=239

Is Dmytro Antonov related to the founder of Antonov in anyway, or is that just a coincidence that the chief pilot shares the same name?

NYPECO wrote:

Is Dmytro Antonov related to the founder of Antonov in anyway, or is that just a coincidence that the chief pilot shares the same name?

I remember hearing in a documentary that it is just a coincidence. Kind of funny.

This is the documentary: https://youtu.be/8aIzARbiyN0

IADCA wrote:

Accidentally wrote:

How do you pronounce Mriya?

Mree-ya.

The first syllable is a little challenging for English-speaking folks without a background in Slavic languages, but that's the gist of it.

Thank you! Solves a long time question of mine.

jetfan wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

Studying the pictures a little more, does it look as if the explosion originated inside the front of the aircraft? In the nose section laying on the ground I’m seeing metal parts pushed outward. No clue if this was a device dropped or launched from another aircraft or not, but if it wasn’t, it almost appears that maybe a device was planted inside the Mriya.

Exactly, looks like a direct hit with explosion inside the forward fuselage or cockpit section. This is why I don‘t believe it was accidentally hit when fighting around the airfield, I think it was intentionally targeted. Otherwise there would be more random and outside damage.
Antonov did a lot work for NATO, this would be more than enough justification to make every Antonov plane including AN 225 a prime target, not just collateral damage.

There is a small hole in the roof of the hangar near the back of the airplane. This could be from a missile breaking through. To me it looks like they fired a missile from a rather shallow angle that broke through the roof near the tail of the airplane and hit somewhere just in front of the wings, more to the right side of the aircraft.

The front section of the aircraft obviously is completely destroyed, the center section only partly -- mainly on the right hand side, the wing even came off -- and the back seems pretty much intact. So sad .

DLHAM wrote:

jetfan wrote:

There is a small hole in the roof of the hangar near the back of the airplane. This could be from a missile breaking through. To me it looks like they fired a missile from a rather shallow angle that broke through the roof near the tail of the airplane and hit somewhere just in front of the wings, more to the right side of the aircraft.

The front section of the aircraft obviously is completely destroyed, the center section only partly -- mainly on the right hand side, the wing even came off -- and the back seems pretty much intact. So sad .

The hole in the roof as we've seen in earlier photos is at the front of the hangar, above the nose of the aircraft. The missile likely went through the front part of the roof before hitting the front section of aircraft and detonating.

The rear of the hangar along with the tail section seems more or less intact.

iamlucky13 wrote:

rj777 wrote:

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the Ukrainians are determined to rebuild her.......... as much as I admire their national pride..... I think that would be impossible.

It was just a social media post made with unclear information how much damage there is, in the middle of a war from which the economic toll remains to be even estimated.

Until the country is stable again, a good cost estimate is known, and someone is actually working on securing the funds, any discussion about rebuilding the An-225 should be viewed as an ambition, not a concrete plan.

At this point I don't think anyone is saying that rebuilding the destroyed An-225 is a possibility, not sure if that's what they were implying in the social media post and what others may have suggested, but it's clear that at best the remains will eventually be kept in a museum. However, we can have hope that in better times they either work on making the second An-225 frame flyable (fingers crossed that doesn't get destroyed too) or design and build an An-225 2.0 (perhaps with assistance from Airbus, Boeing, or another manufacturer).

JBo wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

jetfan wrote:

There is a small hole in the roof of the hangar near the back of the airplane. This could be from a missile breaking through. To me it looks like they fired a missile from a rather shallow angle that broke through the roof near the tail of the airplane and hit somewhere just in front of the wings, more to the right side of the aircraft.

The front section of the aircraft obviously is completely destroyed, the center section only partly -- mainly on the right hand side, the wing even came off -- and the back seems pretty much intact. So sad .

The hole in the roof as we've seen in earlier photos is at the front of the hangar, above the nose of the aircraft. The missile likely went through the front part of the roof before hitting the front section of aircraft and detonating.

The rear of the hangar along with the tail section seems more or less intact.

The roof above the front of the Hangar is badly damaged by the explosion/fire beneath, but when you look closely on that Satellite Image the roof on the other side of the Hangar where the tail of the aircraft is has a small hole.

