An-124 Strategic Transport: News

The problem is politics... Antonov will likely demand the repair job... wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them...

If there's a facility in Novosibirsk to repair & return it to flight status, I doubt Antonov will be invited there- an Aviastar team can do it. But if it's too costly, they'll cut it up for parts & scrap the rest after its cargo is offloaded & flown to original destination by another An-124.

GarryB wrote:

It can be repaired and returned to service.

There was a video I saw a thumbnail for on Youtube and it showed this aircraft from the front and it looks like the holes go right through and out the other side of the aircraft...

If you watch this video:



You can see it landed at a normal speed... it was not a heavy landing.... it just over ran the airstrip by 25m or so... but looking at the aircraft at 5:13 in the video above and 5:19 there is damage on both sides of the aircraft near the wing roots... if it was created by the engine bits then they went right through the fuselage... this is more than just one screwed engine and some surface damage...

As also mentioned... this is not really an issue for the Russian Air Force...

I still need to watch the full video (the second one) but he said a big bullshit.  He said that all failures must be contained.. that is only valid for blades and similar parts (that in case of failure must not go outside the engine).

It is not practically feasible to contain a disc failure. The kind of energy that a spinning disc has is way too big.

Well, you could probably put a few tons of concrete around each engine and that might do the work, but probably is not a really practical solution.

The discs are designed and tested so that the probability of failure must be extremely remote, that means a probability of 10 ^(-9) per engine flight hour, since it is considered a catastrophic failure.

And, as I wrote in the previous post, the discs must be retired from service before fatigue or other effects weaken the disc so that the risk of failure becomes unacceptable.

In an old engine there may be parts that have never been replaced and that are not performing as they did when new, but those are not parts that, in case of failure, could cause a catastrophic effect.


If you are interested you can read the EASA CS-E (or the FAA part 33, that is the equivalent document in the US) where the certification rules are specified. In particular,  I suggest you to check CS-E Chapter 510 (safety analysis), CS-E 515 (critical parts (e.g discs and shafts)) and CS-E 840 (rotor integrity). You can download them for free from the EASA and FAA websites. They are composed by two parts: book 1 described the rules for each "chapter", while book 2 is the AMC, acceptable means of compliance.

Note: since the D18T engine was designed before many of these tightened rules were introduced, I do not know if they are applied retroactively or not.

Note: since the D18T engine was designed before many of these tightened rules were introduced, I do not know if they are applied retroactively or not.

All the more reason for new engines I think...

GarryB wrote:

Note: since the D18T engine was designed before many of these tightened rules were introduced, I do not know if they are applied retroactively or not.

All the more reason for new engines I think...

Imagine Slon with 4 PD-50 engines, with a combined 200 tons of thrust? Or a special built (and very limited) 6 PD-50's, with a combined 300 tons of thrust! I know if they managed to get the PD-50 up and running there'd be less of a need for 6 engines, but I would like to see a 1-off build for experimental testing, and to totally take a massive shit on the Ukrainian Banderastan circle-jerk around the 'Soviet' made An-225. I mean for people who whine about the USSR as much as these primordial scum do, they love to take credit for achievements for things they weren't responsible for.

At some stage the fuel storage becomes an issue. So putting powerful engines requires bigger wing tanks, etc. I know that
the PD-50 is likely to be fuel efficient. But there ain't no free lunch.

I don't see need for any plane bigger than the Slon, that is already massive 180 t load and it actually cannot be bigger and fit airports, it would be a monster that can only operate in some places.

The loads that are really big in size like those of the space industry or maybe parts for the CR-929 could be handled better by a different specialised plane like the proposed Il-96 with oversized fuselage.

LMFS wrote:I don't see need for any plane bigger than the Slon, that is already massive 180 t load and it actually cannot be bigger and fit airports, it would be a monster that can only operate in some places.

The loads that are really big in size like those of the space industry or maybe parts for the CR-929 could be handled better by a different specialised plane like the proposed Il-96 with oversized fuselage.

Checking the preliminary data available in internet for the slon and comparing to those existing for the An-124 and An-225  we can see that the Slon should have almost the same size as the An225. Comparing also the declared desired range with the range of the An225 we can see that they are almost equivalent with the same payload. That means that probably also the Slon will be able to carry more than 200 tons with reduced range.

