Check out the Piasecki PA-97 Helistat. It was also (and still is I think) a record breaker that, with only one being built, would allegedly make it a great aircraft for moving massive shit (combine a multicopter, a blimp, and American 1980's knowhow with cocaine confidence).
There is a shred of hope, there's a pretty well complete fusealge and center wing section that they can rebuild with. That's of course contingent on Russians not blowing up the Antonov plant too.
@@wyolaskan1868 I felt the same emptiness (but w/o onions) when Cassini made its final dive into Saturn. I just couldn’t accurately describe the feeling of loss to others - “being there to see you born” all the way to it taking its “final breath” as it perished. It saddened me. It was a sort of grief, now eclipsed by grief for all those suffering or having lost their lives in the invasion. Rebuilding the AN-225 would aid the healing, like seeing the World Trade Center rebuilt and open its doors to the world. I am sorry, my friend.
@@ziggystardust4627 true, but imagine if the Wright Brothers could stand here today in front of such an aircraft, knowing that this the journey the helped start humanity on.
Perhaps the parts that exist will be collected and assembled so she can live again - flying or even as a monument to overcoming all obstacles - technical and political - in the face of overwhelming odds and even war crimes. Never forget.
I was lucky to be part of the team who built it in 1985. First time I saw it, fuselage was being riveted. I had to double take. Fuselage looked like train tunnel with small light at the end. My fingerprint is somewhere under all that paint
I live in a small town in Eastern Canada which is also home to a military base that has a 2 1/2 mile long runway. I was working as a security guard at that base when the 225 landed to refuel. I was on the airfield when it took off and it used every inch of that runway to get off the ground. I'm used to seeing all sorts of military aircraft from cargo planes to fighters and everything in between but to see that thing lumbering skyward is an experience I doubt I'll ever forget...
This thing once flew over my house at low altitude, and it does not feel like a real mean of transportation. Due to its size you get a feeling that it is moving too slow, and then you are just standing there, trying to comprehend the fact that several hundred tons of metal cargo and fuel flew over you, supported only by air...
Bonus Fact: This absolutely incredible aircraft has its own permanent callsign; Cossack. When you're the only one, and you're so massive, it's good for everyone around you to know exactly who and what you are.
@@lukaszimmer1973 Unless I am mistaken, Air Force One is the callsign given to any plane POTUS happens to be on. Should the goverment decide to commandeer the 737 you are set to fly on, that plane would have it's current callsign changed to Air Force One. Also, the White House's own website regarding Air Force One: "Although ‘Air Force One’ can describe any Air Force aircraft carrying the President, it is now standard practice to use the term to refer to specific planes equipped to transport the Commander-in-Chief. ... Today, this name refers to one of two highly customized Boeing 747-200B series aircraft, which carry the tail codes 28000 and 29000"
@@lukaszimmer1973 No, the Presidential air fleet does not include an AN-225. ✈✈ The USAF has 2 C-5 Galaxy transports specifically dedicated to support POTUS needs on overseas trips 🌎✈🌏✈🌍. Operated by the 1254th. Air Transport Wing, Andrews AFB, they arrive at the destination hours/days ahead of POTUS' arrival carrying Presidential vehicles 🚓🚗🚌🚙🚓 Preparations are painstakingly planned well in advance & HUGE amounts of time & Human effort go into making this come off flawlessly. They can also carry Presidential UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters 🚁🚁🚁
5:29 The twin tail was not required for 'balance' reasons - it was needed so that the surfaces would be sufficiently away from the turbulent air generated by slipstream of the Buran sitting on top of the aircraft. If the air is too turbulent near the vertical and horizontal surfaces, the tail cannot aerodynamically control the pitch and yaw of the plane.
@David Balance is balance of forces and stability can be achieved even without balance of forces. I mean I can say there is a stable turbulence over the tip of the wings.
Not MiG-26 helicopter Mi-26. Mi stands for the last name of the founder of the design bureau, his last name was Mil. MiG is short for Mikoyan and Guryevich two founders of the legendary design bureau. Mil designs helicopters MiG designs fighter/attack aircraft.
The split tail vertical stabilizers are because the Buran would interfere with the airflow over a conventional center mounted stabilizer. Maintaining rudder authority is always good.
I remember when it flew into Reno, International Airport...traffic on 395 and 80 stopped. It looked like it was simply floating in the air for the longest time. Very impressive.
Do a video on “extremely large” telescopes please! They are absolutely impressive pieces of machinery. For example just a single mirror being used for the Giant Magellan Telescope is over 8m in diameter, made with 20 tons of glass, and takes years to cast and polish out imperfections thinner than a human hair.
