Antonov AN-225 Mriya Destroyed

Kenny Phillips

Kenny Phillips

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
5,494
Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
Confirmed by Dmytro Kuleba, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ukraine.
 
Naively I thought that was a Russian plane. Used to carry their space shuttle.

I now know it was the last flying version of the plane and was owned by the Ukrainian aerospace (and Cargo Carrier) company Antonov.

Sounds like it was already damaged. Not likely to be flown during this conflict. Sad they decided to destroy it.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
Naively I thought that was a Russian plane. Used to carry their space shuttle.
Click to expand...

Antonov has been headquartered in Ukraine since 1952. Until 1991 it was part of the USSR, and controlled by Moscow, but not Russian. We often think of the classic An-2 biplane as Russian, but it too was initially built in Kyiv, Ukrainian SSR.

I now know it was the last flying version of the plane and was owned by the Ukrainian aerospace (and Cargo Carrier) company Antonov.
Click to expand...

First, last and only. A second airframe was under construction years ago, but never completed.
 
This plane seemed to be tasked with a job all the time. What does this move that others can’t for the foreseeable future?? Bummer loss was hoping to see this plane in the flesh one day
 
At first when I heard about this I thought maybe the Russians didn't know it was in that hanger but the hanger is open on ends so they must have known it was there.
 
kell490 said:
At first when I heard about this I thought maybe the Russians didn't know it was in that hanger but the hanger is open on ends so they must have known it was there.
Click to expand...
Russia has one of the best intelligence systems in the world. I’m sure they knew it was there, and destroying it would cut off some of the foreign money it brought in.

Ron Wanttaja
 
benyflyguy said:
This plane seemed to be tasked with a job all the time. What does this move that others can’t for the foreseeable future?
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple. Cargo that's too heavy, too large, or both for any other aircraft.
 
wanttaja said:
Russia has one of the best intelligence systems in the world. I’m sure they knew it was there, and destroying it would cut off some of the foreign money it brought in.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
That would imply that they don't think they are going to win this thing. If they win and take over Ukraine, then it's theirs and they get the money it makes. Of course they could be figuring it isn't going to make enough money to be profitable.
 
luvflyin said:
That would imply that they don't think they are going to win this thing. If they win and take over Ukraine, then it's theirs and they get the money it makes. Of course they could be figuring it isn't going to make enough money to be profitable.
Click to expand...
Or they just wanted to demoralize the Ukrainians a little more, which would also seem to be counterproductive in the long run if you plan to make the territory and its inhabitants your own. It doesn't seem to make much sense, does it?
 
According to the chief pilot it may not actually be destroyed? Not sure what to take of that... whether that just means it's not completed destroyed and can be fixed, or that it wasn't damaged at all. Hard to find accurate information from over there.

Edit, looks like Ukraine's foreign minister confirmed it was destroyed but that they hope to rebuild https://jalopnik.com/the-worlds-largest-cargo-plane-is-confirmed-to-be-destr-1848602567
 
Replacement cost is 3bln USD. With a B.
 
Is posting “FVP” allowed?
 
On one hand, screw Putin. On the other, the Ukraines should have scraped enough nickels together to fly the thing to safe haven. Lesson learned.
 
Bill said:
On one hand, screw Putin. On the other, the Ukraines should have scraped enough nickels together to fly the thing to safe haven. Lesson learned.
Click to expand...

It flew in a month ago and was undergoing maintenance. It may not have been airworthy to fly out ahead of the invasion. Same reason there were front line fighter aircraft left behind at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida before Hurricane Michael. Not all aircraft are flyable all the time.
 
I will do my best to provide accurate update to you all. This is the latest information I have from reliable sources.

It's been destroyed.
a225-video-410x250.png


And it was not destroyed!
Screen-Shot-2022-02-28-at-10.08.56-PM.jpg.optimal.jpg
 
Makes me wonder why they didn’t do a 3 engine flight. Surely the airplane can fly empty on 3 engines, right?

Wishing this ends is not a strategy.
 
