Get 20% OFF + Free Shipping with code COBY at mnscpd.com/CobyExplanes #manscapedpartner
Support my work on Patreon: / cobyexplanes
The history of the AN-225: • It's Time for Antonov ...
Thanks so much to my "First Class" patrons Sebastian Dimond, and Timothy Franklin!
Thanks so much to my videographer friends for generously providing excellent B-roll for this video. Go check out and subscribe to their channels for more A+ plane spotting content
@FRAproductions
@PlanesWeekly
@BrunoLevionnois
@miraviation
Sources:
1. antonov.com/en/history/an-225...
2. edition.cnn.com/travel/article...
3. www.aviationexplorer.com/Anton...
4. simpleflying.com/second-anton...
5. www.businessinsider.com/boein...
6. web.archive.org/web/201911181...
7. antonov.com/en/history/an-124...
8. www.freightcourse.com/largest...
9. aerocorner.com/aircraft/boein....
10. Current Dreamlifter has a cargo bay length of 30 meters, and the 747-8f is 6 meters longer than the 747-400.
11. simpleflying.com/boeing-747-d...
___________________________________________________________________________________
A few weeks ago, the aviation world lost an icon. The Antonov AN225 Mriya - the world's largest plane - was destroyed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Initial reports seemed to indicate the damage was minor and the plane could be salvaged, but then pictures and videos started to surface online. The jet’s a smoldering wreck and seems beyond repair. But if there’s one thing we’ve learned about the Ukrainian people in recent weeks, it’s that they are remarkably resilient. And in a message of defiance, the official Ukrainian Twitter account proclaimed that the plane would be rebuilt and that its Mriya would never perish. But, the fact of the matter is that the 225 was a one-of-a-kind relic of the cold war, so is it actually possible to build a new one? Let me explain…
#Antonov #AN225 #Ukraine #Boeing #Dreamlifter
Get 20% OFF + Free Shipping with code COBY at mnscpd.com/CobyExplanes #manscapedpartner
_MaNsCaPeD!_
wouldn't the cheapest option be building a cargo pod and using the stratolaunch as its replacement, as there both were made for the same original task.
Some air fan stumbling on the hanger kzhead.info/sun/jbupmNV5aIWipa8/bejne.html
Thanks for the video. Our big bird will always be in our hearts. Just one thing. Maybe you can try to pronounce her name as M'Riya. Seems a bit closer to original Мрія.
I was going to donate to your channel but once you said all proceeds we’re gonna go to help Ukraine if you stick it up your arse I will not support Ukraine for their complaint or bullshit through this whole war you’ll be completely lied to some of the rest of the world
Assuming Ukraine prevails in this war and the unfinished 225 is still ok, I could see it being completed despite the cost. Because seeing a 225 fly again would become a symbol of national pride for the Ukrainians.
doubt it. Antonov facilities may not survive the war regardless of whether Ukraine wins at the end. Plus, I say they would much more likely to just build a monument.
President Zelenskyy said it would fly again. I hope they will be able to take half a billion dollars from frozen Russian funds as compensation.
It could also be a critical tool to help transport in supplies that will help Ukraine rebuild its infrastructure and cities
@JG Source?
@JG proof
The Antonov has an obvious advantage-the ability to drive cargo on and off, not relying on cargo lifts being available, as the 747 cargo variants require.
The AN-124 was originally designed as a military transport plane. In terms of similar Western aircraft, Lockheed had plans for the L-500, a civil version of the C-5, but this never happened. In any case production of the aircraft ended in 1989. In the case of the C-17 a civilian variant MD-17 (McDonnell Douglas) or BC=17 (Boeing) were proposed. Since the C-17 only ended production in 2015 a Boeing high wing freighter may be the most likely.
@@markevans2294 L500 never happened of course because back then, it had TF-39s...besides being expensive to procure...it was indeed a FRED (F**king Ridiculous Environmental Disaster), fuel consumption and carbon footprint was off the charts. Maybe, the L-500M could fit the task. But then again, too big plane...too expensive.
@@scarecrow108productions7 There's no way an L500 can happen. The C5 has been out of production for more than thirty years and the design is more than fifty years old. It would be considerably cheaper for Lockheed Martin to start from scratch at this point in time.
@@markevans2294 Wrong, the building, where the C-17 got produced, is empty, the the tooling and the machinery is gone, auctioned off to the highest bidders. The situation is similar to the 757, tooling gone, supply chain gone.
It HAD - not has; it is gone - forever !
I would love to see them rebuild it because it stands for a lot more than just being a big plane. Having said that I think there are other priorities to put first, ending the war and seeing the Ukrainian people looked after is going to take some time.
The wings for the second AN-225 are stored beside the body at Antonov Plant in Kyiv. The avionics is the same as AN-124.
The completion of the second An225 depends entirely on the unfinished fuselage surviving the war. I think they could salvage parts from the destroyed plane to save cost. But if it does survive the war then rebuilding it is a no brainer. The economic reason for a second plane were non existent simply because there wasn’t a volume of work big enough for two. But now that the original is destroyed the need for one is guaranteed. So hopefully we’ll see a brand new An225 with updated avionics Grace the skies.
The second airframe is most destroyed as the Antonov factory which houses it was severely damaged by Russian artillery. The roof has likely partially fallen in and crushed the airframe under it. It is unlikely there will ever be a second An 225.
Firas Sanioura, I agree
@@bemusedpanda8875, When and where did you get your information from?
@@4321grp 2 weeks ago. Search Antonov Factory shelled.
@@bemusedpanda8875 I know the factory was shelled but what evidence is there that the unfinished An 225 was hit?
"2020 sucks a lot. I hope it would get better next year." 2022: "Young fool."
Wait for 2023 and 2024 ! !
Only now, at the end, do you understandx
I was lucky enough to get woken up by this beast when it took off from EMA back in 2014. Download Festival was on at the time and myself and the entire campsite was woken up at 8am by the loudest noise ever! The ground literally shook!
I've seen the 225 fly once or twice, and I just saw a 124 yesterday. The 124 is still so massive and amazing to see fly over you, it would be amazing to see the 225 again.
It's always "possible" to replace the AN225, but whether its economically viable is another question.
YESSSS
the concorde wasnt economically viable, but it was built. even the a380 ended up not being the moneymaker it was projected to be, but remained the pride of airbus. considering the 225 is just a longer 124 with extended wings, 2 more engines and redesigned tail, it shouldnt be technologically too hard to build one, but who will fund it is the only question that needs to be answered.
