Transport Tycoon Forums

Well, the idea is to bring the world of cargo to the skies with new and realistic planes to Locomotion. I have a rough idea of an airport i can make for the task (some of these planes should be huge and need A LOT of space!) and have done some research and found 3 good planes to add. Just need someone to model them. They are all Antonovs, so if there are any others out there which would fit, let us know.

1) Antonov-225 : 250 tonnes. Ultimate heavy weight lifting. Only one in real life, but we can stretch that.
2) Antonov-124-100 : 120 tonnes. Pretty good lifter, still 6 times more than the herc can carry.
3) Antonov-22 : 53 tonnes. The light weight option, but not too light.

You can see their proper stats here: http://antonovaircargo.com/eng/aircrafts_1.php


So, anyone up for the job?

hi
i have another idea the "C-17 GLOBEMASTER III"
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=86

or the "Airbus A300-600ST Beluga"
http://www.airbustransport.com/specs.html

some of the largest planes in the world

47 tons for the Airbus is quite low, considering how large it is.

Making new planes isn't very hard, as you don't have to bother with the modeling part of it. Just download the model for flightsim & take the pictures. After that, I don't know how or what to do with the pictures so...

I've got too much to do now so I can't take this...

or something like this


there are bigger ones but they very expensive
i think there are many things u can do with a "SES-Surface Effect-Ship"

look at this
http://www.ingopagehome.de/franz/MOV_Ekrano_Lun.mpg

(sry for the confus english)

I think you have the wrong idea. We don't want water skimming planes. We need the big bulky ones, that can be used in big cargo operations!

do you know how many people or tons those plains can transport ?!
over 150 people with a speed over 500 km/h

believe me we need this ! I need this !

Would be greater incentive to work on these if we had a single runway airport with 6-7 terminals

I say single runway because if you have an airport that needs 2 runways you arnt gonna need more then the 4 terminals in the int airport. Also something about busy bits and being more complicated to impliment with 2 runways.

JT

The problem with the current two way airports is that there is a huge bottleneck trying to land at the airport. I'm not going to go make it unrealistic and let planes land as they like either. The cargo airport will let the airplanes use both runways to land (and just use 1 for taking off for the sake of simplicity) which should double the speed of the airport!
If your use the airport for a single resource, 2 or so terminals with a constant supply of planes is enough.

Might I suggest the Lockheed C5 Galaxy...the only plane bigger then it is the Anotov 225 Mira...it would be a very good addtion to the Cargo Aircaft info you are gathering.

Hmmmm - 2 dug up topics in 1 day....

OKE: whilst I appreciate you're not just starting new topics (Well done, have a gold star)... It might be worth looking to see when the last post was. If it was a while ago, might be best leaving the topic be?

Please excuse me. I thought that since the topic was not locked that it was still open for discussion...that being said I resolve to not bother to make any further posts on this site...the format is too complicated to sit and sift through which posts can be discussed and which cannot. Granted the ideas that are expressed and shared are great, however, I no longer feel comfortable sharing any views since it appears I have to walk on eggshells and literally analyze which date this was said and wait am I allowed to make a comment here? Oh...hold on...no...cause it's not a full moon and I forgot to rub my stomach and pat my head at the same time. It would appear that I left my handy dandy decoder ring at home and wasn't able to hold it up to the monitor and decipher whether anyone was aloud to comment or not on the subject at the time. That being said, kindly delete my profile from this site immediately. Thank you.

scpk2000 wrote:Please excuse me. I thought that since the topic was not locked that it was still open for discussion...that being said I resolve to not bother to make any further posts on this site...the format is too complicated to sit and sift through which posts can be discussed and which cannot. Granted the ideas that are expressed and shared are great, however, I no longer feel comfortable sharing any views since it appears I have to walk on eggshells and literally analyze which date this was said and wait am I allowed to make a comment here? Oh...hold on...no...cause it's not a full moon and I forgot to rub my stomach and pat my head at the same time. It would appear that I left my handy dandy decoder ring at home and wasn't able to hold it up to the monitor and decipher whether anyone was aloud to comment or not on the subject at the time. That being said, kindly delete my profile from this site immediately. Thank you.

Woo Woo, stop. Calm it down a sec. There's no need to leave, i feel that in my opinion that is a rash decision, you do not need to walk on eggshells on this forum, yes some members do jump in feet first ( i jump in head first, hence why i hit the bottom of the pool and gubbed my neck, buts thats another story) and give some hard hitting posts to the new members.

But as Andel says we respect that you have not just started 4 millions topics and you wish to have your views expressed, its just forum etiquette that if a topic is old and there have been no new posts then it is considered dead, and we do see where you are coming from, if its considered dead then why not lock it? That well is a very good question, with the only reasonable explaination being that the original topic author may come back and continue, but until then its dead.

I personally wish that you don't leave just over a silly thing like this as the forum is daunting to begin with, but once your settled in its a nice place and you can make friends here and hopefully also contribute.

Please don't just leave over this, think about it, take a breather and hopefully you with re-consider

MD

the antonov 225 is in the plane pack released by paasky. And I am sure you can you the search (which is what I imagine you used to dig up this topic)

Actually Alistair you are wrong...I was just going down the list of posts under Locomotion Graphics, Modifications & Tools and saw that this was being discussed. However, I still stand by my earlier question...how come no Lockheed C5 Galaxy?

I don't think they considered it high on their list... modding tends to be what the modder wants first... if you see how I mean?

Yep I sure do.

ok, lets lay this to rest, the antonov is in paasky's aircraft pack

go dl that and let this thing go back in its grave