What is this aircraft ?

[EA_Bender]

umm, i just noticed something.... wheres the right wing on the AN124 in that pic???

[T_Terror]

Not sure if its the AN124 or wateva but theres a big fukn Russian cargo aircraft that needs rockets to get it off the ground.

[Quasi]

ah....is it....a.....F*&%N' big plane? Damn that's a good size.

Originally Posted by Timmeh

Any more information?

There's alot of big Russian planes, can't think of any all painted Black though, as being their only distinctive feature.

Tim

Antonov

it was like that (thx for the picture above)

No Idea why one of those would be at richmond though. I have also seen one at Amberly

No Markings apart from some letters in Russian and no Rego Number

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by EA_Bender

umm, i just noticed something.... wheres the right wing on the AN124 in that pic???

Yeah.. I just noticed that.. thats odd. Funny though, that other little plane in the pic.. isn't that like a 767? lol...

Originally Posted by T_Terror

Not sure if its the AN124 or wateva but theres a big fukn Russian cargo aircraft that needs rockets to get it off the ground.

What do you mean? The AN225 Mriya is the biggest plane in the world, and it doesn't need "rockets" to get it off the ground. Its got 6 engines that produce 51,590lbs of thrust each... that's 309,540lbs of thrust all up.

[MO]

Timmeh,is spot on and the Antonovs look nothing like like the Boeing,have been over them and they are one noisey aircraft.
Especially when they park right outside your fire station and refuse to shutdown totally because they are on a war footing.

Timmeh,i doubt the RAAF will get these in the next 15/20 years they can't afford it.

[MITCHAY]

Did anyone here watch that beyond tomorrow show on 7. Pretty nice plane on the show the Airbus A380. this mofo is so big they cant transport the parts to build it by truck or plane. Absolutely huge.

Check it http://home.i-cable.com/dick_ming/im...A380-841.2.jpg

[GTP 320]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Did anyone here watch that beyond tomorrow show on 7. Pretty nice plane on the show the Airbus A380. this mofo is so big they cant transport the parts to build it by truck or plane. Absolutely huge.

Check it http://home.i-cable.com/dick_ming/im...A380-841.2.jpg

And Melbourne Tullarmarine airport is the only one capable to land one of these new Airbus in Australia at this stage.
They just spend millions on widening the runways so they could handle these huge planes in the future,good planning i say.
Cheers John

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Yeah.. I just noticed that.. thats odd. Funny though, that other little plane in the pic.. isn't that like a 767? lol...

No, not a 767, an Airbus A321, in fact. Have a closer look Steffo... :

As for the A380, it doesn't interest me at all. I've never been a fan of the Airbus flight deck design/flight control philosophy, period.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by james

Antonov

it was like that (thx for the picture above)

No Idea why one of those would be at richmond though. I have also seen one at Amberly

No Markings apart from some letters in Russian and no Rego Number

You'll find that the AN-124's are operated on charter by Volga Dnepr Heavy Lift. The Australian military does hire their services from time to time.

pretty cool plane, seen some cool planes take off from richmond.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Steffo

What do you mean? The AN225 Mriya is the biggest plane in the world, and it doesn't need "rockets" to get it off the ground. Its got 6 engines that produce 51,590lbs of thrust each... that's 309,540lbs of thrust all up.

It has been fitted with rockets previously for a shorter field takeoff at a higher weight.

A C17 replacing a Hercules??? Umm, don't think so. Two totally different roles and purposes. The Herc is a STOAL (Short Take Off And Landing) and is a more utilitarian airplane. The Australian Forces will not be getting C17 as they have Hercules, Orion (I hear these will get ANOTHER refit versus going MMA or similar), and soon the unproven A330 Tanker/Combi.

The A380 is a great airplane but it makes little sense because despite its size it is limited by certification and will never be allowed to carry the purported 800 pax. And it's economies are false because new mid size airplanes offer such great efficiencies that point-to-point flying will be just as cheap (versus hubbing).

For a look into the REAL future go here:

www.newairplane.com

A totally new way and age of thinking in building passenger airplanes.

AP>

[Timmeh]

Originally Posted by Aussie Pete

A C17 replacing a Hercules??? Umm, don't think so. Two totally different roles and purposes. The Herc is a STOAL (Short Take Off And Landing) and is a more utilitarian airplane. The Australian Forces will not be getting C17 as they have Hercules, Orion (I hear these will get ANOTHER refit versus going MMA or similar), and soon the unproven A330 Tanker/Combi.

The A380 is a great airplane but it makes little sense because despite its size it is limited by certification and will never be allowed to carry the purported 800 pax. And it's economies are false because new mid size airplanes offer such great efficiencies that point-to-point flying will be just as cheap (versus hubbing).

For a look into the REAL future go here:

www.newairplane.com

A totally new way and age of thinking in building passenger airplanes.

AP>

Some people just don't beleive a thing I post, despite being in the very trade in question here.