Maybe they can find a way to make Russia pay for the project, after all their are 100s of billions in seized Russian government assets around the world and the case for damages is pretty clear cut.
@@DavidJBradshaw Russia will pay for something that ukrainians destroyed themselves? That plane burned because of artilery fire, and guess who was bombarding that airfield, when russians were based there?
@@ImperialDiecast A really big GoFundMe
One has to consider the fact that in order to have a replacement aircraft built and certified "instantly" the replacement aircraft would have to be built exactly as its predecessor in all ways otherwise the aircraft would have to go through re certification and this process is not cheap and time consuming. It would be nice if Boeing,Air Bus and any other manufacturer would kick in and help rebuild this aircraft. This would be the ultimate project.
Little dreamer - forget it ; simply forget it !
I think they could made a huge engineering challenge for people around the world to rebuild this plane. Ukraine need to do something very cool/special with this plane like a multinational rebuild project with many many donations of people,time and money.
It can do with some sweet GE engines.
there are two of them, the one that we know and an unfinished one that remained that way for decades so that would be a good starting point
In 1990 I was lucky to have trade tickets, VIP centre, at the UK Farnborough Airshow. The 225 was parked on the far side and did not fly on the day. But the a Harrier put on an awesome display, VTOL and low level vectoring, just an ear-splitting distance from us.
There was a lovely documentary I saw a couple of years ago, can't find a link but somebody must be able to, that took you "behind the scenes". It had a crew of about eight (pilot, copilot, navigator, two engineers, a "loading master" and his assistant to take care of the cargo, ...) and they lived more like sailors than airmen. The plane only needed major maintenance twice a year, so the crew had a "shift" of six months, in which they flew directly from job to job, and they literally lived in the plane, not returning to base. On the upper level behind the cockpit there is a crew room and two dormitories (two bunks in each, I think). They explained their jobs and lives, and it was clear that all of them really loved their airplane and their jobs.
When historical buildings or monuments are damaged, we rebuild them when we can. We should do the same for the Mriya, it was more than a cargo plane, it was a symbol. I hope there is will within the global aviation community to fund this.
I wouldn't be surprised that the Airbus could become involved in finishing of the An225 unfinished unit and possible additional units, as part of of EU's financial packages to help Ukraine to rebuild. The An225 does fill a specialist freight market.
@@chrismckellar9350 That's a brilliant point!
Only country in the world that can rebuild An-225 is Russia.
@@PhilippSeven -Airframe designed and built by Antonov in Kyiv, Ukraine -Engines designed and built by Ivchenko-Progress and Motor Sich in Zaporzhizhia, Ukraine So that leaves... What, avionics? Those can be replaced. Russia doesn't need to be involved at all... And they shouldn't be, either.
@@maitele Airframe designed by a group that consist most of russian engineers, and manufactured in Ulyanovsk, Tashkent, Gorkiy from the russian materials. Assembled in Kiev, yes. But even painted in Voronezh. Engines is the most Ukrainian part, I agree: Motor Sich staff always consist most of Ukrainian engineers, thats true. But the whole truth is that USSR could produce An-225 without Ukraine if needed to but Ukraine couldn't without USSR. It's like say that F-35 was made by Texas, not the USA.
The second 225 was optimised for cargo, with a single fin, unlike the finished one which compromised itself with the twin-fin for carrying the Buran. Also, Boeing have an arrangement with Antanov. More likely would be a 747/124 hybrid (for parts) for a new 225, if one were to be built, or even a new design. However, thinking outside the box, an airship makes far more sense.
Airships are unsafe, can't carry anything and slow. And the helium won't be available until Korea starts nuclear fusion(which would be in about 10 years from now)The US airships crashed as well despite having been built much better than the low tech Hindenburg and this proves that airships have no future. The old hangar in Germany is now a swimming pool and makes a lot of money.
Forget this stuff, 225 is gone - BASTA ! !
Dream on Boeing are not into Commercial Cargo Planes unless the Military put-up the money first. Why develop one only.
@@cliveengel5744 of course not one! Yes, it would for a military contract. The C-5 is getting old, and the USAF will need a new very large cargo aircraft. Producing in the USA is too expensive, but, if existing Boeing technology can be combined with Ukrainian cheap airframe building, plus a suitable set of western engines, a limited run of, say, 100 aircraft, to replace the C-5 in, say, 2040. At this time the A series will be 70 years old, if any are left, and the B series say 55 years old. There may be a market for another 50-100 or so civil applications, and other military. One could imagine the RAF, the RCAF, the RAAF, etc all buying a few each.
@@shero113 - The AN-225 was used extensively for the International Space Station assembly and since they down have to ferry large Modules by air from Houston to Star City is has limited use. Also Oil Field Equipment going from Houston to the Caspian or Russian Far East can go by barge through the Volga - Don Canal and/or Sakhalin. So no need for AN-225 - Ukraine shot their own plane up in the crossfire at Hostomel. If they had a spare Engine for the one that was undergoing servicing they could have flown it is Leipzig where all the Antonov VP fled a few days before the War. Ukraine is a nickel and dime operation - they always want money from somebody else to do their stuff. Boeing is not going to do anything with Antonov - by 2024 Antonov will have no customers and be a Freighter Company only as Airbus, Boeing and Russian Manufacturer will take up their market share.
I've seen a Bulga XL and they are incredible watching them unload.
If they do, they should complete a world tour so many can enjoy its return!
I believe if another one-of-a-kind oversized cargo aircraft would be created, it would have to be state funded. The Ukranian government has already indicated this is something they want to do after the war, and this is understandable as the An-225 was such an icon of Ukrainian identity. Of course they will have far more issues to deal with after the war, rebuilding the infrastructure etc. but I can definitely see Antanov getting re-nationalised and designing a new airframe with western engines, avionics and other parts.
Hopefully Antanov would do like NASA did when Rockwell International (formerly North American Aviation and now part of Boeing) built the Space Shuttles Discovery and Atlantis is to build structural spares so that if something did happen, they can either repair the aircraft with the spares, or even use those spares to build another aircraft (much like NASA using the spares to build the Space Shuttle Endeavour to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger).
AN-225 was financed by the Soviet Union during the Soviet era. The second one (basically just a bare fuselage) was never finished as the Soviet Union fell apart before it was completed.
