5 ms·

How will this affect global supply chains? I heard it was essential to transport certain extra large goods to exotic locations.

by faebi 5y ago

sofixa 5y ago
Badly. Even more so because it's little brothers ( still enormous, second biggest cargo aircraft), the An-124s, and everything else by Antonov, will have to be grounded due to lack of spares.
- H8crilA 5y ago
  There are still the Boeing Dreamlifter and the Airbus Beluga.
  - btgeekboy 5y ago
    The AN-225 was in a category of its own. In fact, the Dreamlifter was modified to fit components for the 787, but it actually has a lower max takeoff weight (803k lbs) than the original 747 it came from (875k lbs). Meanwhile, the Beluga XL only has a max takeoff weight of 500k lbs. The AN-225 had a max takeoff weight of 1.4m lbs.
    - alliao 5y ago
      wow 747 doesn't mess around huh, just a naive lb/engine would bring 747 up to 1.3m lbs (4 on 747 and 6 on AN-225) very cool
    - rob74 5y ago
      Well yeah, both the Dreamlifter and the Beluga were designed to carry aircraft parts, which are large, but not particularly heavy. Also, they are modified versions of civilian cargo aircraft. Both the AN-124 and the AN-225 are (were) basically military transport aircraft with high wings and short landing gears to allow loading via ramps - so a different kind of beast...
      - p_l 5y ago
        Mriya also has internal crane to help in loading and unloading - a legacy of being designed for carrying all sorts of "project cargo" that isn't easy to palletize (it, and M4 bombers modified into VM-T, had to carry rocket parts that were too big to move by rail as Baikonur can't be supplied easily otherwise)
        masklinn 5y ago
        The crane is actually a hold-over from the 124. In fact the 124's is more capable: to save on weight, the 225 dropped the rear cargo doors. On the 124, the crane extends into the tail and over the rear doors, meaning it can crane loads in and out of the plane, so you can just reverse a truck behind the plane and load straight from the trailer (obviously flatbed or intermodal). The crane can lift 30 tonnes so it's pretty damn capable.
        p_l 5y ago
        Nice, forgot that bit. And IIRC, AN-124 can be abused into rough landing deliveries if necessary, just rarely seen because of rarity of the plane and costs.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    The Belugas and Beluga XLs are only used internally by Airbus. The biggest cargo aircraft Airbus sell are the A330 and A340 cargo versions.
    - chinathrow 5y ago
      This is not correct. The older Belugas entered chartered service recently. https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-setting-up-new-airline-to-offer-a300-600st-beluga-fleet-for-charter/147242.article https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-setting-up...
      - sofixa 5y ago
        Oh, didn't know that, thanks! That's a fairly recent development ( dated January of this year), and is only for the old Belugas, not the XLs, which will remain exclusive for Airbus. I don't see why they can't build a few more for charter.
        chinathrow 5y ago
        > I don't see why they can't build a few more for charter. I guess they could but then again, not sure how their customers feel when you enter their very own segment long term.
  - Arkanum 5y ago
    This is true, but according to the Flexport CEO [1][2], the An-225 and An-124 were vital parts of the global air freight network/system. And only 5 of them were outside Ukraine when the invasion started. [1] https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1498406751749611521 https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1498406751749611521 [2] https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1497656877731094528 https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1497656877731094528
  - masklinn 5y ago
    There really isn't. The Beluga has especially low (not to mention unpressurised) lifting capabilities, it can only lift about 45 tonnes. The XL can lift a bit more, but the main change was internal volume. The Dreamlifter is better (by quite a bit), but also way short. An other issue is because both were designed for ferrying airline parts between plants neither is autonomous: both need lifting gantries (especially the beluga but the dreamlifter isn't exactly ground-level), and the dreamlifter needs dedicated trucks to open and close its tail. Meanwhile the Antonovs are fully autonomous. Both the 124 and 225 were roll-on/roll-off (and able to "kneel" for easier access, not sure about the 225 but the 124 even packs extension ramps for even shallower angles), with a very capable internal crane. On the 124, the crane even extends out back so you can just drop containers there and let the loadmaster handle it. They even carry a bunch of spare parts and a maintenance team. In fact they even carry their own tow bar.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  Even more so because shipping via sea has faced so many challenges due to covid (and probably still is). For example, companies in Australia have used these gigantic planes to deliver items that would have been shipped by sea in normal times, but that was just taking far too long now. The costs are exorbitant in comparison, but if your business needs some gigantic item now there was no alternative.