Absolutely! These giant telescopes are monsters! They are currently building the Extremely Large Telescope (not very good with names, obviously), which will be the largest optical telescope when it will be done in 2025, having a main mirror with a diameter of 39m, consisting of 798 single hexagonal mirror tiles!
The split tail vertical stabilizers are because the Buran would interfere with the airflow over a conventional center mounted stabilizer. Maintaining rudder authority is always good.
I got to see this thing about 10 years ago when it was delivering a piece of machinery to Charlotte NC. I was leaving a building and this monster flew over. It's hard to describe. It was at the right altitude for the flight path into CLT, but it just looked . . . wrong. It's literally too big to comprehend. I knew intellectually that it was at the right altitude, but my brain told me it was super low. Beautiful plane.
I've stood under this plane at the Melbourne Airshow, it really does seem enormous in a way that many things don't when you actually see them in reality.
Presuming you mean the Australian International Airshow held at Avalon , I think you might be misremembering.... :) I don't remember an AN-225 being there (they've only been to Australia a couple of times as I recall), but Wikipedia confirms that both an AN-124 Ruslan and an Ilyushin IL-86 were there in '92 (the first time the show was held at Avalon airport), so I guess you might be thinking of the '124. Which must make the size of the 225 seem even more incredible! I saw a couple of big'uns at the RAAF 70th Anniversary at Richmond the same year. QANTAS 747-438 flew in first, still relatively new in service at the time, and they parked it on the ramp with ropes around the landing gear and let the crowd wander around underneath. So that was cool enough, but then the USAF C-5 Galaxy arrived.... they didn't let us get quite as near to that one of course, but it was (and is) a MONSTER.
@@dwaynepenner2788 it must’ve either been on it’s way to or from the air show in Everett, WA which I luckily got to go to as a 9 year old. This was August 1990.
@@gregmercil3968 No it was at the Abbostford B.C Airshow doing circuts or approches. Also saw it in the static displays. My buddy got to stand on the wings. In the photos it looked like a football field. I stand corrected it was 1989. Probably the best airshow ever. Watching Mig 29's tail slide after hours was really cool. Rumor has it that it was actually American pilots. And they were doing it pretty much over town.
As a kid I got to see the US Space Shuttle fly piggy back on a 747. As a young man in the Air Force, I got to ride in a C-5 coming back from a TDY. This brought back many memories. Thank you.
Well... the Buran flew only once, an unmanned flight. Reportedly, it went flawlessly. Then they stored it in a hangar, and it got destroyed when that hangar collapsed due to lack of maintenance. There's a model that they used for flight tests,, similar to the Enterprise Space Shuttle, that could actually take off from a runway. It now rests at the Technik Museum Speyer in Germany, where they also have both a Concorde and an Antonov-144, just to name a couple of aircraft mentioned in this series. The Buran had some interesting differences from the Space Shuttle, but because it flew only once, it's going to be difficult to make a comparison and draw a conclusion from it.
Severity One there is also a Mockup that was/ possibly still is on display in a park in St Petersburg. Last I heard it was falling apart but that was about six years ago.
The Buran tried to learn lessons from the American Space Shuttle program. One key difference was that unlike the American Shuttle, Buran didn't have its own engines, instead it would be carried to orbit on the Energia launcher. On paper this looked like a better design, both technically and economically, because it was cheaper, simpler, required less maintenance between flights and, most importantly, the Energia could also be used separately (without Buran) to launch any cargo up to a whopping 100 tons to LEO. The Buran itself was capable to self-pilot and fly in fully automated, unmanned mode (that was its first and only flight, by the way). Ultimately the program collapsed with the dislocation of the USSR but maybe the whole notion of a reusable space shuttle is flawed or, at least, way too ahead of its time. The American Shuttle was a pioneering technological marvel but it never made economic sense and was the single most unsafe space vehicle ever designed. Other countries that had shuttle plans (France for one with its Hermes project) quickly shelved them, the Russians realised that the best way to fly to and from the ISS was using their trusty Soyuz ships which were dumb but simple, reliable and safe, and the NASA has moved on in 2011.
@@jacobzimmermann59 I'm not sure where you get your numbers concluding that the shuttle program was the MOST unsafe space vehicle EVER designed. Out of 135 flights, there were two failures resulting in fatalities, giving it a mission failure rate of 1.5% In contrast, the Apollo program that it replaced had 12 manned missions and a single failure that resulted in fatalities, giving it a failure rate of 8.3%. If we include catastrophic failures that prevent the spacecraft from performing, then Apollo had 2 failures for a whopping 16.6% chance that your spacecraft would blow up. I have my criticisms about the space shuttle (mostly centered around efficiency and cost) but to claim it was the MOST unsafe vehicle???? Common dude.