The symbol of Ukrainian identity was built by Soviet people in the Soviet Union in a design bureau founded by a Russian, transferred to Ukraine.
@@vlad22rus it was repaired and upgraded several times after renovation of Ukraine independence
О чём вы? За последние пять лет Украина не построила ни одного самолёта, даже вшивого мелкого транспортника. Специалисты все разбежались, компетенции потеряны. Они скорее разрежут оставшиеся самолёты, как это было с Ту-160 и Ту-22, чем построят новые.
The AN-225 came to Kelowna back like 10 years ago and I remember watching the thing land. It was here for work at Kelowna Flightcraft and all I could think while staying at it is that’s one Soviet plane I would get on.
I'd like to see more of these 225 Antonov planes, they look beautiful
Its actually quit simple to build a new AN-225. You just need 10% luck 20% skill 15% concentrated power of will 5% pleasure 50% pain and 100% reason to remember the name. Even if the lady never flies again, it has allready became unforgettable when it rolled out of its hangar for the first time. We will miss you Мрія!
When he said "Miriya", I started to have doubts about this person's understanding of aviation.
What do you mean by that?
@@arianschmid7435 its pronounced differently.
Rolands Ozolins He is right, you need to pronounce it as Lamborghini's Miura
No. There is no i between m and r. The right pronunciation is Mriya, not Miriya.
Правильное название "Мрия". The right name is "Mriya".
It should be rebuilt (and if possible modernized with improved fuel efficiency), as an international effort. It is a useful tool to transport heavy cargo quickly, though there is only need for one in service and one as a standby, and remember to put them in different locations. Maybe one in the US, and one in Ukraine.
its really not needed considering it was built for a different purpose to begin with. If it was needed the 2nd one would have been finished long time ago. Only way you rebuild it and/or finish the 2nd one is you convince people/governments its needed for war like it was originally intended for. Then cost wouldn't matter. The current Freighters do a good enough job and 2 new ones 777-8F and A350F are on order. Economies of scale that these 2 offer could also be the reason we'll never see an A380F. Demand is not there to warrant the R&D. Anything that could only fit on AN-225 can either be broken down to fit current freighters or shipped via sea. AN-225 was a beautiful luxury we loooooved to look at.
@@giths19 If that were the case, the AN-225 would never have had any work at all - yet it did. After rebuilding on the original airworthiness certificate, certifying new avionics, engines, etc is relatively easy and could come from revenue streams that only that aircraft can generate, and that could massively increase the MTOW, economy of operation, and ease of operation, as well.
@@phillee2814 Sentiments aside as pointed out in the video it costs a lot of money to run the AN-225. Because of this it has had extended periods where it was parked. Its came back from one of these long breaks in 2020 during Covid because freight fees have gone through the roof. On the rebuilding side, its technology is old. The amount of work that will be required to update and bring it back is truly not worth it. I would love for them to rebuild it not to fly but put it on display like the Concorde, so that current and future generations can admire what engineers and scientist conceived in the 70s and built in the 80s.
@@giths19 Well its not completely true. If Mriya wasnt needed, then it would have stayed rotting in the field without engines and avionics as it did during 90'. Plane was completely restored and rebuild after 7 years of downtime. During that time everyone thought that it was the end but Antonov proved everyone (including themselves) wrong and got her back in the air. Also as many people wrote here, not everything in life is about money, its not just a regular old plane for extra deliveries, its a symbol. Monuments are not build for money, it just happened that this one managed to make some on the side.
@@alexandrgorobtsov7281 I agree not everything is for money but who is footing the bill? As mentioned in the video 2 companies planned to finish the 2nd one and abandoned those plans due to staggering costs. We can agree the millions you would spend to bring AN-225 back to the skies, would be better used to help Ukrainians lives after this invasion ends. I also said repair it and put it in a museum for all to see. It doesn't need to fly again it could get the Concord treatment. AN-225 was going to be retired due to age soon anyways. I have a feeling there were never plans to build a replacement modern version, so a museum is as good as a monument.
Thank you for your support. Great video.
The main reason for the price is the fact that the entire plane will most likely have to be re skinned as well as every inch of the plane will have to be inspected as well as tested to verify its integrity as well as like you said the tooling may not all be available for the 225 so it would probably be easier to build a brand new one but it would be near impossible so they have to work with what they have which isn't much.
The AN-225 is such an iconic aircraft. It would be nice to see the major aircraft manufacturers cooperate in either completing the existing airframe or designing a new version. I don't hold out much hope though.
Этот самолёт построил СССР , Украина сама ничего и никогда не сделает и не сделала ...только все просрать
I liked what the AN225 represented. Every time the US achieved something big Soviet Union had to go one bigger. The 225 was built to carry their shuttle, like the US 747 with the dual vertical stabilizer. There was no commercial reason for it then and not now. Still hate to see it go.
I will say, the Ukranians will have a lot to rebuild if they prevail. The 225 could be a really useful tool to help them speed up infrastructure projects
I think at this point rebuilding the AN-225 represents something more. It represents hope. Hope for a bright future for Ukraine and for it to get its country going again, despite the onslaught.
@ after all, Mriya literally means "the dream" in Ukrainian
Well, AN-124s earned money to rebuild one AN-225 and there was talk about rebuilding the other. For commercial purposes. It used to earn its upkeep and profit.
@@piotrd.4850 The Antonov company never had enough money to even finish the second airframe. A new AN 225 would have to be externally funded.
on my trip back from France, I saw one of the 26 AN-124s it was insane
Even without the unfinished one I’m sure it’s rebuildable, since almost all of the pieces were from other Antonovs, all you would really need would be a new fuselage and to salvage parts from existing planes.
'all you would need would be a new fuselage'. A bit like Titanic only needing a new hull.
That’s not quite correct, because there’re additional parts of wings that holds third and forth engines, and they were built in Tashkent (not sure) and delivered on the back of An22 Antei. One of these parts is destroyed totally and there’s no more production ability of such part, an Antei was seriously injured too. I hope they will find a way but it would be verrry difficult.
The second one is also destroyed !
It's way easy to say it, then to actually do it.
@@MrRobarino True but if they actually applied themselves they could.
Yeah. Maybe the priority will be to rebuild their towns, hospitals, roads and schools.
