[OrchidJulie]

For 30 years the Antonov AN-124 was the heaviest gross weight production cargo aircraft at 886,258 lbs maximum takeoff weight, and the second heaviest operating cargo aircraft ,

Interesting, thanks. If I had to guess, I think that aircraft came to MIA about 30 years ago. Quite a lot of attention at the time, because of its size and Russian origin. I honestly don't remember where the flight originated, somewhere in Europe where this printing press was manufactured, perhaps Germany or the Netherlands. I didn't see it up close in person, but it was visible, at a distance, from the airport's perimeter road.

[Geodude]

For 30 years the Antonov AN-124 was the heaviest gross weight production cargo aircraft at 886,258 lbs maximum takeoff weight, and the second heaviest operating cargo aircraft , the heaviest being the Antonov AN-225, a Russian military derivative of the AN-124 with 6 engines, larger wings and a modified empennage. The plane has an MTO of 1,410,958lbs, and has recently been pressed into commercial service, but it is limited to the few airports that can accommodate such a large and heavy aircraft.


The Boeing 747-800F took the top spot at 975,000lbs MTO when production began in 2005.

The Boeing 747-400LCF, better known as the Dreamlifter, is a modified 747-400 airliner. Boeing contracted with Evergreen Aviation Technologies Corporation to modify the airframe for hauling 787 Dreamliner components from vendors to the Everett, Washington factory, and later to Charleston, South Carolina. To date 4 airplanes have been converted, with plans for more.

The Dreamlifter isn't used for commercial cargo, so it can't be counted as the largest commercial cargo plane, and at 803,001 MTO, it also cannot carry as much weight as the 747-400 (874,990lbs) from which it was derived.

Some shots of Dreamifters I have made over the years:

Appreciate the insightful gain on these large cargo planes. Is there any reasoning behind the wings of the Russian plane mounted on the top of the fuselage as apposed to the bottom, as in the US planes? Aerodynamics? Structural integrity? Or just to be different?

[Racer X 69]

Appreciate the insightful gain on these large cargo planes. Is there any reasoning behind the wings of the Russian plane mounted on the top of the fuselage as apposed to the bottom, as in the US planes? Aerodynamics? Structural integrity? Or just to be different?

Attachment of the wings to the fuselage is a high stress area, and the structure of the fuselage is much more robust there, given high or lower mounting of the wings. On the Boeing airplanes the attachment is at, and just below, the floor structure for the A deck (upper deck), so the floor structure is heavier there to carry some of the load.

I’m not entirely sure why the Antonov has the wings attached at the top of the fuselage, but I suspect that it allows for the airframe to set closer to the ground, making loading and unloading of large, bulky cargo easier. The C17 also has the wings mounted high, so that may be the design criteria.

[brightseal]

cargo aircraft

I thought the C-5 Galaxy was large but compared to this flying Beluga Whale is rather teensy.

[subsea]

As the physical size of aircraft engines has increased over the years (required to power larger aircraft flying at higher speeds with larger loads), aircraft designers have had basically two choices: either move the wings (carrying the engines on pylons) to a higher attachment point on the fuselage so that the engines clear the ground on takeoff and landing, or keep the wings at the bottom of the fuselage with the engine pylons and engines below the wings. These options lead to different problems needing to be solved in order to be workable. The first option (high wing) essentially dictates a wing at the top of the fuselage. The strength requirements for the wings are dictated by the loads to be carried (flight loads and takeoff/landing loads). In order to achieve the desired wing strength, the designers want the wing structure to be continuous from wing tip to wing tip. For a high mounted wing, that can only be accomplished by placing the wing at the top of the fuselage. If the wing is placed anywhere between the bottom of the fuselage and the top of the fuselage, the wing structure either needs to be continuous across the interior of the fuselage, interrupting the cargo bay, or requires additional (heavy) structure encircling the fuselage to attach the wings to. The easiest (and lightest weight) solution is to place the wing, as a single piece of structure, above the cargo bay (at the top of the fuselage). This has the added advantage that the landing gear can be placed on the bottom of the fuselage, making the landing gear shorter and making it easier to to make the gear strong enough to enable rough field operations, as well as making it easier to load and unload cargo because the bottom of the fuselage is closer to the ground.


The second alternative, a low mounted wing, places the engines closer to the ground and increases the length of the landing gear needed to keep the bottom of the engines far enough from the ground to support normal operations. In contrast to the description above, the landing gear tends to be longer and the cargo bay is higher off the ground, making loading and unloading more difficult. In essence, the high wing configuration allows flight operations from unprepared fields, and the low wing configurations are pretty much constrained to operate from paved runways. If you take a look at USAF cargo aircraft (i.e. C-5 or C-7) you'll see they also have high mounted wings because they are designed to meet pretty much the same mission requirements as the Russian aircraft. As for the size of the Russian aircraft compared to the American military transports, it's pretty much a "mine is bigger than yours" justification.

Hope this helps and sorry if it's TMI.