Lowflynjack said:
This is another great website! I love the accurate data! The first photo shows it outside of the hangar, the second one shows it in the hangar. Same photo shopped picture of the plane though!
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're tongue in cheek or serious. The plane is "under" the hangar in all the pics. The video makes it pretty obvious it's destroyed, unless that is one heck of a lot of good CGI.

I find the reporters attitude regarding the intermittent gunfire / explosions, uh, interesting... It's more like she's finding it disruptive to her shoot rather than being worried about it.

https://t.me/faceofwar/16461
 
Salty said:
I can't tell if you're tongue in cheek or serious. The plane is "under" the hangar in all the pics. The video makes it pretty obvious it's destroyed, unless that is one heck of a lot of good CGI
Click to expand...
Doesn't look like it's under the hangar in the very first photo... No shadows on the plane, yet in the satelite photo on the same website, only the tail is sticking out.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Doesn't look like it's under the hangar in the very first photo... No shadows on the plane, yet in the satelite photo on the same website, only the tail is sticking out.

AN-225-destoryed-Hostomel-airport.jpg

message-editor%2F1646381144071-fmuhdmnxeaie7gc.jpeg
Click to expand...
You can see the arch of the hangar at the top left of the photo. I think you're failing to realize the size of that hangar.
 
Salty said:
You can see the arch of the hangar at the top left of the photo. I think you're failing to realize the size of that hangar.
Click to expand...
Yet the plane is not in the shade at all?

Oh well, I guess I don't care. It's either destroyed or it's not. I'm sure it is gone, it's just funny how many reports are out there with conflicting info. Thousands of lives lost, infrastructure lost, etc. I'm sure moving an airplane wasn't on their short list of things to worry about.
 
The angle is very low to the ground to get the "shell" in the frame, but it's clearly under the hangar. Watch the video I linked above, it's pretty clear in the video.

Screen Shot 2022-03-04 at 9.28.47 AM.png
 
Pretty good quote from the article.

"In the end airplanes, buildings, and ships can all be rebuilt or replaced. The mounting human suffering in this conflict, and the lives that have been lost in it, are the true tragedy. Lives simply cannot be replaced.

Still, that doesn't mean we still can't be angered and saddened by the loss of an aviation icon in a pointless war that should have never happened in the first place."
 
kell490 said:
At first when I heard about this I thought maybe the Russians didn't know it was in that hanger but the hanger is open on ends so they must have known it was there.
Click to expand...

Lowflynjack said:
Still, that doesn't mean we still can't be angered and saddened by the loss of an aviation icon in a pointless war that should have never happened in the first place."
Click to expand...

They knew. The craft was built for the Soviet Buran program and later became a source of Ukranian pride when they brought it back to life in the 90s. It attracts a crowd anywhere it goes and the crew who flew the plane loved it, it was a part of them. The captain posted almost daily YouTube vids of their flights. This was not an accident of 'oops, caught in the crossfire of a battle at an airport' .. they obviously knew it was there and undoubtedly took it out on purpose.. it's like breaking into someone's house, killing everyone in it, shooting their dog, and then for good measure smashing up a prized posession.
 
Since it was the world's largest military-transport aircraft, they probably saw it as a legitimate military target. (That doesn't make the invasion legitimate, of course.)
 
Palmpilot said:
Since it was the world's largest military-transport aircraft, they probably saw it as a legitimate military target. (That doesn't make the invasion legitimate, of course.)
Click to expand...

It wasn't military. It was owned and operated by a civilian (albeit I believe government controlled) company.

As far as discussion of replacing it, I'm curious if there is that much of a market to justify it. As far as I know the fuselage isn't any bigger than the AN-124, and even lacks the rear loading door and I believe the overhead crane system the AN-124 has. I think its only advantage may have been in weight it could carry non stop. The AN-124 could probably do it, but on a reduced fuel load?
 
midwestpa24 said:
It wasn't military. It was owned and operated by a civilian (albeit I believe government controlled) company.