DLHAM wrote:

JBo wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

The hole in the roof as we've seen in earlier photos is at the front of the hangar, above the nose of the aircraft. The missile likely went through the front part of the roof before hitting the front section of aircraft and detonating.

The rear of the hangar along with the tail section seems more or less intact.

The roof above the front of the Hangar is badly damaged by the explosion/fire beneath, but when you look closely on that Satellite Image the roof on the other side of the Hangar where the tail of the aircraft is has a small hole.

I see what you're talking about, and the photo isn't sharp or clear enough to tell if that's actually a hole, or just a dark/dirty spot or chunk of debris.

So what's the largest aircraft in the world now? A380? Stratolaunch?

May the mighty Mriya have sweet eternal dreams...

planewasted wrote:

May the mighty Mriya have sweet eternal dreams...

Makes this old man cry.

An Ukrainian news crew went to Gostomel and shot footage of Mriya. It is heartbreaking to see and yes, it is destroyed. Enough for us aviation lovers to cry over. RIP UR82060: 1988 - 2022

planewasted wrote:

So what's the largest aircraft in the world now? A380? Stratolaunch?

May the mighty Mriya have sweet eternal dreams...

I think the A380 may hold the title now.

DLHAM wrote:

jetfan wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

Studying the pictures a little more, does it look as if the explosion originated inside the front of the aircraft? In the nose section laying on the ground I’m seeing metal parts pushed outward. No clue if this was a device dropped or launched from another aircraft or not, but if it wasn’t, it almost appears that maybe a device was planted inside the Mriya.

Exactly, looks like a direct hit with explosion inside the forward fuselage or cockpit section. This is why I don‘t believe it was accidentally hit when fighting around the airfield, I think it was intentionally targeted. Otherwise there would be more random and outside damage.
Antonov did a lot work for NATO, this would be more than enough justification to make every Antonov plane including AN 225 a prime target, not just collateral damage.

There is a small hole in the roof of the hangar near the back of the airplane. This could be from a missile breaking through. To me it looks like they fired a missile from a rather shallow angle that broke through the roof near the tail of the airplane and hit somewhere just in front of the wings, more to the right side of the aircraft.

The front section of the aircraft obviously is completely destroyed, the center section only partly -- mainly on the right hand side, the wing even came off -- and the back seems pretty much intact. So sad .

So it's probably not beyond the realms of fantasy to suggest the aircraft was purposefully targeted by a guided missile then ?

JBo wrote:

I see what you're talking about, and the photo isn't sharp or clear enough to tell if that's actually a hole, or just a dark/dirty spot or chunk of debris.

Theres another Satellite image taken just days before without that hole -- and the An-225 still on the Apron. They towed it into that Hangar just before the Attack.

JannEejit wrote:

So it's probably not beyond the realms of fantasy to suggest the aircraft was purposefully targeted by a guided missile then ?

If you ask me this was not destroyed accidently.

planewasted wrote:

So what's the largest aircraft in the world now? A380? Stratolaunch?

May the mighty Mriya have sweet eternal dreams...

In my opinion it is the Stratolaunch.

planewasted wrote:

So what's the largest aircraft in the world now? A380? Stratolaunch?

May the mighty Mriya have sweet eternal dreams...

Define "large". Wingspan, gross weight, volume?

CMA727 wrote:

planewasted wrote:

So what's the largest aircraft in the world now? A380? Stratolaunch?

May the mighty Mriya have sweet eternal dreams...

In my opinion it is the Stratolaunch.

Nomadd wrote:

Define "large". Wingspan, gross weight, volume?

If you factor in all dimensions - length, wingspan, height, and gross weight, the A380 seems to take the top spot. While Stratolaunch has a significantly larger wingspan, it's not as long or tall, and is lighter.

JBo wrote:

CMA727 wrote:

planewasted wrote:

So what's the largest aircraft in the world now? A380? Stratolaunch?

May the mighty Mriya have sweet eternal dreams...

In my opinion it is the Stratolaunch.

Nomadd wrote:

Define "large". Wingspan, gross weight, volume?

