Well, they're statistically more reliable and generally more efficient at cruising speeds. Too, in remote locale, jet fuel is easier to find than aviation gas. The propellers on each wing spin in different directions which produces more lift (this plane is heavy...) and reduces prop wash on the wings. Too, if an engine were to fail, having the dual propellers with differing rotation directions will reduce yaw and be much safer in flight. Better question, why not turboprop?
Such a shame that so many backed out and that those who stayed in reduced their order. Some even orderd C-130J's untill this thing is ready. I still like the AN-70 the best though.
@oiseautempete Your not listening man. I know they are different planes. We are talking about looks here. If you think they don't look more alike than say an AN-124 does vs a C-17 then you are blinded by pride. They could have easily went the C-130 route and set it up the same way but they didn't, they made it as similar to the C-17 as they could. The tail might as well be swappable.
@oiseautempete Actually to be honest in this example I felt like sounding downright ignorant. But what do you want me to say really. How could I play that simple concept into something more "intellectual"? Let me try. You do realize that the people comparing the C-17A series to the A-400M series are refering to the profound features such as: The large non-tapered vertical stabalizer, the main gear wheel wells, the T-tail's degree of anhedral and the main wing box fairing. Is that better?
@oiseautempete Yea and I guess to you the A350 XWB doesn't look like the 787. There are lots of ways to make efficient aircraft. Customers want something pretty. Economics comes first, beauty second. Passengers don't wanna fly on turboprops because they are loud slow and ugly. They don't care if its cheaper. The A400 looks alot like the C-17 yet you are sitting here trying to get into systems and detail JUST LOOK AT IT. That is all we are talking about. Your the one who is blind.
beautiful aircraft :)
Great aircraft
Well, they're statistically more reliable and generally more efficient at cruising speeds. Too, in remote locale, jet fuel is easier to find than aviation gas. The propellers on each wing spin in different directions which produces more lift (this plane is heavy...) and reduces prop wash on the wings. Too, if an engine were to fail, having the dual propellers with differing rotation directions will reduce yaw and be much safer in flight. Better question, why not turboprop?
wow is that thing whisper quiet!
Such a shame that so many backed out and that those who stayed in reduced their order. Some even orderd C-130J's untill this thing is ready. I still like the AN-70 the best though.
@marintoss thats EXACTLY what i thought
Ан-22 Антей всё равно непревзойдённый среди турбовинтовых самолётов!!! Это факт!
Looks like C-17 only with turbo prop. engines.
@oiseautempete Your not listening man. I know they are different planes. We are talking about looks here. If you think they don't look more alike than say an AN-124 does vs a C-17 then you are blinded by pride. They could have easily went the C-130 route and set it up the same way but they didn't, they made it as similar to the C-17 as they could. The tail might as well be swappable.
@oiseautempete Actually to be honest in this example I felt like sounding downright ignorant. But what do you want me to say really. How could I play that simple concept into something more "intellectual"?
Let me try.
You do realize that the people comparing the C-17A series to the A-400M series are refering to the profound features such as: The large non-tapered vertical stabalizer, the main gear wheel wells, the T-tail's degree of anhedral and the main wing box fairing. Is that better?
WHY? WHY TURBOPROP ENGINES?
i heard Airbus made a C130 and a C17 have sex and this is what happened
Look close at 40 seconds to the flags on the side of the plane,and you see the turkish flag sticker! along with the other countries that bought it!!!
AN-70 is fucking LOUD compare to A400m
@oiseautempete Yea and I guess to you the A350 XWB doesn't look like the 787. There are lots of ways to make efficient aircraft. Customers want something pretty. Economics comes first, beauty second. Passengers don't wanna fly on turboprops because they are loud slow and ugly. They don't care if its cheaper.
The A400 looks alot like the C-17 yet you are sitting here trying to get into systems and detail JUST LOOK AT IT. That is all we are talking about. Your the one who is blind.
AN-70 is much better)) And was made 10 years early than A400
Спиздели у антоновцев идею ,планер, и движки копия АН 70