As far as discussion of replacing it, I'm curious if there is that much of a market to justify it. As far as I know the fuselage isn't any bigger than the AN-124, and even lacks the rear loading door and I believe the overhead crane system the AN-124 has. I think its only advantage may have been in weight it could carry non stop. The AN-124 could probably do it, but on a reduced fuel load?
Click to expand...
It's bigger than the AN-124, it has fore and aft plugs, it stays busy and they've been considering building #2 since 2001 due to the apparent need. Obviously building #2 is not cheap and they simply just might not have the capital. But they reactivated it as a result of a need and it does fly. Not just an airshow novelty
 
Tantalum said:
It's bigger than the AN-124, it has fore and aft plugs, it stays busy and they've been considering building #2 since 2001 due to the apparent need. Obviously building #2 is not cheap and they simply just might not have the capital. But they reactivated it as a result of a need and it does fly. Not just an airshow novelty
Click to expand...

Oh ok, I wasn't aware of the longer fuse. I've only ever worked around the AN-124s, never the -225. I never doubted it was a busy workhorse, just didn't know if it was being operated as a bonus -124 or actually had a mission all its own.

I actually find it interesting that a commercial market really supported the AN-124/-225 as much as it has, without any competition from a commercial grade C-5 or similar. The 747 is the closest thing we have, and its not even in the same market.

Ironically during my experience working around the AN-124, they were hauling US military equipment. The airport neighbors sure had some funny looks on their face while watching US Navy equipment being loaded on an aircraft with Cyrillic writing on the side.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Oh ok, I wasn't aware of the longer fuse. I've only ever worked around the AN-124s, never the -225. I never doubted it was a busy workhorse, just didn't know if it was being operated as a bonus -124 or actually had a mission all its own.

I actually find it interesting that a commercial market really supported the AN-124/-225 as much as it has, without any competition from a commercial grade C-5 or similar. The 747 is the closest thing we have, and its not even in the same market.

Ironically during my experience working around the AN-124, they were hauling US military equipment. The airport neighbors sure had some funny looks on their face while watching US Navy equipment being loaded on an aircraft with Cyrillic writing on the side.
Click to expand...
I bet! That musta been 'odd' for the neighbors. I believe Boeing transports a lot of parts and equipment an AN-124s

You're right, the back doesn't open,but plane 'squats' down so loading is not bad from the front. It's also fairly 'independent' with loading and unloading. A 747 with the high cargo floor needs some special equipment.. this thing (assuming there's enough runway and ground space) doesn't need as much ground staff. I've wondered the same on the C-5..

Frankly I'm doubtful you could support two, as evidence by two decades of them saying they need it but as of yet haven't built it. But it's a thin margin business and an adventure like that would need a huge $$ outlay. I can only imagine how much the charter cost of the -225 was!


But if the desire and demand is there perhaps it's an opportunity to re-engine it, get an updated flight deck. Especially. Watching them shoot and hand fly ILS approaches to minimums on their videos with steam gauges was always impressive.
 
Tantalum said:
I bet! That musta been 'odd' for the neighbors. I believe Boeing transports a lot of parts and equipment an AN-124s

You're right, the back doesn't open,but plane 'squats' down so loading is not bad from the front. It's also fairly 'independent' with loading and unloading. A 747 with the high cargo floor needs some special equipment.. this thing (assuming there's enough runway and ground space) doesn't need as much ground staff. I've wondered the same on the C-5..

Frankly I'm doubtful you could support two, as evidence by two decades of them saying they need it but as of yet haven't built it. But it's a thin margin business and an adventure like that would need a huge $$ outlay. I can only imagine how much the charter cost of the -225 was!


But if the desire and demand is there perhaps it's an opportunity to re-engine it, get an updated flight deck. Especially. Watching them shoot and hand fly ILS approaches to minimums on their videos with steam gauges was always impressive.
Click to expand...
The lack of avionics upgrades made me wonder if it made money, but only just. They could justify keeping it going, but not upgrading it, let alone building one from scratch. I was hoping it would just be damage to the fuselage and they could repair it with the partially built one, but the damage in those photos looks pretty extensive. Not sure there's much salvageable beyond a couple engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top