How will this affect global supply chains? I heard it was essential to transport certain extra large goods to exotic locations.

by faebi 5y ago

How will this affect global supply chains? I heard it was essential to transport certain extra large goods to exotic locations.

sofixa 5y ago

Badly. Even more so because it's little brothers ( still enormous, second biggest cargo aircraft), the An-124s, and everything else by Antonov, will have to be grounded due to lack of spares.

H8crilA 5y ago
There are still the Boeing Dreamlifter and the Airbus Beluga.
- btgeekboy 5y ago
  The AN-225 was in a category of its own. In fact, the Dreamlifter was modified to fit components for the 787, but it actually has a lower max takeoff weight (803k lbs) than the original 747 it came from (875k lbs). Meanwhile, the Beluga XL only has a max takeoff weight of 500k lbs. The AN-225 had a max takeoff weight of 1.4m lbs.
  - alliao 5y ago
    wow 747 doesn't mess around huh, just a naive lb/engine would bring 747 up to 1.3m lbs (4 on 747 and 6 on AN-225) very cool
  - rob74 5y ago
    Well yeah, both the Dreamlifter and the Beluga were designed to carry aircraft parts, which are large, but not particularly heavy. Also, they are modified versions of civilian cargo aircraft. Both the AN-124 and the AN-225 are (were) basically military transport aircraft with high wings and short landing gears to allow loading via ramps - so a different kind of beast...
    - p_l 5y ago
      Mriya also has internal crane to help in loading and unloading - a legacy of being designed for carrying all sorts of "project cargo" that isn't easy to palletize (it, and M4 bombers modified into VM-T, had to carry rocket parts that were too big to move by rail as Baikonur can't be supplied easily otherwise)
      - masklinn 5y ago
        The crane is actually a hold-over from the 124. In fact the 124's is more capable: to save on weight, the 225 dropped the rear cargo doors. On the 124, the crane extends into the tail and over the rear doors, meaning it can crane loads in and out of the plane, so you can just reverse a truck behind the plane and load straight from the trailer (obviously flatbed or intermodal). The crane can lift 30 tonnes so it's pretty damn capable.
        p_l 5y ago
        Nice, forgot that bit. And IIRC, AN-124 can be abused into rough landing deliveries if necessary, just rarely seen because of rarity of the plane and costs.
- sofixa 5y ago
  The Belugas and Beluga XLs are only used internally by Airbus. The biggest cargo aircraft Airbus sell are the A330 and A340 cargo versions.
  - chinathrow 5y ago
    This is not correct. The older Belugas entered chartered service recently. https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-setting-up-new-airline-to-offer-a300-600st-beluga-fleet-for-charter/147242.article https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-setting-up...
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Oh, didn't know that, thanks! That's a fairly recent development ( dated January of this year), and is only for the old Belugas, not the XLs, which will remain exclusive for Airbus. I don't see why they can't build a few more for charter.
      - chinathrow 5y ago
        > I don't see why they can't build a few more for charter. I guess they could but then again, not sure how their customers feel when you enter their very own segment long term.
- Arkanum 5y ago
  This is true, but according to the Flexport CEO [1][2], the An-225 and An-124 were vital parts of the global air freight network/system. And only 5 of them were outside Ukraine when the invasion started. [1] https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1498406751749611521 https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1498406751749611521 [2] https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1497656877731094528 https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1497656877731094528
- masklinn 5y ago
  There really isn't. The Beluga has especially low (not to mention unpressurised) lifting capabilities, it can only lift about 45 tonnes. The XL can lift a bit more, but the main change was internal volume. The Dreamlifter is better (by quite a bit), but also way short. An other issue is because both were designed for ferrying airline parts between plants neither is autonomous: both need lifting gantries (especially the beluga but the dreamlifter isn't exactly ground-level), and the dreamlifter needs dedicated trucks to open and close its tail. Meanwhile the Antonovs are fully autonomous. Both the 124 and 225 were roll-on/roll-off (and able to "kneel" for easier access, not sure about the 225 but the 124 even packs extension ramps for even shallower angles), with a very capable internal crane. On the 124, the crane even extends out back so you can just drop containers there and let the loadmaster handle it. They even carry a bunch of spare parts and a maintenance team. In fact they even carry their own tow bar.
bigDinosaur 5y ago
Even more so because shipping via sea has faced so many challenges due to covid (and probably still is). For example, companies in Australia have used these gigantic planes to deliver items that would have been shipped by sea in normal times, but that was just taking far too long now. The costs are exorbitant in comparison, but if your business needs some gigantic item now there was no alternative.