Which Russian Cargo plane is bigger

[B-17engineer]

Is it the Antonov- An 224 or 225? There both very big planes. I thought it was the An-224 until I read a book called cargo aircraft around the world. I saw the AN-225 and it looked equaly as big.

 

[ccheese]

The AN-225 is bigger. Wingspan is 290 feet, height is 85 feet,
length is 276 feet, and it has 24 wheels.

Charles

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well considering that there is no such thing as a An-224 the An 225 is bigger...

There was an An-124 which looks similar to a C-5 Galaxy and it is 226 ft long and has a wingspan of 240 ft. Its max take off weight is 893,000lb.

The An-225 is the largest plane in the world and is 275 ft long and has a wingspan of 290 ft. Its max take off weight is 1,322,733lb.

 

[Wayne Little]

Man, that is one big Mother!!

 

[B-17engineer]

Thank you Adler.

 

[machine shop tom]

Hard to believe, but Hugh's Spruce Goose had a larger wingspan at 319 feet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Giant_planes_comparison.svg

tom

 

[B-17engineer]

Wow thanks for posting Tom

 

[Henk]

Love the An-225. Did you guys see the pictures from the 1989 Paris airshow when the An-225 had the Buran Russian Space shuttle on it's back?

 

[B-17engineer]

I made an error I ment the Antonov AN-124...not 224. My mistake.

 

[solo]

An-225 with Space shuttle

 

[B-17engineer]

Wow!! Nice one solo

 

[Henk]

That was a great airshow when the Russians showed up with the An-225 and the Buran Space shuttle.

 

[comiso90]

Buran today:

Russian Space Shuttle Buran Transported to German Museum at Flightstory.net - Aviation Blog

Completely original design!

.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Buran has been at the museum now for a little over a month and you can actually walk inside of it and check it out. Its pretty neat, the first true space shuttle to be on display in a museum.

 

[Henk]

The original Buran was destroyed in a snow storm when the roof caved in in 2002. The one that is on the back of the An-225 was the only one to make it into space and was thus the one that was destroyed. The one that is in the museum is the test prototype to test the design.

 

[Matt308]

Hah... I remember seeing a show about that Buran. The host was walking around the periphery of the building on scaffolding and was very concerned about his life because the structural integrity of the building was in question. Rain and other elements had obviously been leaking into the building and the stairways were wobbling as they were walking. They were lamenting that the POS Buran was likely going to be destroyed if money was not found by the Russian gov't to properly fund its storage. I distinctly recall watching this and just shaking my head thinking about all the trillions of rubles that went into the reverse engineering of the US Shuttle only to have the POS Buran die an ugly death under a leaking tent.

Shame on the Russian gov't. Shame.

 

[Ramirezzz]

I distinctly recall watching this and just shaking my head thinking about all the trillions of rubles that went into the reverse engineering of the US Shuttle

It wasn't reverse engineered , it's actually completely different design. Ever heard about the laws of aerodynamics?

Hah... I remember seeing a show about that Buran. The host was walking around the periphery of the building on scaffolding and was very concerned about his life because the structural integrity of the building was in question. Rain and other elements had obviously been leaking into the building and the stairways were wobbling as they were walking. They were lamenting that the POS Buran was likely going to be destroyed if money was not found by the Russian gov't to properly fund its storage.
Shame on the Russian gov't. Shame.

I can only second that

 

[Henk]

Yes, the Buran is in certain ways better than the US space shuttle, but remember it was build a while after the US space shuttle.

The Russian gov gave the Buran to the Ukraine gov to pay for the rent of the facility.

 

[Matt308]

It wasn't reverse engineered , it's actually completely different design. Ever heard about the laws of aerodynamics?

Don't patronize me Ramirezzz. Like the Tu-4, (pic below) the Buran was a virtual copy of the US Rockwell Space Shuttle. I don't give a flipping rip about your 'laws of aerodynamics' suposedly forcing the brilliant Russian engineers into a common airframe. BS. The Buran vehicle is virtually the same size, same mission, same etc, out of sheer expediency and laziness of novel engineering development. Certainly the mission avionics were different for obvious reasons, however, likely if Russia had those too they would also have been copied. But what is most telling is the absolute empty engineering for such a huge endeavor. All those rubles and no improvement upon design, no change in mission profile, no discussion of payload capacity/volume??? Now contrast that with the Europeans and the Japanese and you can see some real innovation.

This is especially true for those that know that the US Shuttle and its mission was absolutely shaped by the Department of Defense, and not just NASA civil needs only. That drove the Shuttle design into such large proportions for the ability to loft NSA payloads. These same deliberations occurred with the Russian Buran? Really? Even given the differences in spy satellite mission profiles between our countries?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It sure as hell looked like a Space Shuttle. They had to copy something in there....

"The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. While the Soviet engineers favoured a smaller, lighter lifting body vehicle, the military leadership pushed for a direct, full scale copy of the double-delta wing Space Shuttle, in an effort to maintain the strategic parity between the superpowers."

Sorry Ramirezz but let be honest with hourselfs. The Russians had a habit of copying everything they got their hands on, just like China.

Lets just make some comparisons here:

C-47 Skytrain vs. Lisunov Li-2

Boeing B-29 vs. Tupolev Tu-4

Space Shuttle vs. Buran