It must be priority to rebuild infrastructure , to rebuild infrastructure already take a lot of bouget . Probably will take a long for their economic stable if want re building An-225. If Ukraine build both can make economic crisis in their country
The 225 could be really key to help bring in the kind of supplies needed to help rebuild the country tho
Rail is the highest priority and Antonov should start new as a rail service company under the up-down separation principle.
something you forgot when looking at an an-225 replacement: its ability to land on rought terrain. a Dreamlifter need a nice runway. The an-225 could land on dirty runway(not recommended) just like Galaxy . Thats an additionnal reason it was such a prized plane.
all soviet air transports can land and take of from dirt runway
The 225 filled a small need that no other plane could. Therefore there was no economy in another one when we already had one. But now when it is gone there is still a need for really heavy air freight. I would guess they will try to scavange as much as they can from the old one.
What freight exactly cant be splitted in smaller portions?
Why ? Their is no airworthy material left !
@@heyhoe168 Exactly! Manufacturers of heavy and bulky machinery have gladly cut corners as long as they had the last dich opportunity to still airlift it with the Antonov. Will they still build their products the same and then tell the buyer: Oh sorry, it is a perfect machine but we just can‘t get it to you? No. Every big part starts as a pile of small parts. So they either assemble those at the buyer‘s site or they have to redesign their product in a modular way where the modules fit the transportation that is available. For long hauls everything can be shiped, it simply takes longer. And the last mile from the airport to the buyer may have been shorter than from the port, but that was managed and could be managed for the marine transport as well. My heart bleeds because of the willful and totally unnecessary destruction of that iconic plane (and I am sure it was a willful and wanton act of terror) but I fear we will not see this one of a kind technical marvel fly again.
@@berndheiden7630 I see. I am afraid those buisnesses cant afford to influence airlift market, so it requres calculation and regulation of someone as big ad government to decide if rebuilting an-225 can repay itself. After all it was government project from thd very start. For the reasons of destruction you are not right. It was zone of heavy fighting for few(!) days, anything could be destroyed in the middle of frontline.
I've been lucky to seen it fly 200 meters over my house and I had no idea that it will flyover my house. It totally got me off guard and what a sight it was to behold.
Hello, guys! The thing about Antonov 225 and 124, they were designed and build in the USSR, And the Russian part of the antonov team created the shell of the plane, and there were a couple of try’s between Russian and Ukraine after the fall of ussr to resume the 124 program and potentionaly the 225 program, but Ukraine has dropped them off a long time before the operation happened. And since then, the Russian Part of The Antonov has began a program to modernise their 124-100 fleet into the 124-100m aka Ruslan, witch are now flying under Volga-Dneper Cargo, and were used on UNESCO health missions
russia is going to make new large plane called the elephant
As iconic as the an-225 is, I think they have bigger fish to fry than to rebuild this airplane
Yeah, when the invasion is over, they better rebuild the entire infrastructure before even rebuild the aircraft considering the damage that has even reached Kiev. Sooner or later if they rebuild the aircraft before or during the rebuilding of the infrastructure, it would waste the country's money especially if resources are not enough to rebuild it (unless other countries would loan a lot of money and giving resources for either of the rebuild in a risk of a super high debt the country would have)
@@RK870XK right. Dmytro Antonov said that they have to end the war in order to inspect what remains of Gostomel and the Antonov Serial Production Plant before thinking anything else besides the rebuild.
This comment makes me think that if Ukraine wins and rebuilds, i like to imagine that they would build a successor of the Antonov, built in Ukrainian soil, called "Triumph" or something like that
Love SANSpotter, cool to see you briefly feature his “757 MAX”
It would be interesting to hear more about the void left in the cargo industry after it was destroyed as that would help understand how valuable (or irreplaceable) it was. Meaning, was it packed with tons of pallets that could be re-distributed in smaller planes or was it consistently carrying payloads that simply could not fly on other planes? I know it holds records for various loads but are these few and far between? Ultimately, I would love to see a AN-225 fly again as I think it would be absolutely amazing with current technology and state of the art engines!! Also, love the b-roll footage of the old United 747!! Thanks for the memories!!
Finishing the second AN-225 would be a matter of pride because cost is going to be prohibitive.
Great video! Respect.
Is there any confirmation of whether the 'second fuselage' is intact or destroyed? The only confirmed reports I've read are: 1) - 'the hanger housing the incomplete second airframe was hit by Russian artillery' and 2) - 'the shell that hit the hangar exploded when it hit'
It is a fuselage that has been sitting unfinished for 30 years. They no longer have any resembleance of production capacity to build it. They built what under a 100 airliners since end of USSR ?
I don't know if I think it will every fly again, but I hope so, as it's one of my favorite planes.
With the current one destroyed, it could be time for them to not only rebuild the 225, but maybe update it with modern parts
Especially modern engines.
Their priority in Ukraine should be somewhere else at the moment and the foreseeable future. But IF the need arises for such an airplane, considering the costs and the fact that Antonov wants to get Russian companies out of the Supply Chain, maybe the best option for Antonov is to cooperate with either Boeing or Airbus to use the existing shell of the 70% completed AN-225 and re-engineer it in such a way that it can utilises more off-the-shelf readily available components that are industry standard rather than building another AN-225 that is so unique that any issues will automatically cost a fortune to repair. I know, I don't want a AN-225 with modern avionics either, it is part of the charms of this plane to be build as it is. But considering the fact that they need to invest a fortune into reviving this airplane anyway, improving it for future tasks might be useful. For instance, using more fuel efficient, more powerful engines to increase the possible load capacity even more (or decreasing the fuel costs of this plane, however they see fit). Sure, I know that this would potentially mean a new Type Rating for this airplane and the costs in certifying will also increase, but considering the longevity of the original AN-225, if the market really needs it, they will be able to recoup the prices, albeit by making the freight costs higher for the operators who need it.
The problem with that approach is that Boeing and Airbus would largely only help with design (which I don't think Anotonov needs help with). They contract out most of their parts to third party suppliers, so looping them in isn't likely to help much
@@cobyexplanes I think the point was not that much to involve Boeing/Airbus themselves, but to utilize their component supply chains, so as many parts as possible could become off-the-shelf rather than one off type. Both for the development costs, as well as serviceability when later in use. But I think it is already counted in when Antonov is evaluating this project.
@@annaplojharova1400 Indeed, that was the idea, but also utilising experience from Boeing/Airbus in managing the development of this.