If you factor in all dimensions - length, wingspan, height, and gross weight, the A380 seems to take the top spot. While Stratolaunch has a significantly larger wingspan, it's not as long or tall, and is lighter.

Building on this, I think the “classic” measure has been MTOW. Wingspan is popular but can be misleading imo. The most weight that can be lifted imo makes it the “biggest”. That’s the A380 now iirc.

Anyone knows if there is a market for this size aircraft now days? Could there be a similar rebuild if so??

argentinevol98 wrote:

JBo wrote:

CMA727 wrote:

In my opinion it is the Stratolaunch.

Nomadd wrote:

Define "large". Wingspan, gross weight, volume?

If you factor in all dimensions - length, wingspan, height, and gross weight, the A380 seems to take the top spot. While Stratolaunch has a significantly larger wingspan, it's not as long or tall, and is lighter.

Building on this, I think the “classic” measure has been MTOW. Wingspan is popular but can be misleading imo. The most weight that can be lifted imo makes it the “biggest”. That’s the A380 now iirc.

Wouldn't the C5M be the largest in terms of weight carried? I think the M upgrade put it past the An124.

TWA772LR wrote:

argentinevol98 wrote:

JBo wrote:

If you factor in all dimensions - length, wingspan, height, and gross weight, the A380 seems to take the top spot. While Stratolaunch has a significantly larger wingspan, it's not as long or tall, and is lighter.

Building on this, I think the “classic” measure has been MTOW. Wingspan is popular but can be misleading imo. The most weight that can be lifted imo makes it the “biggest”. That’s the A380 now iirc.

Wouldn't the C5M be the largest in terms of weight carried? I think the M upgrade put it past the An124.

Maximum payload for the C5M is 285,000 pounds, the 747-8 Freighter can carry well over 300,000 pounds

Unfortunately for this unique aircraft the AN-225 Mriya is a “casualty of war.”

Much like for some a “diagnosis of cancer” is a tragedy for humankind. Fortunately I am well, and well of mind and spirit.

Maybe we will see an outcome in which the Mriya can be resurrected. World thoughts of wellness for those who are ill and suffering with the tragedy of cancer are a fitting thought at this time as well as we take a moment to reflect upon a triumph of technology, the AN-225.

JannEejit wrote:

So it's probably not beyond the realms of fantasy to suggest the aircraft was purposefully targeted by a guided missile then ?

You mean that they wanted to hurt the enemy’s pride where it would hurt them most? This is debatable but on the other hand, it was not a military airplane and posed no danger to them.
Now let’s see an other point of view: an interesting aspect of the An225 was that it had six engines. This is a little misleading perhaps. It was not due to the size of the aircraft but due to the fact that the Russians do not seem to have the technology to build large fan engines like those of the A380 or the B777. If they could, the An225 would have four,would be less spectacular and more easily comparable to the C5A Galaxy. What is your opinion?

Yall ever hear of a bunker buster?! Its purpose is to penetrate the top of a structure (make a hole) and then detonate once inside. Clearly a very likely situation in this respect. Small hole at top of hangar, carnage inside. Exactly what has happened here. Gonna totally disagree with a device being inside the 225.

gzm wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

So it's probably not beyond the realms of fantasy to suggest the aircraft was purposefully targeted by a guided missile then ?

You mean that they wanted to hurt the enemy’s pride where it would hurt them most? This is debatable but on the other hand, it was not a military airplane and posed no danger to them.
Now let’s see an other point of view: an interesting aspect of the An225 was that it had six engines. This is a little misleading perhaps. It was not due to the size of the aircraft but due to the fact that the Russians do not seem to have the technology to build large fan engines like those of the A380 or the B777. If they could, the An225 would have four,would be less spectacular and more easily comparable to the C5A Galaxy. What is your opinion?

Yes and I believe the Russians are working on an An-225 sized transporter, which already looks like an enlarged An-124 with four improved engines and standard empennage.

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/revealed- ... freighter/

argentinevol98 wrote:

JBo wrote:

CMA727 wrote:

In my opinion it is the Stratolaunch.

Nomadd wrote:

Define "large". Wingspan, gross weight, volume?

If you factor in all dimensions - length, wingspan, height, and gross weight, the A380 seems to take the top spot. While Stratolaunch has a significantly larger wingspan, it's not as long or tall, and is lighter.