There's not much to say about it, it's never going to be used and is just a never ending waste of money because it's already outdated and still will never be finished or go to space.
How about instead of sending smart people to other planets. We send all the dumb ones? That would probably save the human race just as well. A well worth trillion dollar project. I.Q of 80 or less at 18....YOU GOING TO SPACE BUDDAY.
THIS IS A FANTASTIC SERIES OF CHANNELS MATE. EVERY TOPIC AMAZINGLY RESEARCHED AND DELIVERED WITH JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF ENGLISH POMP 😀😊😀😊 WELL DONE MATE.
I have been fascinated by this behemoth ever since I saw a picture as a kid, so when I heard it was coming to Perth I had to be there. For me it was a bucket list item I could check off, to see this beast of the sky coming into land ( 2 hours late) was breathtaking a moment I will remember forever.
The twin tail wasn’t for balance. The Buran shielded the normal single tail, forcing them to create a twin-tail, to allow the aircraft to be controlled. The Hercules was never certified, nor did it enter production. It is a prototype, only.
So why doesn’t the 747 used as a shuttle carrier have this problem? The 747 carrier does have stabilizers added to the tail, but they are not control surfaces. I suspect the main reason for the twin tail was to bring the center of pressure aft to increase stability, kind of like the ventral strake modifications done to airplanes that are put on floats.
slippymitch thanks for your message. Part of the benefit of the B747 is that it is longer, and there is better airflow over the vertical stabilizer, which is taller and larger than on the Antonio. The issue isn’t turning, as the ailerons can be used for turns. The bigger issue is longitudinal stability, and the disruption of airflow caused by putting the shuttle(s) on either the Antonio or Boeing.
This is a delusion. Antonov had no control problems, and the stabilizers, like the plane itself, are no longer than the AN225 The AN225 has a forked tail only so that this aircraft could be used as a launching pad for this very purpose it was created. That's just not for the Buran shuttle, but for the Lightning shuttle testpilot.ru/russia/molniya/maks/images/maks03.jpg This was not done for this reason, but in order to launch the Lightning Shuttle from the AN225, it was created for the MAKS system
@@jdinnis This is not a prototype, but a full-fledged aircraft. that's why you talk nonsense. The prototype is an intermediate stage of the project, as for the An225, this is a full-fledged completed project that was supposed to be mass-produced, but after the collapse of the USSR, everything was naturally abandoned. Therefore, one aircraft was built and the second was at the stage of 70 percent of construction
I was in Perth at the time the 225 arrived. It flew overhead at low altitude and what a sight to behold and the sound rumble of 6 engines. It will remain with me forever. Great plane.
Please do a multi-installment on the Convair B-36. It's wingspan is about 14 meters wider than the B-52, was also designed to be a cargo plane (re: XC-99), and Pan American Airlines was also looking at this as their post-war 747, so to speak. LOTS of material for two episodes, I believe.
The reason for the twin tail design was because the shuttle disrupts air flow for a single rudder. They had to get the steering surface outside of the shuttles wake hence putting two of them on the tips of the stabilizers.
Hey Simon. How about a video on the Aerecibo radio telescope? That rates as a megaproject I suppose. And that's a yes from me for the Buran space shuttle.
i said it before, ill say it again! *"the Modern shipping Container"* would make for a true #Megaprojects video! Containerships,Harbours and the gigantic change in world trade that these metal boxes created is truly marvelous! maybe im bias living in Hamburg, but always amazes me!
It also amazes me how much cargo is moved on the standard europallet, but how they and the standard shipping container aren't harmonized with each other. Imagine being able to go back in time and making that correction!
@@Codraroll Europallets are, to my knowledge, not used for international transport, because of the danger of transferring stuff to other coninents you dont want to transfer, like anvasive insects i guess. Thats why the INKA pallet exists.
It was interesting in a nerdish way that when I shipped some goods from the UK to Asia they gave me a tracking code for the ship and the container[1]. All those millions of containers leaving ports, transferred from ship to ship and someone somewhere knows where they are and where all things being equal they'll be in the future. [1] Southampton - Alexandria - Singapore (change ships) - Klang for the container and Hong Kong for the ship
It would be great if you do a video about Buran and Energia rocket that carried it. Buran was the plane plane, that destroyed weak Soviet economy, but at the same time, was the most technologically advanced plane at the time. It had autopilot, that landed it (26 years before Falcon 9), ejection seats for all 7-8 crew members and, modified, it could be, not a glider, but an actual plane, with 4 jet engines from a MiG fighter. And Energia was 3rd most powerful rocket ever and it’s boosters could be reused, like Falcon’s.
