Comments on: The Friendly Skies?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:10:05 +0000

The 4.4 was the automatic systems that first record events and assign a preliminary number. Today it is listed as 4.6 after the “human” review. The first report is from a limited number of stations. As more stations report they refine the classification.

We don’t have detectable earthquakes in Florida – just hurricanes and tornadoes.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:23:59 +0000

Curious. They news services here are reporting that it was officially 4.6 (not that I’m splitting hairs!) 🙄

I am definitely not a fan of earthquakes. The earth should stay where it is put and not move around.

😆 I think you may be living on the wrong planet then m8! 😉 Mind you… I’ve been thinking I’ve been living on the wrong planet for decades! But until very recently… Earthquakes were not one of my reasons! 😆

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:09:25 +0000

The USGS says it was a 4.4 about 105 km Southeast of Melbourne, which would definitely be noticed.

I am definitely not a fan of earthquakes. The earth should stay where it is put and not move around.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:55:23 +0000

Our State newspaper 'The Age' published an article about the quake about 15 min's after it hit! That was fast. LOL And LadyMin said Twitter was going nuts about it. :) Melbourne hit by tremor They must be having a slow day at the news desk there. ;) I think you are right about the Antonov. :) I still hope we get one but. ;)

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:07:18 +0000

I would assume that the Russian half of Antonov was doing the “show and tell”, and knowing their quality control it is also possible that there was a misprint and they didn’t want to reprint the literature.

The only real knock against the 124 is that it doesn’t hold pressure in the cargo bay, so you can’t take people with their equipment. Of course, that does make it cheaper to build and maintain.

No word yet on the strength of your earthquake, Kryten. I’ll check in the morning.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:36:30 +0000

Oooh!! We just had another quake! Really… I was chatting with LadyMin… And the house moved! :O

LOL

By: Badtux

Badtux — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:42:46 +0000

But they certainly work well enough for getting stuff “close enough” to the war zone. Like the An-124 that flew a whole freakin’ Black Hawk squadron (the 129th Rescue Wing) to Bagran in Afghanistan from Moffett Field here in Mountain View. The Black Hawks are capable of deploying on their own to combat once they’re in theatre, thank you very much!

Regarding designations, the Russkies are always putting arbitrary new designations onto existing aircraft to try to sell them as “new and improved” to potential customers. The Su-27 has alternately been hawked as the Su-30, the Su-32, Su-33, the Su-35, the Su-37, all are the same basic airframe with various experimental modifications (for everything past Su-30). They seem to have recently settled on Su-30 as the designation for their updated export version of the Su-27, with various variants getting different suffixes to denote the different modifications that various customers demand. The An-124 may have been a victim of that earlier, they seem to have settled on attaching a suffix to An-124 now rather than using a new number for the various variants (An-124-100M for the version with the upgraded wings and uprated engines, An-124-210 for the version with the upgraded wings and Rolls Royce engines, for example), but it wouldn’t surprise me if, during the time they were hawking the Su-27 around the world under a dizzying array of different designations, that they were doing the same with the An-124.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:51:15 +0000

The only problem with these huge beasts is finding runways to accommodate them. It’s nice to be able to haul around locomotives and ICBMs, but you eventually have to land near the destination, so they really aren’t a war zone aircraft.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:51:39 +0000

Yeah… That was pretty much my conclusion also. 🙂 I spent some time looking at the specs of the many 124 variants and the photo of the spec’s posted for the 125 at the airshow, and there are differences. Eg, the 125 has different engine model designation and a higher load capacity, the wings look slightly different also.

I also found out from an ex-RAAF friends website (He’s a consultant now and visits all the major shows and all the players) that the USA has been trying hard to sell us a C-5 and thankfully we have resisted. He says that there is serious consideration for the Antonov because it’s a hell of a lot cheaper to own and operate than anything the US has of similar capabilities. I hope we get an Antonov, if for no other reason than pissing off the MIC! LOL I can hear the howls (and usual threats) now! LOL

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:09:46 +0000

I think, upon further consideration, that the 125 is probably the new version that might be built if the Ukrainian and Russian segments of Antonov finally settle their differences. They are planning to start building the Ruslan/Condor again because of demand but the facilities are split.

Given the current state of relations between Russia and the Ukraine I wouldn’t give this happening much more that “possible”, unless Putin is going to make major bucks from the deal.

This was always a low volume airframe, so I don’t see this as a slam dunk, but they would need to start looking for orders at airshows, the only place the An-125 is ever reported being seen or photographed.