7 ms·

"3740 flying hours" ... Since built in 1988! "The lifespan of the airplane is 8000 flying hours, 2000 takeoff-landings or 25 calendar years." A 1980s 747 coul

"3740 flying hours" ... Since built in 1988! "The lifespan of the airplane is 8000 flying hours, 2000 takeoff-landings or 25 calendar years." A 1980s 747 could expect 100,000 hours or more. I'd be interested in learning what exactly is so different about this plane to create such a vast disparity in reliability. Was it built, like with the Tu-144, using massive single billets?

pinky1417 12y ago
I'm not sure about the technical reasons why the An-225's reliability would be so much shorter. It would make sense that a one-of-a-kind special purpose aircraft has a shorter intended lifespan than a high-production commercial airliner. This bird is so special purpose that, from what I understand, it's primary purpose was to transport the Soviet Union's Buran spacecraft (an attempted Soviet version of U.S. Space Shuttle). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29
- sandworm 12y ago
  For sure, but an order-of-magnitude disparity in lifespan remains huge. And the Buran was no "attempt". It was a working shuttle that flew to space and was in many ways superior to shuttle. It just didn't make economic sense, nor did shuttle imho. The Tu-144 "Concordski", THAT was a true attempted copy woefully lacking in many many areas.
  - handelaar 12y ago
    > "the Buran was no "attempt". It was a working shuttle that flew to space" Once. Does that even count as reusable?
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      Anything's reusable if you throw as much resources into maintaining it as you would have rebuilding it every time. The Soviets just realized how stupid an idea that was. We didn't.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        The Shuttle was a jobs program that has the side effect of going to space.
      - sandworm 12y ago
        They did keep it around for the two things only it and shuttle could do: bring things back from orbit and execute single orbit missions (ie the cross-range ability to return to base after a single orbit.)
    - iSnow 12y ago
      Well, the Buran flew once in 1988, after that the country of its origin developed cracks and was deemed unsalvageable. It was later scrapped.
      - anovikov 12y ago
        So did Buran itself. Its wing needed replacement after that flight. That's why it didn't flew with people in 1989 when it was still politically/economically possible. Then, it was too late.
    - ommunist 12y ago
      More than once my friend. And if thing works - why should you care. Buran was a very top tech, superior to US shuttles in so many ways (capable of fully unmanned two-way trip for starters). The whole "Energia" complex is still unmatched by any spacecraft system in the world. The loss of this tech is unrecoverable though.
      - lambdadmitry 12y ago
        >capable of fully unmanned two-way trip for starters Nope. Technology and precision required for fully-automatic landing of such aircraft becomes available only now. That particular landing was remote-controlled by a closely following plane.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    > It was a working shuttle that flew to space and was in many ways superior to shuttle. It was designed to be a manned spacecraft that never put a man in space, by any reasonable logic it was a failed attempt. > It just didn't make economic sense And exactly what part of the space race made economic sense? The Apollo program alone was something like $150b fixed for inflation. The Buran looks like more central planning failures from an incompetent regime on its way out. Please stop making excuses for Soviet leadership. They clearly dropped the ball after a few early successes in the space race. By the 70s the Soviet program was in tatters and a joke and by the 80s the Shuttle did incredible things that the capsule based approach simple couldn't do (repairing hubble, etc). Obviously, the cost estimates of the shuttle were lower than real cost, but I can't think of any major project where that wasn't true. Now that we are motivated to do more than LEO, the Shuttle was retired for a capsule based approach that is a private and public partnership between NASA and companies like SpaceX who are showing us how cheap rockets can be. Its unfair to compare failed test projects, which were also fairly uninspired copies, like the Buran and the N1 to workhorses like the Saturn V and the Shuttle. The Russiophilia around here is pretty high and unfairly so. The Russians deserve credit for their early successes but they were not able to keep them up and oddball projects like mounting 50 cal guns on space stations or launching (and failing thankfully) space based weapons platforms (Polyus) should lead to their criticism, as well as their uninspired 70s and 80s failures and pathetic attempts at cloning western successes like the Concorde or the Shuttle. I'd rather live in a world where the Shuttle, Apollo missions, robotic missions, and Hubble were real and did amazing things, as opposed to being told by some single-party government stooge that its "too expensive" and cancelled. Thankfully I do live in that world and we have the space science and achievements to prove it. What a wonderful program NASA has been. Its a shame it gets hand wringing and criticism from geeks while the largely dysfunctional later-day Soviet program gets all accolades and excuses.
