Ukrainian An-124 vs. С-5А Galaxy. - Page 3

Jimmy · 05-02-2007, 13:10 PM

I wasnt actually referring to Russia, but yeah.

Akita · 06-03-2007, 17:56 PM

USAF bought the C-5 instead of the AN-124 because the AN-124 did not exist, and Antonov was the enemy. Design of the C-17 began in the 1980s, when Ilyushin were the enemies.
Of course it's political! Russians didn't buy Hercules or Galaxy btw. And, for the record, C-17 is a much larger, more capable aircraft than the Candid.

Garry · 06-05-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akita

USAF bought the C-5 instead of the AN-124 because the AN-124 did not exist, and Antonov was the enemy. Design of the C-17 began in the 1980s, when Ilyushin were the enemies.
Of course it's political! Russians didn't buy Hercules or Galaxy btw. And, for the record, C-17 is a much larger, more capable aircraft than the Candid.

Hi Akita, you are right that Candid and C-17 are in different weight class. C-17 role is fulfilled by An-22.
Antonov An-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I pointed that C-17 costs as two candids and one Ruslan..... and Ruslan is MUCH more than C-17

ZOOMAN · 06-05-2007, 13:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akita

USAF bought the C-5 instead of the AN-124 because the AN-124 did not exist, and Antonov was the enemy. Design of the C-17 began in the 1980s, when Ilyushin were the enemies.
Of course it's political! Russians didn't buy Hercules or Galaxy btw. And, for the record, C-17 is a much larger, more capable aircraft than the Candid.

If your saying the C-17 is more capable than the AN-22 you better take another look, 1. C-17 Globemaster III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 2. Antonov An-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sandman · 06-05-2007, 17:24 PM

I once saw a C-5 and An-124 parked next to eachother at Oshkosh about 15 or so years ago. Both were huge, and indistinguishable as to which was bigger, but obviously the Russian carries more.

I had a couple other observations as well; First of all, the Russian main wheels are all in a straight line, one bogie directly in back of the previous. The C-5 had a more staggered main wheel arrangement. The reason was that the C-5 could carry more load over a soft ground/snow. If you think about it, that straight line arrangement of the An-124 will dig a trench before that last set of wheels pass over the ground, whereas the C-5 would be making more tracks, but would float more weight over unstable surface.

The other observation was the cockpit. I actually got into the cockpit of the 124 after waiting a half hour in line. Employed as a pilot by a regional airline, and was transitioning from a Shorts SD-360 to an ATR, I was shocked as to how antique the russian avionics looked. God they didn't even have paint on the attitude indicator brihghter than grey. (as I remember) And the Radar looked like a single color, monochrome giant tv tube. Seriously, the SD-360 looked modern by comparison, and the ATR avionics looked spaceage. My impression is that you could not make avionics/electronics more bland looking than Russians do.

Jimmy · 06-05-2007, 18:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZOOMAN

If your saying the C-17 is more capable than the AN-22 you better take another look, 1. C-17 Globemaster III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 2. Antonov An-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you think "capabilty" means "raw lifting ability" you need to reassess what the C-17 was designed for.

The AN-22 has a SLIGHT advantage in GTOW, and a couple hundred km. The C-17 can do things that AN-22 simply cant, or at least do them better.

ZOOMAN · 06-06-2007, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

If you think "capabilty" means "raw lifting ability" you need to reassess what the C-17 was designed for.

The AN-22 has a SLIGHT advantage in GTOW, and a couple hundred km. The C-17 can do things that AN-22 simply cant, or at least do them better.

Post the things it can do that the AN-22 can't.

Garry · 06-06-2007, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

If you think "capabilty" means "raw lifting ability" you need to reassess what the C-17 was designed for.

The AN-22 has a SLIGHT advantage in GTOW, and a couple hundred km. The C-17 can do things that AN-22 simply cant, or at least do them better.