Maybe they could do later an even bigger version of the Slon, as engines more powerful than the PD35 will be available, just to show that it is the largest cargo plane ever (even if it is a bit of dick measuring contest... )

An 124

Length: 69.1 m (226 ft 8 in)

Wingspan: 73.3 m (240 ft 6 in)
Cargo hold 36 m (lenght)×6.4m (width)×4.4 m (height)( 118×21×14 ft), ca.

Range: 3,700 km (2,300 mi, 2,000 nmi) with max payload

8,400 km (5,200 mi; 4,500 nmi) with 80,000 kg (176,370 lb) payload11,500 km (7,100 mi; 6,200 nmi) with 40,000 kg (88,185 lb) payload
Ferry range: 14,000 km (8,700 mi, 7,600 nmi) with max fuel and minimum payload

An-225

Length: 84 m (275 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 88.4 m (290 ft 0 in)

Cargo hold: volume 1,300 m3 (46,000 cu ft), 43.35 m (142.2 ft) long × 6.4 m (21 ft) wide × 4.4 m (14 ft) tall

Range: 15,400 km (9,600 mi, 8,300 nmi) with maximum fuel; range with 200 tonnes payload: 4,000 km (2,500 mi



Preliminary data for the Slon

length 82.3 meters
wingspan between 87 and 88  meters

The range is estimated at 7,000 km with 150 tons or almost 5,000 km with 180 tons of cargo.

Cargo hold width should be the same as An-124 and An225 (6.4 m)

Well the PD-35 mounted on the Slon already gives it as much power as the An-225, so an H tailed version of the Slon could easily perform the duties the An-225 was designed for.

But keep in mind that the Soviet Shuttle Buran was less than 150 tons loaded up ready for space, the 250 tons capacity of the An-225 was not really practically necessary.

The VM-T transport developed out of the old M3 bomber has a payload capacity of 15 tons... which was what they had before the An-225.

I rather suspect the PD-50s, if they are ever built, will be used for airliners in designs that only require one or two engines... imagine two PD-50s internally mounted in a super thick fuselage for a PAK DA flying wing...

GarryB wrote:Well the PD-35 mounted on the Slon already gives it as much power as the An-225, so an H tailed version of the Slon could easily perform the duties the An-225 was designed for.

But keep in mind that the Soviet Shuttle Buran was less than 150 tons loaded up ready for space, the 250 tons capacity of the An-225 was not really practically necessary.

The VM-T transport developed out of the old M3 bomber has a payload capacity of 15 tons... which was what they had before the An-225.

I rather suspect the PD-50s, if they are ever built, will be used for airliners in designs that only require one or two engines... imagine two PD-50s internally mounted in a super thick fuselage for a PAK DA flying wing...

By the way, are there any news on the possible il-96-500T (the proposed Russian equivalent to the Airbus Beluga)?

I was not able to find any article about it written in 2020, and in one of last year article it was written that it may not be realized because it was only pushed by the previous Ilyushin management.

I still believe that it was a very good idea,  anyway. It can be done, it will remove some loads from An124s, and it will allow to transport objects too bulky (but not heavy) for an An-124

A source close to UAC told Russian Aviation Insider that the IL-96-500T project was developed in the period when Ilyushin was run by Alexey Rogozin, the son of Dmitry Rogozin, head of Roscosmos, and that the current management of the company believes the project has no future.

Ilyushin has refused to comment.

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/ilyushin-reveals-il-96-500t-wide-body-freighter-project/

https://www.arms-expo.ru/news/novye-razrabotki/o-perspektivakh-zameny-an-124-ruslan-naskolko-realen-proekt-il-96-500t-/

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Checking the preliminary data available in internet for the slon and comparing to those existing for the An-124 and An-225  we can see that the Slon should have almost the same size as the An225. Comparing also the declared desired range with the range of the An225 we can see that they are almost equivalent with the same payload. That means that probably also the Slon will be able to carry more than 200 tons with reduced range.

Exactly, in fact the much better aero quality would allow the Slon to soundly beat the An-225 in payload x range terms:

Maybe they could do later an even bigger version of the Slon, as engines more powerful than the PD35 will be available, just to show that it is the largest cargo plane ever (even if it is a bit of dick measuring contest... )

Would only serve that purpose actually, since decades the biggest plane the airlifting industry has needed is the An-124, there is just one An-225 and it is basically a curiosity.

In terms o strategic transport and civilian markets, I think the dimensioning of the Slon is practically perfect and the plane is as big as it can practically be. It beats the 747 while having a cargo hold valid for much heavier and voluminous loads, clearly beats the An-124 and only remains a bit below the -225 in max payload but not in hold dimensions, which is normally a bigger limitation.