    - rdtsc 12y ago
      > It was designed to be a manned spacecraft that never put a man in space, by any reasonable logic it was a failed attempt. It was 1st and foremost designed to compete with the shuttle politically. It was a "we could do it too" project. And at that time it did some things even better -- it accomplished the first space shuttle fully automated landing. > by any reasonable logic it was a failed attempt. What does that say about the Shuttle program then? Even a backward bureaucratic and crusty old Soviet system realized it did not make sense to develop it further. It was too wasteful. Yet NASA continued on for years sinking billions into it finally to scrap it. > By the 70s the Soviet program was in tatters and a joke and by the 80s the Shuttle did incredible things that the capsule based approach simple couldn't do (repairing hubble, etc). But it also killed 2 full shuttle crews and eventually got scrapped. Yet guess what is still flying humans into Space? Yap, the crusty old 70's Soviet machines. How's that for irony. > The Russiophilia around here is pretty high and unfairly so I see so, you do have an agenda. Who said it was Russiophillia. I didn't hear anyone praising the Soviet government. I read about awesome large cargo planes and space shuttles with automated landing system. You don't agree with some point and all of the sudden it is because the other side has some "-phillia" > 70s and 80s failures and pathetic attempts at cloning western successes like the Concorde or the Shuttle. Wait, you do know this is 2015, right? If this was 1999, you could still be calling both of those projects successes. You do know they both got scrapped... > I'd rather live in a world where the Shuttle, Apollo missions, robotic missions, and Hubble were real and did amazing things, So you are living in a fantasy world. Because except the Hubble, all those programs have ended and you are living in the world where space technology built by "single party stoogies" is taking humans in into space. > Its a shame it gets hand wringing and criticism from geeks while the largely dysfunctional later-day Soviet program gets all accolades and excuses. Because they are living in the real world and you are living in a fantasy world powered by retro futuristic dreams.
- Wistar 12y ago
  The 747 is an exceptional example of engineering for durability in a large airframe. Other U.S. made large-airframe aircraft have not fared so well, in particular the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy whose wing-spar weakness was so profound that the entire fleet was re-winged shortly after going into service but still enjoys a dismal distinction as having the highest operating cost of any US Air Force weapon system. And then there's the F22 whose MTBF is, on average, less than 60 minutes.
  - sandworm 12y ago
    Higher than the B-2? (3million+ per aircraft/month according to some). Maybe the C-5 has highest not-classified operating costs. For perspective, the Canadian Sea King helos are rumored to take 50+ man-hours for every hour in the air, comparable to the C-5 but on a much much smaller airframe.
    - Wistar 12y ago
      I am certain the B2 is horrifyingly expensive. I found a 2014 article in Defense Industry Daily entitled Saving the Galaxy: The C-5 AMP/RERP Program: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/saving-the-galaxy-the-c-5-amprerp-program-03938/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/saving-the-galaxy-the-c-... "When it was introduced, back in 1970, the C-5 Galaxy was the largest plane in the world. It also has the highest operating cost of any US Air Force weapon system, owing to extremely high maintenance demands as well as poor fuel economy. Worse, availability rates routinely hover near 50%." As for the Sea King, I have often read of maintenance ratios of 30 man hours maintenance per hour of flight but 50 is not surprising, either. By comparison, the fantastic (Hughes) MD-500E has a ~.42 man-hours/flight-hours ratio for the airframe, excluding the engine, and that's a very well sorted ship that's far simpler than the Sikorsky.
  - m_mueller 12y ago
    mean time between failures < 60 minutes? If that's true, how can it be used for anything?
    - sandworm 12y ago
- JBiserkov 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antonov_An-225_with_Buran_at_Le_Bourget_1989_Manteufel.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antonov_An-225_with_Buran_...
zaroth 12y ago
Probably because we'd hit peak oil if you flew it any longer than that ;-)
frik 12y ago
An interesting comparison of giant planes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.sv...
iSnow 12y ago
Most likely since it is a custom build, it would not have the same amount of testing (a lot of bend-tests are done to wings and I believe whole aircraft on commercial airliners) and probably a lot less simulation and engineering. Since it was designed as a shuttle transporter, they probably designed for 2000 landings and never cared about really defining safety margins beyond that. After all, 2K seems plenty for even an ambitious shuttle program. Probably in reality it would be fit for 50.000 flight hours, but no one knows how much, so they implemented huge safety margins - since the USSR was not a market economy, no one really cared about price in such a high-profile project. And: the Antonow has a max take-off weight of 640 tonnes, the 747-400F of 400t, that would put a lot more strain on materials.