I have seen with my own eyes some proposals to re structure the RAAFs transport fleet with a limited number of C-17s alongside the J model Hercules, for when the H model Hercs get retired. That's all I said. It's not a go ahead, it is a 'proposal'. Of course they aren't the same thing, that's why it's called a re-structure.

And to even name the Orion in the same fleet as the Hercules and possibly the C-17 highlights that more knowledge of aircraft roles is required here, especially before people blindly dismiss what other people say.

And I'd just like to point out that the C-17 is a Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) Utility Aircraft that can operate out of semi prepared airfields, just like the J model Hercules.

Edit: AP - I respect your opinion, and have dulled down my reply somewhat, but I stand by what I said, I have seen proposals to run a small fleet of C-17s alongside the J model Hercs, and I stand by what I have posted above. I do think C-17s are highly unlikely, and in fact put money on the fact the RAAF can't afford it.

Tim

[MITCHAY]

I take your word for it. If you didnt know what your talking bout then you wouldnt have the job.

[M14A-Mclaren]

Originally Posted by Aussie Pete

For a look into the REAL future go here:

www.newairplane.com

A totally new way and age of thinking in building passenger airplanes.

AP>

Thats just Boeing isnt it? is there one with different manufactuers of planes, I have to admit its not me interested...

[highlander_69r]

Originally Posted by Fireman Sam

No offence but what qualifies you to judge out:

By the way there's two of these suckers, so there :hihi:

i find it amusing that you can tell that the sas are loading stuff onto this aircraft let alone u can identify them from any other infintry unit , let me guess they all wear black.if by some small chance u do know that it is the sas were you get the info on were they goin

[smoo]

Originally Posted by highlander_69r

i find it amusing that you can tell that the sas are loading stuff onto this aircraft let alone u can identify them from any other infintry unit , let me guess they all wear black.if by some small chance u do know that it is the sas were you get the info on were they goin

It was on the 6 oclock news. At the same time it had the opposition party shouting out how it was a disgrace that the US needs to fly NZ men there. Fair nuff. The NZ plane (note singular not plural) would probably break down anyway. A 1970s Hercules I think.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by highlander_69r

i find it amusing that you can tell that the sas are loading stuff onto this aircraft let alone u can identify them from any other infintry unit , let me guess they all wear black.if by some small chance u do know that it is the sas were you get the info on were they goin

_
Pull your head in tosser, it was reported in the newspaper, TV & Radio. I suggest if you have no idea what your talking about you keep it zipped :

[M14A-Mclaren]

Getting nasty guys, dont let the thread turn for the worse, its a good one!

[Spaniard]

I love that picture! I want to get that in a poster now and hang it on my wall!

Originally Posted by Timmeh

Some people just don't beleive a thing I post, despite being in the very trade in question here.

I have seen with my own eyes some proposals to re structure the RAAFs transport fleet with a limited number of C-17s alongside the J model Hercules, for when the H model Hercs get retired. That's all I said. It's not a go ahead, it is a 'proposal'. Of course they aren't the same thing, that's why it's called a re-structure.

And to even name the Orion in the same fleet as the Hercules and possibly the C-17 highlights that more knowledge of aircraft roles is required here, especially before people blindly dismiss what other people say.

And I'd just like to point out that the C-17 is a Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) Utility Aircraft that can operate out of semi prepared airfields, just like the J model Hercules.

Edit: AP - I respect your opinion, and have dulled down my reply somewhat, but I stand by what I said, I have seen proposals to run a small fleet of C-17s alongside the J model Hercs, and I stand by what I have posted above. I do think C-17s are highly unlikely, and in fact put money on the fact the RAAF can't afford it.

Tim

I didn't say I didn't believe you. I was just saying that I'd be very happy if the C17 was on the shopping cart over here but I'd put money on it never getting the gong.

It's a fantastic airplane. The C17 takes around 3000ft for takeoff and can carry around 160,000lbs payload so it's not entirely going to do what a Herc does. It would be like running a 777 between Canberra and Sydney.

On the issue of proposals, and knowing your job role, I would have thought that information on actual proposals should be classified. That's why I wouldn't personally comment on fleet plan nor choice with reference to specific proposals or documents.

As for Orions, well they were mentioned but of course C17 etc is totally unrelated (that's why I mentioned Boeing MMA).

Regards,
AP>

[Timmeh]

Originally Posted by Aussie Pete

On the issue of proposals, and knowing your job role, I would have thought that information on actual proposals should be classified. That's why I wouldn't personally comment on fleet plan nor choice with reference to specific proposals or documents.

You're right, my job role is to train pilots to fly the Hornet, not air force purchasing. The documents I have seen are unclassified Boeing literature that we get spammed with to promote the ideas in our obviously influential heads that the C-17 would make a good replacement for the H models, and the different setups we could have.

I fear the consequences all too much to say anything that was not generally available to the public. Lightning may strike me down!

Tim

[One Drone]

You don't happen to know the Leonard brothers do you Timmeh?

[Timmeh]

Umm not by that name if I do?

Tim

[One Drone]

Andrew Leonard, last I heard he was training to be an FA-18 pilot. His elder brother was already one.