Building on this, I think the “classic” measure has been MTOW. Wingspan is popular but can be misleading imo. The most weight that can be lifted imo makes it the “biggest”. That’s the A380 now iirc.

I agree, thanks.

FGITD wrote:

L0VE2FLY wrote:

crownvic wrote:

You have to take a few minutes and read the posts on this thread, its very informative...It was mentioned that it was unflyable due to several maintenance issues including one or more engines and supposed nose gear issue.

It's not like it was undergoing heavy maintenance just before the war and couldn't be readied for flight in time, this is the last photo of her on a.net taken in Denmark just 19 days before the beginning of the war, it should've stayed out of Ukraine at this point.

Paying rent for a stand or hangar to park it in for that long, especially with necessary maintenance pending would have been exceptionally expensive. Especially when at the time, war wasn’t a certainty. It’s easy to say now that it should have been done, but someone had to make those decisions based on the reality of their info at the time.

It wouldn't have been as exceptionally expensive as building a new one, not even close. I've said it before and will say it again, when you're facing the threat of war being a little pessimistic is not a bad thing, that someone who made the decision to fly the Mriya back to Ukraine less than 3 weeks before the beginning of the war was unfortunately pretty optimistic about the whole situation as were many people in Ukraine and around the world.

iamlucky13 wrote:

L0VE2FLY wrote:

crownvic wrote:

You have to take a few minutes and read the posts on this thread, its very informative...It was mentioned that it was unflyable due to several maintenance issues including one or more engines and supposed nose gear issue.

It's not like it was undergoing heavy maintenance just before the war and couldn't be readied for flight in time, this is the last photo of her on a.net taken in Denmark just 19 days before the beginning of the war, it should've stayed out of Ukraine at this point.

Criticisms of Antonov for returning the plane to Ukraine are about as compelling as criticisms of a crime victim for walking in a bad neighborhood.

Except it wasn't a bad neighborhood. It was a civillian airport 600 km from the region of conflict at the time.

It was a Ukrainian plane returning to its home in Ukraine. They flew to China, then to Kyrgyzstan, then to Denmark, then home on February 5. To me, it makes every bit as much sense as the fact that almost everyone in Kyiv stayed in Kyiv right up until the invasion started.

Yes, there were troops in Belarus by that time, but dozens of miles from the border. The US, UK, and France were starting to openly discuss the possibilities, ranging from a local action in Donetsk and Luhansk to a raid on Kyiv, but it wasn't until February 11th that the US recommended even US citizens leave. It was only when Putin made his great big lecture 2 days before the invasion implying Ukraine never had a right to leave the USSR that some Ukrainians started to leave their homes, mainly in the border regions.

The world was shocked when Russia actually launched a full scale invasion, and one of the first targets was a cargo airport on the far side of one of largest rivers in Europe from the main body of their forces.

600 km would've made a difference in the 11th century not the 21st! It was the pride of Ukraine, literally a one-of-a-kind aircraft and extremely expensive to replace, it should've stayed out of Ukraine on Feb. 5th, as I said above people in Ukraine and elsewhere were too optimistic about the situation and didn't expect it to escalate so quickly.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

FGITD wrote:

L0VE2FLY wrote:

It's not like it was undergoing heavy maintenance just before the war and couldn't be readied for flight in time, this is the last photo of her on a.net taken in Denmark just 19 days before the beginning of the war, it should've stayed out of Ukraine at this point.

Paying rent for a stand or hangar to park it in for that long, especially with necessary maintenance pending would have been exceptionally expensive. Especially when at the time, war wasn’t a certainty. It’s easy to say now that it should have been done, but someone had to make those decisions based on the reality of their info at the time.

It wouldn't have been as exceptionally expensive as building a new one, not even close. I've said it before and will say it again, when you're facing the threat of war being a little pessimistic is not a bad thing, that someone who made the decision to fly the Mriya back to Ukraine less than 3 weeks before the beginning of the war was unfortunately pretty optimistic about the whole situation as were many people in Ukraine and around the world.

Easy to say as an enthusiast who doesn’t have the bosses asking him why they’re paying a fortune to keep their asset parked in a different country, if no war happens.