pinky1417 12y ago

I'm not sure about the technical reasons why the An-225's reliability would be so much shorter. It would make sense that a one-of-a-kind special purpose aircraft has a shorter intended lifespan than a high-production commercial airliner. This bird is so special purpose that, from what I understand, it's primary purpose was to transport the Soviet Union's Buran spacecraft (an attempted Soviet version of U.S. Space Shuttle). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29

sandworm 12y ago
For sure, but an order-of-magnitude disparity in lifespan remains huge. And the Buran was no "attempt". It was a working shuttle that flew to space and was in many ways superior to shuttle. It just didn't make economic sense, nor did shuttle imho. The Tu-144 "Concordski", THAT was a true attempted copy woefully lacking in many many areas.
- handelaar 12y ago
  > "the Buran was no "attempt". It was a working shuttle that flew to space" Once. Does that even count as reusable?
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    Anything's reusable if you throw as much resources into maintaining it as you would have rebuilding it every time. The Soviets just realized how stupid an idea that was. We didn't.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      The Shuttle was a jobs program that has the side effect of going to space.
    - sandworm 12y ago
      They did keep it around for the two things only it and shuttle could do: bring things back from orbit and execute single orbit missions (ie the cross-range ability to return to base after a single orbit.)
  - iSnow 12y ago
    Well, the Buran flew once in 1988, after that the country of its origin developed cracks and was deemed unsalvageable. It was later scrapped.
    - anovikov 12y ago
      So did Buran itself. Its wing needed replacement after that flight. That's why it didn't flew with people in 1989 when it was still politically/economically possible. Then, it was too late.
  - ommunist 12y ago
    More than once my friend. And if thing works - why should you care. Buran was a very top tech, superior to US shuttles in so many ways (capable of fully unmanned two-way trip for starters). The whole "Energia" complex is still unmatched by any spacecraft system in the world. The loss of this tech is unrecoverable though.
    - lambdadmitry 12y ago
      >capable of fully unmanned two-way trip for starters Nope. Technology and precision required for fully-automatic landing of such aircraft becomes available only now. That particular landing was remote-controlled by a closely following plane.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  > It was a working shuttle that flew to space and was in many ways superior to shuttle. It was designed to be a manned spacecraft that never put a man in space, by any reasonable logic it was a failed attempt. > It just didn't make economic sense And exactly what part of the space race made economic sense? The Apollo program alone was something like $150b fixed for inflation. The Buran looks like more central planning failures from an incompetent regime on its way out. Please stop making excuses for Soviet leadership. They clearly dropped the ball after a few early successes in the space race. By the 70s the Soviet program was in tatters and a joke and by the 80s the Shuttle did incredible things that the capsule based approach simple couldn't do (repairing hubble, etc). Obviously, the cost estimates of the shuttle were lower than real cost, but I can't think of any major project where that wasn't true. Now that we are motivated to do more than LEO, the Shuttle was retired for a capsule based approach that is a private and public partnership between NASA and companies like SpaceX who are showing us how cheap rockets can be. Its unfair to compare failed test projects, which were also fairly uninspired copies, like the Buran and the N1 to workhorses like the Saturn V and the Shuttle. The Russiophilia around here is pretty high and unfairly so. The Russians deserve credit for their early successes but they were not able to keep them up and oddball projects like mounting 50 cal guns on space stations or launching (and failing thankfully) space based weapons platforms (Polyus) should lead to their criticism, as well as their uninspired 70s and 80s failures and pathetic attempts at cloning western successes like the Concorde or the Shuttle. I'd rather live in a world where the Shuttle, Apollo missions, robotic missions, and Hubble were real and did amazing things, as opposed to being told by some single-party government stooge that its "too expensive" and cancelled. Thankfully I do live in that world and we have the space science and achievements to prove it. What a wonderful program NASA has been. Its a shame it gets hand wringing and criticism from geeks while the largely dysfunctional later-day Soviet program gets all accolades and excuses.