By the way, are there any news on the possible il-96-500T (the proposed Russian equivalent to the Airbus Beluga)?

The last ones are recent enough I think, it takes a time to decide whether such a project goes forward. It makes sense and would beat similar planes by a fair margin, plus given the size of Russia and their cooperation with China for the CR-929 it would be a very useful tool. I would wait for the PD-35 nevertheless and develop it together with the twin engined version of the plane instead of doing it right now.

LMFS wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Checking the preliminary data available in internet for the slon and comparing to those existing for the An-124 and An-225  we can see that the Slon should have almost the same size as the An225. Comparing also the declared desired range with the range of the An225 we can see that they are almost equivalent with the same payload. That means that probably also the Slon will be able to carry more than 200 tons with reduced range.

Exactly, in fact the much better aero quality would allow the Slon to soundly beat the An-225 in payload x range terms:

Maybe they could do later an even bigger version of the Slon, as engines more powerful than the PD35 will be available, just to show that it is the largest cargo plane ever (even if it is a bit of dick measuring contest... )

Would only serve that purpose actually, since decades the biggest plane the airlifting industry has needed is the An-124, there is just one An-225 and it is basically a curiosity.

In terms o strategic transport and civilian markets, I think the dimensioning of the Slon is practically perfect and the plane is as big as it can practically be. It beats the 747 while having a cargo hold valid for much heavier and voluminous loads, clearly beats the An-124 and only remains a bit below the -225 in max payload but not in hold dimensions, which is normally a bigger limitation.

By the way, are there any news on the possible il-96-500T (the proposed Russian equivalent to the Airbus Beluga)?

The last ones are recent enough I think, it takes a time to decide whether such a project goes forward. It makes sense and would beat similar planes by a fair margin, plus given the size of Russia and their cooperation with China for the CR-929 it would be a very useful tool. I would wait for the PD-35 nevertheless and develop it together with the twin engined version of the plane instead of doing it right now.

Well, if they want to move the wings to China, that could be be useful (the distance between Voronezh and Shanghai is about 6900km).

In that case they need the Il-96-500T before they start assemblying CR929 in Shanghai

As I was saying: The Il-96-500T can be seen as one of the alternatives to the aging An-124 Ruslan, which is currently impossible to modernize due to the tense relations with Ukraine.
https://www.arms-expo.ru/news/novye-razrabotki/o-perspektivakh-zameny-an-124-ruslan-naskolko-realen-proekt-il-96-500t-/

Tsavo Lion wrote:As I was saying: The Il-96-500T can be seen as one of the alternatives to the aging An-124 Ruslan, which is currently impossible to modernize due to the tense relations with Ukraine.
https://www.arms-expo.ru/news/novye-razrabotki/o-perspektivakh-zameny-an-124-ruslan-naskolko-realen-proekt-il-96-500t-/

Those are fundamentally different types of planes, from the Ruaviation link above::

The dimensions of the cargo hold will enable the transportation of unique one-piece loads, flying up to 80 tonnes of commercial freight over a range of 4,360 km. The market for such services is made up largely of aerospace, aviation and shipbuilding industries, as well as the oil and gas sector, Ilyushin believes.

Prior to designing the IL-96-500T, Ilyushin studied the experience of the Airbus A300-600ST Beluga and the Boeing 747-400LCF Dreamlifter aircraft, which are both used for carrying large airplane parts. “The international experience demonstrates that developing several units of specialised airlifts based on an existing low-wing airliner platform is the optimal solution for transporting heavy and super-heavy cargo for the aerospace industry and for other oversized cargo shipments,” the Ilyushin presentation reads.

It compares the would-be aircraft with the popular Antonov An-124 heavy lift, the production of which remains suspended even though its existing fleet is diminishing. “Despite its unrivalled weight capacity, the An-124, like other high-wing aircraft designed primarily for carrying heavy armour and equipment for the oil and energy sector, is not quite suited for transporting various stages of space rockets and other relatively light-weight but oversized cargo and rocket and space equipment,” it adds.

An Il-96 for carrying outsized loads on its back is a good idea and would be useful for Russia with its space programme.

Such loads are not normally actually very heavy but often large and bulky which requires external transport.

A version with four PD-35 engines would allow enormous fairings to be placed on the back of the aircraft to contain all manner of things to be transported at a time, though the tail surface would need to be extended beyond the turbulence area created by large loads on the back of the aircraft...

