I'm pretty sure the C17 design was driven by requirements to operate in and out of smaller airfields, so a short takeoff and landing distance was critical.
Arguably, perhaps, but in reality it isn't even close. Its a typical Russian design, built to get the job done as economically as possible. The C17 was purpose built, is MUCH faster, can operate out of much smaller airfields, can handle much more complicated cargo or personnel requirements, and has much more sophisticated avionics.
If you need to dump ammo in a contested space and \*maybe\* have it get where the troops need it, the AN22 will do it fine, just slowly. If you need to drop tanks, troops, fuel, etc on a dime while avoiding AA guns, the C17 will do just fine.
Additionally, the argument that the C17 is 30 years newer is false. The initial plane that developed into the C17 was from the mid 70s, with full C17 development taking place in the 80s, so its about a decade or so newer than the AN22.
For comparison sake, there were over 200 C17s built, almost all are still flying. There were only about 60 AN22s built, with ZERO still flying. Their last one was lost during the invasion of Ukraine.
The C17 regularly accompanies the president and is the plane of choice when flying to Antarctica, a feat the AN22 never accomplished.
You don't know what you are talking about as even your second sentence proves it. It is Ukrainian design, not Russian. Also AN22 has better short take off and landing performance.
IIRC the AN-22 has very high wing loading, which makes it harder to fly and less maneuverable in the air. It's likely much more expensive to operate on a per-hour basis. The C-17 I think was designed for (comparatively) heavy maneuvering with high loads on board. The An-22 does not support a2a refueling, which means when in use the C-17 will have a substantial advantage in available cargo tonnage because it can take off with a lot of cargo but only enough fuel to reach the tankers.
That said, I'm not sure how often the C-17 actually operates that way, if at all. There are bound to be guys who flew / operated them coming around soon. If they say differently they're right and I'm wrong :)
At the 71t range of 2400nm, the C17 is already about an hour and 10 minutes faster, add on the time for the AN-22 to land and take on more fuel, and you’re looking at a pretty big time difference when it really matters.
> At the 71t range of 2400nm
Are those numbers chosen for any reason in particular besides that they're the C-17's upper limit?
If we went for 80t and 2700nm, the An-22 would look far more attractive. It gets there in one trip and without the need for aerial refuelling.
The wing loading is similar to the C17. And it’s a straighter higher aspect ratio wing with a ton of air being blown over it so I can’t imagine it’s that bad
I just wanna add that I’m not saying it’s better than the C-17, just that it’s performance figures extremely competitive and that’s before you even consider the age of the design.
I'm not sure how big the margin is that you gain by this maneuver, because the plane still needs to be light enough to land and the maximum landing weight is a lot lower than the maximum takeoff weight for fixed wing.
For vtol jets or bombers however, that's a viable tactic because the payload will not be present during landing.
In particular I’m looking at the payload with max fuel. The fuel efficiency means you can carry way less fuel and instead add much more extra weight
So you win on range, payload and operating costs which is it exactly what you want from a cargo plane
Chuck a modern swept supercritical wing on there and your cruising speed should be much better
Imagine what it could do with more modern materials and engines. Makes you wonder if the C-17 could've been a turboprop
How valuable is speed on a cargo plane?
Also a very cool plane showing that turboprops still have a place in that sector although its payload is less than half of the An-22
I wish I knew how to extrapolate what it’s performance figures would be like if scaled up to the C-17
Depends entirely on what you’re shipping and why.
Moving a bunch of iPhones? What’s another hour or two.
Moving military supplies to a warzone otherwise difficult to reach and resupply? Speed becomes more important, because you don’t want your guys to run out of such things as Food and Ammo.
Without being an expert on the subject, I assume the c17 was designed with power in mind.
Like, it has the ability to takeoff in shorter distances, and is able to climb faster, hence being able to get out of a conflict zone quicker.
I'm assuming the an22 climbs rather slowly and is under powerered, compared to the c17.
I'm not sure if you understand how airplanes are designed. Comparing a select group of generic Wikipedia metrics means nothing when *you don't understand their mission.*
Turboprops have better fuel econony at the expense of true power. This affect ceiling and cruise speed. The C17 has ceiling of 45000ft to the AN22's 30000ft. That means the C17 can fly over most bad weather which is a lot faster and economical. Plus the C17 flies 50kts faster, which couple the higher ceiling and faster airspeed can actually substantially outspeed the AN22 on groundspeed with more tailwind options.
Also should be noted with the USAF you dont need that advantage with longer range when you have the aerial refueling network the US military has. Russia doesnt have that ability to refuel their strategic airlifters in air.
It's an apples to oranges comparison. An-22's counterpart would have been the c-141 which is much closer to the an-22 while maintaining the same jet speeds. Three to five years after the an-22's introduction the U.S would introduce the C-5 and the USSR would introduce the AN-124, both much larger and heavier aircraft.
The C-17 was designed to replace the c-141, which was designed to replace slower prop driven designs. The c-17 still fills that role as it's cruise speed is almost 160kts faster than the c-130 and it carries more cargo than the 141.
They aren't exactly designed for the same thing, and the C-17 provides a faster and more powerful service in a smaller package than the AN-22
The AN-22 is cool and all, but it's slower, and more vulnerable
The C-17 was designed to pretty detailed requirements by the initial client. It's short field performance is hugely better, and it's ability to do combat approaches and departures... the AN-22 would be torn to shreds operating into the same combat zones the C-17 was designed to handle.
yeah that comes with a cost to payload and range, but it can be fueled in the air, and they built so many of the damn things you don't have to worry about payload as there are ten more in line coming to drop things off too.
I don’t see the AN-22 really outperforming the C17 here.
It’s a little bigger and a little heavier, which can be both good and bad. A transport plane is no good if you can’t land or take off from the places you need to go.
The AN-22 is also a good deal slower.
35 Comments
roccthecasbah@reddit
carstyso@reddit
rhnltnsy16@reddit
rhnltnsy16@reddit
fenuxjde@reddit
rhnltnsy16@reddit
I_Go_BrRrRrRrRr@reddit
dscottj@reddit
Graflex01867@reddit
Rumpelforeskinn@reddit
HortenWho229@reddit (OP)
Fast-Satisfaction482@reddit
nestzephyr@reddit
Fast-Satisfaction482@reddit
lens314@reddit
Brotherio@reddit
HortenWho229@reddit (OP)
HortenWho229@reddit (OP)
agha0013@reddit
HortenWho229@reddit (OP)
Mayor__Defacto@reddit
galaxyhunter1@reddit
Banfy_B@reddit
agha0013@reddit
fenuxjde@reddit
galaxyhunter1@reddit
NewPerfection@reddit
nestzephyr@reddit
HortenWho229@reddit (OP)
ComprehensiveEar7218@reddit
KeDoG3@reddit
n108bg@reddit
agha0013@reddit
Graflex01867@reddit
lens314@reddit