Twin-Fuselage Antonov An-225

Hi,


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a410817.pdf

That would be startling to see flying.


The 225 as it is is so big it's scary.

Considering the typical runway width of 150', it would be just as interesting watching it try to land.

Well..it would land at least once.

As some airports have twin runways, there's the chance of following exchange:
"225 Heavy, are you approaching on 1-2 North or 1-2 South ?"
"Yes."
"Huh ? Please repeat."
"Yes, both."
;D

or on take-off, the quip reputably said by the pilot to the
co-pilot, during the first take-of of the Blackburn Universal
freighter, later the Beverly...
"My side's airborne, what about yours?!"............




cheers,
Robin.

Oh my god. That would be a terrifying sight to see right there. The An-225 is already the largest aircraft in the world, so have a twin-fuselage would make it quite the behemoth. I do agree with the rest on how that thing could possibly land or take off from a runway considering its width. I seriously don't know what you could possibly want with something so large and ungainly.

AAAdrone said:

I seriously don't know what you could possibly want with something so large and ungainly.

Click to expand...

More payload of course!!!

AAAdrone said:

I seriously don't know what you could possibly want with something so large and ungainly.

Click to expand...

A college degree. The twin-An-225 appears to be a college design, not an industry one.

Even with more payload how could anybody operate that thing from an airfield? I guess it would have to be just a college design.

Move over Stratolaunch with your tiny carrier aircraft
Here is Mother of all Carrier Aircraft

hesham said:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a410817.pdf

Click to expand...

My browser reports that file as 0 bytes and shows a blank page. Not sure what is going on, but it does not seem right.

Seriously, the drawing shows a complete new wing - no way would anybody build new An-225 fuselages for that, it's nonsense, not even a design.

Michel Van said:

Move over Stratolaunch with your tiny carrier aircraft
Here is Mother of all Carrier Aircraft

Click to expand...

An even more absurd design than the eight-engine twin. The balance between design elements is hopelessly off. The vast engine thrust is sufficient to carry a (theoretical) SSTO large and heavy enough to launch a practical payload into orbit, but the carrier wing area is grossly undersized for such a giant payload. As too, frankly, is the orbiter. Or, put it another way, a quarter of the engine thrust would be about right to air-launch a Buran-sized spaceplane for a quick suborbital shufti and no more. What is this fantasy nonsense doing on this forum?

I think this nutty thing has a real historical basis. Either Energiya buran (Bart Hendricxk book) or the Buran website. I will check.
I think it was either Tupolev or MAKS related and degenerated monstrosity (EDIT: it was kind of both, with a touch of Buran)
Even if it is not an "Internet fantasy" but something truly out of a 1980 USSR OKB, I agree with Steelpillow it is completely bonkers a design. So many engines !!! fuel consumption and drag nightmare... for a start.

NASA SLI had something a little similar but much less stupid: a flying wing with GE90s. A reasonable number of them at least...

shazaaaam !! https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/sidebar-the-tupolev-oos/

Hazegrayart had that link. That blog is very serious, the author used it as basis for a book.
Tupolev OOS. Tupolev however had many highs and lows (Tu-144, cough: Tu-124). This one looks like a "low"...

Basically
Molniya saying "MAKS is better than Buran"
Soviet Politburo: nah, not enough payload. We want Buran capability without Energiya - keep the Antonov. And what's that big drop tank ? not practical"
Molniya "MAKS completely max out the An-225. We can't grow it larger."
Soviet Politburo "We don't care. We want Buran capability + SSTO + no drop tank + Antonov. Do it."
Molniya "I give up. It can't be done."

Tupolev "Hold my beer... pardon, my vodka."

Hmmm... how big do we need to grow the Antonov to launch a Buran size orbiter and SSTO without drop tanks ...?
(engineers proceed to grow the An-225 into a gargantuan monstrosity)
"Can't liftoff. Not powerful enough.
"Well, add more engines, you idiot."
"No room left below the wings."
"Well, then add "mirror engines" above the wings, you dummy. Just like the british did with Sidewinders and drop tanks on their Jaguars."
"The SSTO suffers from mass fraction issues and weight creep. Mothership still can't liftoff. Not enough wingspan"
"Then just double the fuselage. Oh, and add more engines, just in case..."
"We already have 28 of them - 7 above left wing, 7 below left wing, rinse, repeat on the right wing"
"Well then add 12 more. 40 of them should be enough."
"Were do we put the kérosène ?"
"What ? oh, it just need to climb, release, land."

(facepalm)

AAAdrone said:

Even with more payload how could anybody operate that thing from an airfield? I guess it would have to be just a college design.

Click to expand...

One could build a special airfield for it... I mean, if the goal is space access it could takeoff launch and return to its starting point... one only needs a single runway.