Soviet economy was destroyed by 32 yesrs of stupid management as a preparation to mr. Gorbatchev's government which applied all effort to finish USSR destroy
Buran has nothing with the Soviet economy Soviets rightfully calculated that Buran - Space shuttle is a dead end and stopped it. US needed a much harder lection to do the same thing.
Some people argue that the little incident on the 26th of April, 1986, in Ukraine near the Belarusian border, was the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet economy. As for the Space Shuttle, I remember seeing the launch live on Dutch TV. (The Americans were so considerate to launch it at around midday on a Sunday, so that 11 year old boys in Europe could watch it.) That was all cool and such, but the landing was pretty mundane, just like any other aeroplane landing. It was no comparison to the moment when SpaceX's two rockets landed simultaneously, on their tails, just like it was imagined in the 1950s. That was just magical. And yes, that's how reusable spacecraft should look like. It unfortunately took 14 lives to get that message across.
Mighty plan. I was on the plane when they were in Sweden for the second time. Interesting when you have to climb a ladder to get into the plane from the cargo area.
I hope you realize what deep scars you've opened up again. Until reading your comment I've been able to successfully suppress all memories of that movie ;)
Several years ago I was in a Cessna 172 and flew over this plane when it was parked on the ramp at SWF, Stewart Airport in Newburgh, NY. It was incredible. SWF is a combined airport and Air National Guard base, so there are a number of C5s based there. I never thought I’d see a plane that made a C5 look small, but this one did.
Simon: If you'd like to see an episode on.. Comments: Yes Simon: Wait, I haven't told you what it... Comments:Yes!! Brilliant as always, I love this channel :)
I find myself thinking that an 225 quite beautiful as aircraft not sexy beautiful like fighter planes but majestic with lines hardly imaginary on planes build Soviet Union times. We Lucky she haves better fate than buran.
An-225 is one of my fav planes. When you stand in it's cargo bay you really get an idea of the massive scale. It's big. Really big. Videos can't do it justice. Like big enough to play football in. Basketball. Golf! Probably kart racing too! It's really big.
Hi Simon, Thanks for this interesting video!👍👍 However, there a 2 little things incorrect: 1: It is still the largest aircraft in the world. The 'space plain' is considered NOT a real aircraft, so the Antonov An-225 stays on top. 2: The cargo hold is not 43 meters in legth, but 46 meters. That's all.
Simon, this is marvelous. I have known about the 225 for a few years and check You Tube from time to time. This piece tells the whole story ...up to now. Many thanks !
Fairey Rotordyne! Look it up, its a large british build tip-jet powered aircraft/helicopter with a interesting history. Would love to see a mega projects on that one... Keep up the good work!
The timing of this video was perfect. Basically 2 weeks after you posted this I got the chance to see the 225 land and take-off again earlier today at Prestwick Airport. Its an absolutely incredible piece of engineering and to see it so close is just insane. What a beauty!!
In 1991 I was able to go aboard the AN-225 while waited for supplies to be loaded in Hartford, CT Bradley Field (KBDL). I was able to get into the cockpit and talk with the flight crew. It was very interesting talking with them. I also talked with the loadmaster through an interpreter, however as I left no interpreter was needed when I said, "Thanks for the tour". And he replied with a thank you. it was a truly awesome opportunity to get inside that massive aircraft.
I happen to think she's rather lovely to look upon. Big, strong powerful, and rather graceful on the ground and in the air. And I understand not any more difficult to fly than any of the other larger aircraft there.
Got to see it once land in Omaha to pick up a locomotive from Union Pacific. I have seen large planes having been to Offutt Airforce base many times as a kid but nothing at all prepared me for how huge the an225 is and I only got as close as about 25feet.
Interesting trivia: When the design was final the engineers were asked if the 225 could be used in the same manner as the 124 was, as general cargo plane. The requirement for landing and takeoff could not be met though. This was because of the lack in engine performance, so a new model was proposed, the 235. It had 8 engines, dual engine pods inboard and came with the rear cargo door which was missing from the 225. As time went on the military version was shelved however because the added complexity and somewhat fragile nature was seen as just not suitable. The 124 was already only just meeting the field requirements, the 235 would not have been able to unless the military moved from the design spec. The rumor was the second airframe of the 225 was actually supposed to be the 235 testbed, but this is not true as the fuselage is the same and the 235 was supposed to be wider to accommodate landing boats just over 1.2 meters wider than the 225.
I’d like you to make a full video about the North American Aviation XB-70 “Valkyrie”, the Blackbird family competitor and another aeronautical marvel of the past decades. Amazing videos and amazing channel, keep up the good work. Greetings from México!!
I know some people don't consider aircraft megaprojects, but I honestly wouldn't mind if you had a channel or series dedicated to aviation. There are so many awesome stories.