@@cobyexplanes Sure, Boeing/Airbus outsource a lot of the development, but you need to manage that effectively (see the issues especially in the beginning of the 787 project how badly this can go when managed poorly). Sure, lending their knowledge to Antonov wouldn’t be so useful for Airbus or Boeing, but considering the circumstances and especially the political signal it would send if the Ukrainian people would be possible to rebuild (an improved) Antonov and that especially Airbus is largely owned by European governments would make it possible that the politicians might help Antonov here to get the support to fully get rid off Russian parts for their (new) AN-225
Christian Storcks, I do want a AN-225 with modern avionics, it would make it a much better airplane. I agree that modern fuel efficient engines would also make it a much better airplane; looking at the photo of the damaged Mirya , the wings look like they're still mostly intact and quite restorable, also the tail section of the aircraft appears intact, the landing gear are similar to the AN-124. In the past Boeing considered becoming a parts supplier to Antonov, So there's still hope after the Russians are kicked out of Ukraine. The confiscated money of the Russians should be used to rebuild Ukraine.
7:16 I literally heard the quotes around that "just".
In the world of machining, if you have the schematics you can rebuild anything. The Leviathan is a locomotive from more than 100 years ago, and we built a replica in 2009.
I guess one final option would be for Antonov, or a competitor, to derive a clean sheet modern design to offer up for heavy lift cargo capacity (potentially replacing both AN-225 and AN-124.) BUT this would probably be the most expensive option.
I think it would be too expensive - if the market case isn't strong enough to justify building the 225, it certainly wont be enough to spend even more on a clean sheet plane
Exactly my thought. We can dream a lot, but freight is a business. Air freight is a ruthless business. The 225 was born from a political cold war requirement, not from a comercial need.
That would cost Billions, w/o government paying cost and lack of Volume sales it wont happen.
After seeing a C & D check on a 747-400 I could only imagine what it may be like to do this on a 225. It would at least be down for 4 months.
Thank you so much and HUGE kudos for donating your all revenues and wins from this video!
Coby talked about the cost of rebuilding tooling parts and so on about finishing the Second An-225. I don't know the status of remains of the completed An-225 but with the remains of the first plane, I'm sure there are useable parts that would reduce the cost of completing the Second. Or taking the incomplete Second AN-225 to rebuild the First. Like taking 2 wrecked cars and making one good car.
We will definitely build a new Mriya, same like we had. It is not a matter of cost, our Mriya has to be back.
one oligarchs seized yacht might even pay for it, just a thought.
@@JamesAllmond a custom built yacht will never sell for what it cost to build it in the first place...more like 3 to 4. Also someone would have to want to buy said yacht(s), doubt there's going to be that much interest in them.
How about a 747-400 instead? It would be more modern and fuel efficient.
@@softmechanics3130 it's also considerably smaller and has a lot less load carrying capacity...
@@AKAtheA Only the actually needed capacity is needed for a possible new plane.Thus, the actual dimensions will de determined by that of the items which would be carried according to the (limited) market conditions. The Dreamlifter got additional fuselage plugs and large upper part similar to the Beluga to carry aeroplane parts. It also carried items related to the recent global health situation. Freight transport will mostly go to rail and tube. The largest item carried by the An225 was a wind turbine blade but it can be made so that it can be assembled at site. I will post videos on these issues.
I don't want a Dreamlifter XL. I want the An-225 Mria
Hi, this is shitty plane, take your ordah prease
Yhey to see the An-225 Mria was on my bukett list. And the plane was a symbol for Ukraineian pride! I hope if Ukraine doesn't have the money to bild a new, I hope the world steps in and "Crowd fund" the plane!
You mean BelugaXL, that was Airbus' response to the Dreamlifter basically.
I seen the AN-225 take off and land at shannon dropping supplies during Covid. Impressive sight.
I hope they do build another one. I heard that the AN-225 had been used in humanitarian causes around the world. it seems sensible to have one around, given it can probably deliver everything required in one trip. Thank you for this video, Jeff
zero point, it was a museum piece, thats why the second one was never finished
Omg, Coby you're mispronouncing the AN-225's name! It's called MRIYA(мрия), not miRya, there's no I before the R !!! I know it's not a big deal but it's driving me crazy 😜
Gonna have to work on my Ukrainian accent haha
You're not the only one who is driven crazy by this.
Nice video, but it's "Mria", not "Myria".
It is thus as follows. 1)The old An225 can't be rebuilt into flyable conditions as the parts suffered thermal and mechanical damage . It can be made into a museum with photo displays and video replay from the old days. by replacing the destroyed parts with a stainless truss/panel structure similar to a prefab module building and movable on some rail so that it can be put out from the hangar on certain occassions. Also large speakers could be added. 2)Maybe the unfinished one is also damaged from the bombings and shellings.If there are remaining parts. this could be also made into a museum for art exhibitions 3)As the demand for a very large plane is only 1-2 in the world, modifying an old 747 staying in the boneyard (one of reactivable grade) by adding plugs and upper fuselage part similar to Dreamlifter and the actual size would be determined by the limited market requirements. Things like wind turbine blades can be made in segments that are assembled at site. Large and heavy items such as generators etc. should be designed in a disassemblable form from the beginning, Mechanics is far behind the developedness of digital electronics and thus should adopt certain aspects of electronics manufacturing which now only three countries are capable of(Korea,China,Taiwan). The future of aviation as a whole isn't good due to climate changes,abolishment of oil, developments in rail tech such as freight capable high speed rail and tube trains(1200km/h already reached in scale model) , shift to videoconferencing and digital twins instead of business trips, and increasing travel restrictions to reduce tourism as it created more problems such as begpackers than being a source of income and tourism related jobs. LCCs might be acquired by stateowned rail companies and used as connection lines; in this course, the no.of planes will be drastically reduced to save costs and many remaining turned into freight planes(mostly 320 and 737 small planes).
I sincerely Hope that the 224 gets a comeback. It is a fantastic airplane, and I do not understand why there is not more of Them. I will follow your channel. Kindest regards Jesper of Denmark 🇩🇰😎🇩🇰
I think one factor that made Dreamlifters relatively cheap may have been that there was no plan for mass production, hence no need for production tooling. It was cheaper to just build a few direct from the plans, using digital design tools and CAM. More or less "kit planes" in a sense. So if only 1/2 dozen Mriyas are planned, this digital/fab shop approach could be much cheaper.
Giving a dreamlifter to Antonov is the best way as it is also the cheapest.
@@softmechanics3130 max weight and max length are both much less. Also Dreamlifter cargo is not pressurized. So there are issues.