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    > It was designed to be a manned spacecraft that never put a man in space, by any reasonable logic it was a failed attempt. It was 1st and foremost designed to compete with the shuttle politically. It was a "we could do it too" project. And at that time it did some things even better -- it accomplished the first space shuttle fully automated landing. > by any reasonable logic it was a failed attempt. What does that say about the Shuttle program then? Even a backward bureaucratic and crusty old Soviet system realized it did not make sense to develop it further. It was too wasteful. Yet NASA continued on for years sinking billions into it finally to scrap it. > By the 70s the Soviet program was in tatters and a joke and by the 80s the Shuttle did incredible things that the capsule based approach simple couldn't do (repairing hubble, etc). But it also killed 2 full shuttle crews and eventually got scrapped. Yet guess what is still flying humans into Space? Yap, the crusty old 70's Soviet machines. How's that for irony. > The Russiophilia around here is pretty high and unfairly so I see so, you do have an agenda. Who said it was Russiophillia. I didn't hear anyone praising the Soviet government. I read about awesome large cargo planes and space shuttles with automated landing system. You don't agree with some point and all of the sudden it is because the other side has some "-phillia" > 70s and 80s failures and pathetic attempts at cloning western successes like the Concorde or the Shuttle. Wait, you do know this is 2015, right? If this was 1999, you could still be calling both of those projects successes. You do know they both got scrapped... > I'd rather live in a world where the Shuttle, Apollo missions, robotic missions, and Hubble were real and did amazing things, So you are living in a fantasy world. Because except the Hubble, all those programs have ended and you are living in the world where space technology built by "single party stoogies" is taking humans in into space. > Its a shame it gets hand wringing and criticism from geeks while the largely dysfunctional later-day Soviet program gets all accolades and excuses. Because they are living in the real world and you are living in a fantasy world powered by retro futuristic dreams.
Wistar 12y ago
The 747 is an exceptional example of engineering for durability in a large airframe. Other U.S. made large-airframe aircraft have not fared so well, in particular the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy whose wing-spar weakness was so profound that the entire fleet was re-winged shortly after going into service but still enjoys a dismal distinction as having the highest operating cost of any US Air Force weapon system. And then there's the F22 whose MTBF is, on average, less than 60 minutes.
- sandworm 12y ago
  Higher than the B-2? (3million+ per aircraft/month according to some). Maybe the C-5 has highest not-classified operating costs. For perspective, the Canadian Sea King helos are rumored to take 50+ man-hours for every hour in the air, comparable to the C-5 but on a much much smaller airframe.
  - Wistar 12y ago
    I am certain the B2 is horrifyingly expensive. I found a 2014 article in Defense Industry Daily entitled Saving the Galaxy: The C-5 AMP/RERP Program: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/saving-the-galaxy-the-c-5-amprerp-program-03938/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/saving-the-galaxy-the-c-... "When it was introduced, back in 1970, the C-5 Galaxy was the largest plane in the world. It also has the highest operating cost of any US Air Force weapon system, owing to extremely high maintenance demands as well as poor fuel economy. Worse, availability rates routinely hover near 50%." As for the Sea King, I have often read of maintenance ratios of 30 man hours maintenance per hour of flight but 50 is not surprising, either. By comparison, the fantastic (Hughes) MD-500E has a ~.42 man-hours/flight-hours ratio for the airframe, excluding the engine, and that's a very well sorted ship that's far simpler than the Sikorsky.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  mean time between failures < 60 minutes? If that's true, how can it be used for anything?
  - sandworm 12y ago
JBiserkov 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antonov_An-225_with_Buran_at_Le_Bourget_1989_Manteufel.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antonov_An-225_with_Buran_...

zaroth 12y ago

Probably because we'd hit peak oil if you flew it any longer than that ;-)

frik 12y ago

An interesting comparison of giant planes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.sv...

iSnow 12y ago

Most likely since it is a custom build, it would not have the same amount of testing (a lot of bend-tests are done to wings and I believe whole aircraft on commercial airliners) and probably a lot less simulation and engineering. Since it was designed as a shuttle transporter, they probably designed for 2000 landings and never cared about really defining safety margins beyond that. After all, 2K seems plenty for even an ambitious shuttle program. Probably in reality it would be fit for 50.000 flight hours, but no one knows how much, so they implemented huge safety margins - since the USSR was not a market economy, no one really cared about price in such a high-profile project. And: the Antonow has a max take-off weight of 640 tonnes, the 747-400F of 400t, that would put a lot more strain on materials.