[Racer X 69]

As the physical size of aircraft engines has increased over the years (required to power larger aircraft flying at higher speeds with larger loads), aircraft designers have had basically two choices: either move the wings (carrying the engines on pylons) to a higher attachment point on the fuselage so that the engines clear the ground on takeoff and landing, or keep the wings at the bottom of the fuselage with the engine pylons and engines below the wings. These options lead to different problems needing to be solved in order to be workable. The first option (high wing) essentially dictates a wing at the top of the fuselage. The strength requirements for the wings are dictated by the loads to be carried (flight loads and takeoff/landing loads). In order to achieve the desired wing strength, the designers want the wing structure to be continuous from wing tip to wing tip. For a high mounted wing, that can only be accomplished by placing the wing at the top of the fuselage. If the wing is placed anywhere between the bottom of the fuselage and the top of the fuselage, the wing structure either needs to be continuous across the interior of the fuselage, interrupting the cargo bay, or requires additional (heavy) structure encircling the fuselage to attach the wings to. The easiest (and lightest weight) solution is to place the wing, as a single piece of structure, above the cargo bay (at the top of the fuselage). This has the added advantage that the landing gear can be placed on the bottom of the fuselage, making the landing gear shorter and making it easier to to make the gear strong enough to enable rough field operations, as well as making it easier to load and unload cargo because the bottom of the fuselage is closer to the ground.


The second alternative, a low mounted wing, places the engines closer to the ground and increases the length of the landing gear needed to keep the bottom of the engines far enough from the ground to support normal operations. In contrast to the description above, the landing gear tends to be longer and the cargo bay is higher off the ground, making loading and unloading more difficult. In essence, the high wing configuration allows flight operations from unprepared fields, and the low wing configurations are pretty much constrained to operate from paved runways. If you take a look at USAF cargo aircraft (i.e. C-5 or C-7) you'll see they also have high mounted wings because they are designed to meet pretty much the same mission requirements as the Russian aircraft. As for the size of the Russian aircraft compared to the American military transports, it's pretty much a "mine is bigger than yours" justification.

Hope this helps and sorry if it's TMI.

Interesting bit about the wing structure needing to be continuous tip to tip. Thanks for sharing.

Current commercial airliners attach the wings to the central fuel tank box which is also attached to the lower half of the fuselage structure. The circular frames that make up the central portion of the fuselage above the central fuel tank structure are larger than those fore and aft of that area.

I might add for those who never see it, the structure that attaches the engines to the wings isn't what they see when looking out the window. All that is visible is the cowling and covers that make everything aerodynamic.The structure that attaches the engines is a large fitting machined from a huge chunk of aluminium, and fitted with bronze bushings for the bolts that hold it all together.

[Geodude]

Hope this helps and sorry if it's TMI.

Glad I asked. One gets an education on this site besides just photography.

[fuzzyphotos]

I drove down to see the BIG Boy in Chester, Illinois today. I also saw a Pentax in the wild, a K3 no less.

Here are a couple quick edits.

The last one was at a crossing north of Chester. The sound of it passing within 20 feet was amazing. They blew the whistle quite a bit at the crossing, it was really a nice experience.

Tim

[steamloco76]

K-70 w/Sigma 18-300 DC EX HSM

[nicolpa47]

Flying Scotsman - having been lifted at Liverpool from the ship bringing the loco back from the USA, the loco is about to touch down on English soil for the first time since 1969. Photo taken February 1973 using Pentax SPII.




A 1980s photo taken at the long closed Forest Railroad, Dobwalls, Cornwall

[MossyRocks]

I drove down to see the BIG Boy

This reminds me that I need to go up to the Iron Range and shoot some of the old equipment. While not a Big Boy, there is a lot of interesting things up there if one know where to go. Maybe this coming long weekend.

[aslyfox]

another from the Thunder Over The Heartland Air Show in Topeka

replica Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" and authentic North American P - 51 " Mustang "

perhaps the dominant fighters of their era

[Neuse River Sailor]

Northbound barge tow on the Alligator River in eastern North Carolina. We were nursing a boat south with rigging issues and an ailing engine, bound to Belhaven for yard work. SMC Takumar 55/2.

[jersey]

another from the Thunder Over The Heartland Air Show in Topeka

replica Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" and authentic North American P - 51 " Mustang "

perhaps the dominant fighters of their era

Hardly, in terms of numbers both Germans (Bf-109) and Brits (Spitfire) produced more. A6M was a dominant fighter for Japan as a carrier fighter, with Nakajimas (Ki-43, 84) as main land fighters. In terms of performance Mustang was very good all around plane, but never excelled in specific jobs. Spitfire and especially Focke-Wulfs were better interceptors, Tempest and Typhoon beat it in close support etc. Still it was great plane, able to do most of jobs. Only other so versatile plane I can think of was Mosquito, but it was diffrent plane and conception so hardly comparable.


I think the movies made both Mustang and Zero the "top dogs" of their era. Especially Zero cause most people if asked about Japanese plane will say "Zero!"

[aslyfox]

Hardly, in terms of numbers both Germans (Bf-109) and Brits (Spitfire) produced more. A6M was a dominant fighter for Japan as a carrier fighter, with Nakajimas (Ki-43, 84) as main land fighters. In terms of performance Mustang was very good all around plane, but never excelled in specific jobs. Spitfire and especially Focke-Wulfs were better interceptors, Tempest and Typhoon beat it in close support etc. Still it was great plane, able to do most of jobs. Only other so versatile plane I can think of was Mosquito, but it was diffrent plane and conception so hardly comparable.


I think the movies made both Mustang and Zero the "top dogs" of their era. Especially Zero cause most people if asked about Japanese plane will say "Zero!"

I'm not a pilot, so can't talk about flying responses but

P-51 Mustang vs Spitfire: Which Was The Best? | International Aviation HQ

more speed, higher ceiling, rate of speed all goes to the P 51

without the range of the Mustang daylight bombing of Germany was not possible

the bombers were going in without any fighter cover


as far as the Zero, its capabilities early in the war is what I was referring to

http://www.aviation-history.com/mitsubishi/zero.html

later planes did eclipse it

the Spit is a plane I wish I could see but it was the Hurricane that was more numerous and bore the burden during the battle of Britain