@@GaryBickford There are engineering ways around. A new Antonov 225 simply cannot be made.
@@softmechanics3130 The big question is whether there is enough market for such planes. Technically the 225 is a very old design, so a brand new design would be much cheaper to operate, but it's not obvious that the market would justify that expense.
@@GaryBickford Only one or two thus the only way would be modifying an existing one for the needs that have existed so far. The Dreamlifter itself is such a modification. Everything else will be handled by electric rail. Large freight will have to be made field assemblable and I know how,even the largest one the Antonov ever moved. Planes are limited to 850km/h ,period. Meanwhile, Korea has successfully tested 1200km/h tube train scale model on which it has an exclusive patent(local quasivacuum under global semivacuum) since 2008.Most of its application will be international freight rather than passengers. Also, Antonov should become a railways service company similar to PanAm did. Ukraine is now landlocked and thus massively relies on freight rail with Europe.
You're spot on why I believe the _spirit_ of the AN-225 will fly again. I say the _spirit_ because even if they _can_ finish the unfinished aircraft, they'll likely modernize it tremendously (such as eliminating most if not all of the entire engineering crew complement with modern avionics). But it is far more likely the case that they'll use the blueprints to redesign it from the ground up; although it may _look_ the same, it will be like comparing the 747-100 to the 747-8 - so much of it will be different that it will share very little in common. But that's not a bad thing, to be honest, because if they _do_ make a modern AN-225, they can start mass-production. And, let me tell you, with how many cargo airlines _furious_ that the A380 was not designed to be converted into a freighter from the ground up (unlike the 747, which is why there are so many passenger-to-cargo conversions for them), there _will_ be a market for them, _especially_ since the 747 itself may be facing a design dead-end like the 737 has. As you said yourself, you can't make the 747 any bigger without major consequences. The A380 would need a complete redesign to carry cargo (as they would need to redo the nose and cockpit in order to facilitate a front access door (and/or a swing-out tail) - and is why so many are being scrapped despite only being a decade old. So the Mirya would be the _easiest_ to modernize to fill in the gap, and with modern high-efficiency engines, could do some _serious_ heavy lifting at a fraction of the fuel costs it had up to its destruction. And with so many older aircraft with cargo airlines with no plans for a new large-sized cargo type with any major aircraft builders planned, this is the perfect time for Antonov to make a _killing_ - _especially_ if they modernize the AN-124 at the same time.
still going to be the biggest plane on the planet
I've been following this plane for a couple of years now I've watched documentaries on it I was rescued from the scrap heap in the '80s what a fantastic aircraft absolutely fantastic big it's beautiful and I think we need to bring it back I really do it's sad to see those pictures of it all blown up well let's just pray they bring it back
I think it's more likely that Stratolaunch gets a cargo pod, somewhat akin to the XC-120. It would be far less expensive, while potentially equaling the AN-225's capabilities.
Rebuilding Ukraine and its citizen's lives, stronger than ever, is utmost importance over any airplane. But an An-225X should be built. Modern day fly-by-wire avionics, six advance fuel efficient engines, more composites and light weight structure, improved MTOW and new advanced wing design. The Мрія will be reborn someday 🇺🇦✈
I has (had) Modern avionics, all burnt now though. 2001 upgrades, New autopilot and navigation systems, too allow it to fly under IFR rules. March 2018 upgrade "the Russian-made standby attitude indicator and altimeter on the central instrument panel had been replaced with a integrated indicator produced in the US. " March 2020 upgrade "installation of a domestically-designed (Ukrane) power management and control system"
GE-90s would handle it with power to spare in 4 engine configuraiton.
Dosent need 6. With 4 engines used on 777 such as GE90 mentiond above has more thrust than the currerent 6 engines config.
@@qiyuxuan9437 I would propose we use the GE nx or Trent 1000 as a possible option with four engine setup.
@@piotrd.4850 Yes, bigger engines, larger diameters, now even closer to the ground, that’s the right thing to do. Your concept would even allow the plane to act as runway vacuum cleaner. It might be also challenging to change from three engines per wing to two. A new design from scratch would be easier then changing all the tubing, wiring, and the fuel system from 3 to 2 engines. A good example is the re-engine project of the B-52, they stayed with 8 smaller engines instead of 4 bigger due to engineering challenges.
It would be so cool if either Boeing in the U.S.A. And or AirBus in Europe collaborated with Atnonov to either rebuild or even custom design and build the AN-225 as there will always be a demand for an ultra large cargo carrier planes to carry enormous non-modular cargo loads. I know it probably won’t happen but, it would be a huge symbol of U.S.-Euro-Ukrainian cooperation to signal a united force for peace against a tyranical and Autocratic Russia that is dropping bombs of civilians and destroying critical infrastructure
That would actually be a good idea bc Boeing and Airbus have so many aircrafts for passengers and military, if a petition was to be started to get the two companies to contribute to Mriya im pretty sure it would make an effective dent in the building cost.
Don't forget that the Mriya, although astoundlingly cool, is at least a 40 year old design. Something much better, and much more fuel efficient could be designed and built today. Perhaps using the huge and powerful new GE9X engine or something similar. A new design Mriya likely wouldn't need 6 engines.
@@asquare9316 Definitely, when you consider how massive some two engine designs are, a new plane of that scale would probably be a 4 engine design. All of that said, I disagree with the basic premise that a plane of that size makes economic sense. If the market for a plane of that spec existed Boeing or Airbus would have a competitor to the Antonov design already. Instead that one -225 was mostly able to fulfil those needs. Other outsized cargo planes exist, like the ones Airbus uses to ferry massive subassemblies around but they're shaped much differently. It makes me think that the -225 was enjoying a second life that was mostly driven by 'what do we do with this thing, it's whole purpose for existing no longer exists'. Unless someone had a Soviet shuttle they needed to ferry around.
@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 i think the properties of the 225 are unmatched and very specific. The market for such a plane is propably so small, that you only need one plane of this kind.
@@asquare9316 AN225X powered by 4 GE9X... fugg yeah
It's such a shame how this magnificent piece of engineering ended. Built together by fraternal people in an effort to conquer space and achieve new engineering and scientific records. Both people now deeply divided, destroying their heritage...