The aircraft they normally use is a variant of the 3M bomber which is a big aircraft but only has a payload capacity of about 15 tons...

aging An-124 Ruslan, which is currently impossible to modernize due to the tense relations with Ukraine.

The only issue they have with the An-124 is engines, they produce updated components for the rest of the aircraft... in fact the Russians are in a better position to make An-124s than the Ukraine is... the Ukraine might be able to make some parts of the engines... and that is about it.

W/o the new engines, the IL-76MD couldn't be fully modernized either. 
If they could "deeply modernize" the An-124, it would be undergoing it by now.
While the IL-96-500T can't be=to An-124 in all aspects, it can perform some of its & An-22 missions, relieving them both.

If they could "deeply modernize" the An-124, it would be undergoing it by now.

The An-124 has been modernised... the original aircraft could carry 120 tons and the current ones can carry 150 and with all modernised avionics...

There is no point in deeply modernising it further because they wont be making any more... they are planning to replace it as soon as they can.

While the IL-96-500T can't be=to An-124 in all aspects, it can perform some of its & An-22 missions, relieving them both.

In military terms the Il-96 is no replacement for either Antonov, though it would be useful it would be no replacement for Il-106 nor Slon... it would be something else.

Yeah, as far as the engines, as I wrote in the other thread, an high bypass turbofan should be derived by the NK32-02, and should have about the same thrust as the D-18T. When will it be available? No idea, but apparently year they should start nench tests of the Pak-Da engine, which could have many things in common with the engine for an An-124 replacement.

When could it be ready? If the news about the Pak-Da engine are true maybe the An-124 engine could be certified by 2023 - 2024.

They could even build an il106 according to the original size and payload, however, and that would be fine with 4 PS90A1 engines.

As far as the il-96 500T, it would be very useful for the Russian aerospace industry, both for moving wings and other parts from Ulyanovsk to Irkutsk, as an example (and also for moving them to Shangai later) and for rocket parts and satellites.

It is not, however, a replacement for the An-124, as many of the uses of a ln an-124 are impossible for it.

The only role in which a il96 (and in that case in the traditional form, not in the similar beluga shape) fits the military is that of refueling tanker, and this has nothing to do with the An-124 either.

https://112.ua/mnenie/ne-vse-speshat-snimat-ukrainskiy-samolet-s-ispolzovaniya-dazhe-posle-zhestkoy-avarii-560414.html

Removal of AN-124 incident plane, towed by 2 BMPs (looks like anyway) I guess a T-72 was not handy. (edit) actually they look like tank based recovery vehicles. Man talk about towing power!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_NI6Cg6sK0&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=Sergio

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dry-ice-the-russian-an-124-freighters-covid-vaccine-advantage

[quote="GarryB"]

There is no point in deeply modernising it further because they wont be making any more... they are planning to replace it as soon as they can.
.

With a good modernization An-124 can fly until 2050

after that the better option is make more upgraded An-124. If there are any matter, you can name Il-124

At the end, Ulyanovsk factory made 2/3 of all An-124

What is the problem with this ?? Ukraine ??

Fuck Ukraine

Antonov was a Soviet company, Russia has the same right than Ukraine ,in fact Oleg Antonov was from Moscow and the main thing is by 2050 The Ukraine will have disappeared

With a good modernization An-124 can fly until 2050

With modernisation they could keep using An-22s and An-12s too... the An-22 would actually be easiest because they still use those engines in significantly upgraded form on their Tu-95s... but they have not.

The plan is to retire Antonovs and replace them with Russian platforms.

after that the better option is make more upgraded An-124. If there are any matter, you can name Il-124

This is an opportunity to take what they have learned with a few decades operational experience with An-124s and design something better while they are waiting for new engines to be developed to replace the Ukrainian engines currently used.

At the end, Ulyanovsk factory made 2/3 of all An-124

Yup, they did and short of a replacement engine they could easily make new An-124s... but why bother when they could make something newer and better and 100% Russian.

What is the problem with this ?? Ukraine ??

Fuck Ukraine

It is actually the Ukraine trying to fuck Russia... and by keeping Antonovs in service Russia would be giving them all sorts of opportunities to do so...

As soon as replacements are ready they should put them into production and withdraw those Soviet aircraft as quickly as possible.

Antonov was a Soviet company, Russia has the same right than Ukraine ,in fact Oleg Antonov was from Moscow and the main thing is by 2050 The Ukraine will have disappeared

All very true, but by 2050 they will have all new transport aircraft and there will be no Antonovs left in Russia... except probably a few An-2s because they will likely last forever...