I can think of only one - cruise speed?.... there should be something much more for $200mln price tag.... probably 4 times the An-22 probable procurement cost (it is no longer produced)

the question was that Candid does not carry Abrams... and I just stated that this kind of role was reserved to ****, which can land and take off from unpaved strips (just like Candid), and it did in Afghanistan

ZOOMAN · 06-06-2007, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

I can think of only one - cruise speed?.... there should be something much more for $200mln price tag.... probably 4 times the An-22 probable procurement cost (it is no longer produced)

the question was that Candid does not carry Abrams... and I just stated that this kind of role was reserved to ****, which can land and take off from unpaved strips (just like Candid), and it did in Afghanistan

I don't want (PROBALY answers) I would like documented facts.

glyn · 06-06-2007, 04:26 AM

ZOOMAN you have yet to introduce yourself, and here you are with a growing number of posts.

The usual method of making yourself known is to complete the public profile and tell us about yourself in Introductions.

ZOOMAN · 06-06-2007, 04:56 AM

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa

ZOOMAN · 06-06-2007, 04:57 AM

Never Mind I Found The Place.

Garry · 06-06-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZOOMAN

I don't want (PROBALY answers) I would like documented facts.

I made this up using a comparison of IL-76, AN-124 with An-22.... Using information that An-124 new list price is $80mln I can estimate that resumed manufacturing price of An-22 would not exceed $50mln.....

If you don't like my estimate then you can lift that to $80mln - a list price for An-124... it is still more than twice below the C-17...

I mean my point holds - C-17 is WAY MORE EXPENSIVE

Sandman · 06-06-2007, 11:16 AM

I am not sure, but I have read how there are still An-124s still "on order" , which might imply that they are still being built. I think someone above mentioned that they were out of production. Anyone have more info?

omon · 06-06-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandman

that straight line arrangement of the An-124 will dig a trench before that last set of wheels pass over the ground,

it has never been the case, i,ve never seen it happend, and never heard either.

06-05-2007, 17:24 PM	#35 (permalink)
Sandman *Military Professional* Join Date: 07-05-05 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 218 Country:	I once saw a C-5 and An-124 parked next to eachother at Oshkosh about 15 or so years ago. Both were huge, and indistinguishable as to which was bigger, but obviously the Russian carries more. I had a couple other observations as well; First of all, the Russian main wheels are all in a straight line, one bogie directly in back of the previous. The C-5 had a more staggered main wheel arrangement. The reason was that the C-5 could carry more load over a soft ground/snow. If you think about it, that straight line arrangement of the An-124 will dig a trench before that last set of wheels pass over the ground, whereas the C-5 would be making more tracks, but would float more weight over unstable surface. The other observation was the cockpit. I actually got into the cockpit of the 124 after waiting a half hour in line. Employed as a pilot by a regional airline, and was transitioning from a Shorts SD-360 to an ATR, I was shocked as to how antique the russian avionics looked. God they didn't even have paint on the attitude indicator brihghter than grey. (as I remember) And the Radar looked like a single color, monochrome giant tv tube. Seriously, the SD-360 looked modern by comparison, and the ATR avionics looked spaceage. My impression is that you could not make avionics/electronics more bland looking than Russians do. Last edited by Sandman : 06-05-2007 at 17:31 PM.

06-06-2007, 04:26 AM	#40 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,545	ZOOMAN you have yet to introduce yourself, and here you are with a growing number of posts. The usual method of making yourself known is to complete the public profile and tell us about yourself in Introductions. __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-02-2007, 13:10 PM	#31 (permalink)
Jimmy *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 931 Country:	I wasnt actually referring to Russia, but yeah.

06-03-2007, 17:56 PM	#32 (permalink)
Akita Regular Join Date: 04-25-07 Posts: 34	USAF bought the C-5 instead of the AN-124 because the AN-124 did not exist, and Antonov was the enemy. Design of the C-17 began in the 1980s, when Ilyushin were the enemies. Of course it's political! Russians didn't buy Hercules or Galaxy btw. And, for the record, C-17 is a much larger, more capable aircraft than the Candid.

06-06-2007, 04:56 AM	#41 (permalink)
ZOOMAN Banished New Member Join Date: 06-04-07 Posts: 18	Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa

06-06-2007, 04:57 AM	#42 (permalink)
ZOOMAN Banished New Member Join Date: 06-04-07 Posts: 18	Never Mind I Found The Place.

06-06-2007, 11:16 AM	#44 (permalink)
Sandman *Military Professional* Join Date: 07-05-05 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 218 Country:	I am not sure, but I have read how there are still An-124s still "on order" , which might imply that they are still being built. I think someone above mentioned that they were out of production. Anyone have more info?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)