As much as we would like to see the AN-225, it depends on the outcome of the war. If the Ukrainian Government wins, it will probably be rebuilt after the countries priorities such as infrastructure and just rebuild the country with support from the IMF, after that its very possible that the AN-225 would be rebuilt. If the Russian Government wins, I am leading to a conclusion where they would need to use other funds allocated to Ukraine for other things in the aftermath.
First of all, the government don't fight wars. Secondly, Russia will lose.
@@bigballz4u depending outcome of the war.
@@bigballz4u Russia has lost already, at least in the global scale, but that unfortunately does not imply the Ukraine must win there. They may perform exceptionally well for their size, but the sheer size of Russia, whatever bad state they could be in, is just overwhelming. Plus the Putins desire to just destroy everything if he can not win makes the thing even worse..
@@annaplojharova1400 to early to tell which wins or looses
@@deathsquadron3311 Too early for any hope that Ukraine is going to win. No matter our wishes, Russia is much stronger, they are doing pretty good, and it is very close to take a half od county by the end of the next month. I don't know why people were expecting 2 weeks of war? This is not mid 20th century, and Ukraine is much harder to occupy then Iraq - that also took a time to occupy (by multiple counties)
Such a badass plane. There is a great documentary about it on KZhead where you get to see how the crew live and breath this plane. They were a well oiled machine moving massive cargo into the most remote places all over the world for example they had to lift massive generators from Germany to somewhere high up in the middle of nowhere South America. The Antonov was the only machine on Earth capable of such a task.
well they have that lovely 2nd fuselage just waiting in a hanger
Lockheed and Antonov would be a great collaboration.
there is that second air frame that was never finished, used slavaged part from the destoryered wreck to build a possibly better and bigger an 225, with suppliers they can use diffrent companies, also the an 255 was one of a kind, that why is should be reuilt, nothing else has the history, no other plane is as legendairy for it size.
for me the most critical part of the AN225 was it's capacity to carry around space hardware, such as pigbacking rocketery components such as hideously large boosters and even space shuttles, for this reason alone is why there was only one of the aircraft in existence, and the reason why we kinda need to have atleast one, also pigbacking aerodynamic stuff was something pretty unique, that i am pretty sure was only done by this plane.
The NASA 747 "Shuttle Carrier Aircraft" could carry Space shuttles on their back, but they both got scrapped along with the program (or museums, not sure). But don't think they were universal for carryes "on the back", Shuttles only.
@@Dukenukem thx duke
Nice vid
I really hope they build a new 225 I love that plane
All good things come to an end and i think we should just move on from An-225 peace
747 isnt a one of a kind, no wonder it's cheaper
The wings of the Mriya that was destroyed are still reusable as seen at 0:00:26, one wing appears intact whilst the wing root of the other appears damaged, only a wing root needs building with all new wing spars. At 0:02:24 the unfinished one appears to lack its tail, again at 0:00:26 the destroyed one appears to still have an intact tail which could easily be reused, let's not forget that it is not uncommon for parts from air disasters to have been reused in the past so it is possible! What is not seen due to the shell in the foreground at 0:00:26 is that the destroyed one also appears to be sat high up and not collapsed on the ground which means that its wheel bays are also intact, having just checked Google pics I see form other pics that they are indeed still intact which means as the unfinished one at 0:02:24 appears to lack its wheel bays, those on the destroyed one could also be reused. I'm sure that many other interior features like fixtures and fittings will also have survived the destruction which could also be reused which means that in reality there is not very much that needs to be made from scratch, that one wing root for the right wing and wing spars and that is practically it really, there is no way that it would cost so much to get the second one flying now that so many spares are available from the destroyed one, if anything the cost has just come right down!
The think you are missing here is "start up" costs. Who knows what peripheral documentation is available from the original plans, whether or not any specialized tooling/machinery is still used-and most importantly surely by now the most high level designers, engineers, technicians and machinists are elderly or deceased. The complexity of picking up a project after decades is really a difficult matter. Even if it is derived from something else.
50/50 odds if the uncompleted one survives the war. There's a definite market for it; one thing that the commentator got wrong is that the 225 flew on a regular basis, just not on a daily basis. They lined up cargo so that it was utilized as much as possible for each run. Think of a less than truck load company; unless it was one massive piece, they daisy chained the scheduling to be as efficient as possible for each hour of operation....
If you're going to build one, then build at least 2 more as spares/backups as the marginal cost will be relatively modest and help spread the cost of the tooling and (re)design over additional airframes.
they could do a fund raiser to get aircraft fans around the world to help rebuild this beauty of a machine
I wish I could see it again
The first 225 was once a "dream" herself. Hence her name Mriya.
Yes, the 225 reconstruction doesn't make sense from a financial perspective. BUT The 747 dream lifter is not suitable as a replacement. The major advantage with an 225 is the 2 massive cargo doors, one at the front and one at the back. That's not important however. The 225 now holds a huge symbolic significance, it is the embodiment of Ukraine's struggle with Russia. Not just he recent struggle, but the historic struggles and constant invasions that has been persistent since the days of Tsarism This isn't a struggle that is unique to Ukraine either, its a huge part of the history of countless other nations such as Georgia and Poland This alone provides the motivation to rebuild the plane
didnt the an 225 has only one door in the front? i think only the 124 has 2 doors, the 225 only 1
@@luigikiller0078 no, the 225 definitely had a pass-through layout with 2 doors
@@lord_scrubington No, there is not aft cargo door on the AN225 because of the lower instalation of the twin fin and the rudder to accomodate the Bourane shuttle. Only AN124 (and C-5 Galaxy) have dual cargo doors. You will never found a picture of AN225 with such aft door, go check it
From what I could tell that 225 was only partly destroyed, I think what caused the most problems in reviving that unfinished 225 was having to make everything from scratch, but you could easily take one of the wings, the entire tail section, and maybe even 2-3 of the engines off the destroyed 225 and add them to the unfinished one,
check out dmytro antonov's channel about him inspecting the an-225, the airframe is riddled with bullet holes and shrapnel, no way you can salvage anything from it besides an engine or two
@@NiceKZheadr Would you mind providing a link? I can’t seem to find the video you’re mentioning
@@redjaypictures4528 don't know if my link would get deleted so I'll post under but here
kzhead.info/sun/dNmKd9qhloRurZ8/bejne.html
@@NiceKZheadr Okay, I watched the video you sent, but I have to admit Im now even more convinced that its partially salvageable, The left wing is almost completely undamaged, even still has its flaps, and engines 1-3 all seem brand new, the scorching also ends midway through the plane, so i still think practically anything from the rear of the plane could be taken and used to complete the new 225
One parameter : the beauty. Should not be forgotten.