I do agree with you, and I wish they had. But it’s applying a bit too much hindsight to the situation.

Antonov is in the business of flying large aircraft into potentially hazardous environments, it comes with the business. Being attacked at home is different, but they can’t relocate their entire business every time there’s a risk or threat.

Unfortunately the aircraft apparently needed maintenance, and it needed to be home for that to happen. So they took a chance, and planned to continue operating as normal.

Dmytro Antonov has been publishing videos from what I believe, is his home on his youtube channel, however they are not in english. He did state that with the help of the world, Ukraine will rebuild the Mriya. Lets hope thats true!

go into video description here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez4n3YNA8wQ

FGITD wrote:

L0VE2FLY wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Paying rent for a stand or hangar to park it in for that long, especially with necessary maintenance pending would have been exceptionally expensive. Especially when at the time, war wasn’t a certainty. It’s easy to say now that it should have been done, but someone had to make those decisions based on the reality of their info at the time.

It wouldn't have been as exceptionally expensive as building a new one, not even close. I've said it before and will say it again, when you're facing the threat of war being a little pessimistic is not a bad thing, that someone who made the decision to fly the Mriya back to Ukraine less than 3 weeks before the beginning of the war was unfortunately pretty optimistic about the whole situation as were many people in Ukraine and around the world.

Easy to say as an enthusiast who doesn’t have the bosses asking him why they’re paying a fortune to keep their asset parked in a different country, if no war happens.

I do agree with you, and I wish they had. But it’s applying a bit too much hindsight to the situation.

Antonov is in the business of flying large aircraft into potentially hazardous environments, it comes with the business. Being attacked at home is different, but they can’t relocate their entire business every time there’s a risk or threat.

Unfortunately the aircraft apparently needed maintenance, and it needed to be home for that to happen. So they took a chance, and planned to continue operating as normal.

That’s like getting mad when no hurricane happens after you move your fleet.

32andBelow wrote:

How do we not have a photo yet? You’d think a solider even Russian would snap one for Instagram

Well, considering:

Russia's parliament has voted to ban soldiers from using smartphones while on duty, after their social media use raised issues of national security.

The bill forbids military personnel from using a phone with the ability to take pictures, record videos and access the internet.

Soldiers also cannot write about the military or talk to journalists.

More than 400 of 450 lawmakers in Russia's lower house of parliament, the Duma, backed the law on Tuesday.

Phones with basic calling and messaging facilities could still be used, but tablets and laptops would also subject to the new ban.

ey.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47302938

Not saying pictures won't come out, but they may not be coming from Russian sources on the ground directly unless it's someone on the frontline with an actual camera and an explicit mission from Moscow.

***Edit*** probably go ahead and disregard this, I'd skipped over page 5 of this thread. Oops.

af773atmsp wrote:

... or design and build an An-225 2.0 (perhaps with assistance from Airbus, Boeing, or another manufacturer).

China was said to be interested in licensing a few in 2016; I haven't found what happened to that idea. They are always interested in partnerships that could result in technology transfer, and could bankroll such a venture.

Max Q wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

argentinevol98 wrote:

Building on this, I think the “classic” measure has been MTOW. Wingspan is popular but can be misleading imo. The most weight that can be lifted imo makes it the “biggest”. That’s the A380 now iirc.

Wouldn't the C5M be the largest in terms of weight carried? I think the M upgrade put it past the An124.

Maximum payload for the C5M is 285,000 pounds, the 747-8 Freighter can carry well over 300,000 pounds

Stratolauncher is made for a 550,000 payload and a 1.3 million pound MTOW with a 117 meter wingspan.

I remember watching it in in Paris in 1989 and occasionally elsewhere over the years.

It was moving all over place, with her niche huge special load capacity..

This dramatic end of the An-225 will strengthen her legend.