Take the an124, stretch it , slap on a new wing, and employ 4x Ge90 engine and a cockpit based on 747-400
No 6, it has to be six
You can't just reduce the number of engines. If it was possible, the Boeing 747 would be flying on two GE9X engines. It simply doesn't work like that. A wing designed for 4 engines must have 4 to keep it balanced. A wing designed for 6 must have 6.
@@bemusedpanda8875 what wing, the one that was destroyed? they need to design a whole new wing.. but the reality is, it wont happen, nothing will happen.. to expensive for a niche market. that plane is dead and gone.. An-124 is the new cargo king.
@@JacobTJ1 I said that the An-225 has its own special wings, not just lengthened An-124 wings. I was responding your earlier comment when you said that you can slap 4 engines on a wing mean to hold 6.
@@bemusedpanda8875 "slap on a new wing" i actually meant design a new wing capable of carrying that same load and thrust force to adapt 4x GE90 engines
The only downside with Boeing building a new Dreamlifter is that the 747 has been out of production for almost a year and a half and have already finished all of their orders
There are old ones
Nach meiner Kenntnis existierte eine weitere Maschine dieses Typs, die allerdings nicht fertig gebaut wurde. Diese würde bestimmt einfacher fertig zu stellen sein, als die schwer zerstörte erste Maschine wieder aufzubauen. Ich wünsche jedoch dem Projekt "Wiedergeburt der AN-225" viel Glück und Erfolg.
Assuming that the damage shown in the photo is the majority of the damage to the AN225 then there's an option you did not discuss. I know that back some 30 years ago now a B-52 caught fire and burned the entire forward fuselage of the plane and yet the plane was restored and I believe is still flying today. To do that they chopped the forward fuselage off of an older model in the "boneyard" and spliced it onto the damaged aircraft. Since there's an existing forward fuselage for the second aircraft it's possible it could provide the "replacement parts" get the aircratf repaired. This mainly depends on the status of the rest of the plane however.
This plane was built by USSR, not Ukraine. It means that huge amount of companies from around USSR was involved. Recreation of An-225 means creation absolutely new airplane which may visually looks like An-225.
I still think as soon as the war broke out, ukraine should've had a crew fly that plane to a friendly nation for safekeeping
Unfortunately the airport where Mriya is was attacked during the first day of the war by airborne forces
The plane was grounded due to scheduled maintenance, so there‘s that :/
There was a video of the Left 3rd engine still running.
I honestly think that this should be put on the shoulders of the entire aviation community. Aircraft manufacturers and parts suppliers for those Aircraft. The 225 was a one of a kind Aircraft and deserves to be rebuilt using today's technology. Give it an upgrade.
can't you see it's been totally ruined by ukros
I do yes but with today's technology and practices and considering that the 124 and 225 are extremely similar in every aspect it's possible to finish off the second 225 . But not just one entity should bare the brunt lol the budget. It should be done collectively as a community.
@@patdayton3219 no one will ever be able and willing to do this pointless job. the hull has been split in two and burned. this is just another means of attracting attention to their failed country. for the same reason they keep running around the world with their down syndrome flag and shouting their natzee slogans.
I think the plane will get to fly above the clouds again, but it will take quite some time to get the plane up & running again. Antonov could use the incomplete antonov an-225 to repair the wounded Flying Giant, but what if I told you there is an alternative? For example, the Lockheed C5 Galaxy (which has a striking resemblance to the Antonov an-124 & Antonov an-225), made for transporting military personnel, tanks, helicopter, etc., for the U.S. Air Force.
I think Airbus should partner up with Antonov and supply Turbines and Avionics from the A 380. There should be enough parts available now. The fuselage and wings could come from the spare Antonow 225 or even some parts like the tail section could also come from the A380. This sounds very naive, but in the automotive business it is often done. So maybe that would be an idea.
Antonov was rescued by Boeing money some years ago I think.
An-225 is the Notre Dame of the skies, it will be rebuilt!
I believe and hope the Anitov 225 will be rebuilt.They got the second fuselage and the wings from the destroyed one.I think there are many parts that can be salvaged from the wrecked original aircraft.
Great analysis as usual Coby. Love & prayers to the people of Ukraine & thank you for your support. 🇩🇰 🇺🇸-> 🇺🇦 Build the 2nd 225. Cost be damned, nothing else can fill it's shoes.
It's not usable in remote places because it needs a huge airport. Heavy things will get shipped by boats, barges, and trains.
@@noe616 very well aware of that but if the need arises to move a large load of critical cargo as fast as possible this is the way. It's not a daily flier but it does fill a niche. Respectfully.
If they are unable to salvage enough from the wreck and the unfinished planes to make one, and they did decide to make a new version, given the lack of tooling and the unfinished state of the wings on the 'spare' I wonder if there is more of a chance of us seeing it equipped with 4 larger engines (ground clearance is far from an issue) rather than the original 6? However, in a world which did not fully utllise a single example, it seems difficult to justify a replacement on economic grounds alone. Especially when little if anything which required its size could potentially be manufactured in a location where other forms of transport would suffice, or knowing the transport limitations, could be manufactured to fit what is available with final assembly taking place closer to where the product is required.
Judging from the footage, there is still a lot intact from the plane. It looks like the wings are in salvageable condition, the rear of the plane seems intact, the tail with both tailfins are still there. She is resting on her main landing gear, so that is still there and indicates that the surviving part of the plane is structural sound. As it is a 'classic' plane the damage to electronics is limited ... there isn't much of it. It's possible to cannibalize the unfinished hull and some AN125 for spare parts (internal systems, cockpit, etc.) ... I'm rather optimistic that the plane can be restored, if it doesn't suffer more damage and there is will (and money) to restore the plane.
There is new footage from the plane. It seems to conform that both wings are intact, but the front third of the fuselage is completely destroyed. It's not a total loss and my hopes are rising that the plane could be restored with some effort.
@@chrishieke1261 let's hope that the wings haven't suffered from twisting or weakening as a result of the. close proximity to the explosions which caused so much damage to other areas of the aircraft but is unlikely to be detectable in all but the closest and most detailed inspection.
I hope... I love that plane...
I saw ‘fundraiser’ in the description so I thought, “I wonder if they can raise enough funds to rebuild it off KZhead?” Then I saw the family fundraiser. Makes sense