Build for cold war Russian prowess & destroyed by it 33 years / 2 chapters further in the history book.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ufel-2.jpg

Mr. Dmytro Antonov has uploaded extended footage of the flight from Billund to Gostomel, which turned out to be the final flight of the beast ;(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QklAPHc ... troAntonov

(English subtitles are available)

The statement from the KLM crew starting at 11:33 is great and so sad at the same time

Pantonov22 wrote:

Mr. Dmytro Antonov has uploaded extended footage of the flight from Billund to Gostomel, which turned out to be the final flight of the beast ;(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QklAPHc ... troAntonov

(English subtitles are available)

The statement from the KLM crew starting at 11:33 is great and so sad at the same time

Thank you, Pantonov22. That was a touching...and sad...video to watch. That KL crew clearly had no idea their words would live in infamy. And the reaction of the FO, while completely appropriate, was painful to watch.

A minor detail surprised me, though: why were the flaps extended on the rwy and not before? I'd rather know sooner if my flaps aren't working.

Western727 wrote:

Pantonov22 wrote:

Mr. Dmytro Antonov has uploaded extended footage of the flight from Billund to Gostomel, which turned out to be the final flight of the beast ;(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QklAPHc ... troAntonov

(English subtitles are available)

The statement from the KLM crew starting at 11:33 is great and so sad at the same time

Thank you, Pantonov22. That was a touching...and sad...video to watch. That KL crew clearly had no idea their words would live in infamy. And the reaction of the FO, while completely appropriate, was painful to watch.

A minor detail surprised me, though: why were the flaps extended on the rwy and not before? I'd rather know sooner if my flaps aren't working.

I dunno but these big Russian planes do long run ups on the runway

32andBelow wrote:

Western727 wrote:

A minor detail surprised me, though: why were the flaps extended on the rwy and not before? I'd rather know sooner if my flaps aren't working.

I dunno but these big Russian planes do long run ups on the runway

Ehrm, Ukranian...

32andBelow wrote:

Western727 wrote:

Pantonov22 wrote:

Mr. Dmytro Antonov has uploaded extended footage of the flight from Billund to Gostomel, which turned out to be the final flight of the beast ;(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QklAPHc ... troAntonov

(English subtitles are available)

The statement from the KLM crew starting at 11:33 is great and so sad at the same time

Thank you, Pantonov22. That was a touching...and sad...video to watch. That KL crew clearly had no idea their words would live in infamy. And the reaction of the FO, while completely appropriate, was painful to watch.

A minor detail surprised me, though: why were the flaps extended on the rwy and not before? I'd rather know sooner if my flaps aren't working.

I dunno but these big Russian planes do long run ups on the runway

I've never seen the An-225, but I've seen a couple An-124 takeoffs, and have likewise observed them to spend several minutes on the runway with the engines well above idle. Reportedly it is standard procedure to let the engines stabilize at a higher level before they takeoff.

At 22:40 in the video, the closed captioning ascribes to the engineer, "The engines are warm," followed shortly by the tower giving clearance, and they begin their takeoff.

The clips in the video of it overflying spotters on the ground are awesome. That huge wing just looks glorious.

Is it just me or the video was edited perhaps? Takeoff roll was so short I could still see runway threshold markings when it rotated?

ubeema wrote:

Is it just me or the video was edited perhaps? Takeoff roll was so short I could still see runway threshold markings when it rotated?

What video are you talking about? The one in Pantonov22's post? The footage from the flight deck cut away to the exterior footage well before rotation. I don't think the cut away from the flight deck was at the same point of the takeoff roll as where the a/c was when it cut to exterior.

Western727 wrote:

Pantonov22 wrote:

Mr. Dmytro Antonov has uploaded extended footage of the flight from Billund to Gostomel, which turned out to be the final flight of the beast ;(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QklAPHc ... troAntonov

(English subtitles are available)

The statement from the KLM crew starting at 11:33 is great and so sad at the same time

Thank you, Pantonov22. That was a touching...and sad...video to watch. That KL crew clearly had no idea their words would live in infamy. And the reaction of the FO, while completely appropriate, was painful to watch.

A minor detail surprised me, though: why were the flaps extended on the rwy and not before? I'd rather know sooner if my flaps aren't working.

A feature of An-124 and An-225 departures is seeing them sit on the runway for a while before it begins its take off roll. The Progress D-18T engines need about 4 mins to reach operating temperature - so there is plenty of time to work through their checklist while waiting for the engines to do that.