How did the An-225 compare with the An-124 and C-5 Galaxy?
The Antonov An-225 was substantially larger than both the An-124 and Lockheed C-5 Galaxy: it had the greatest wingspan, maximum take-off weight and payload. The An-124 and C-5 carried roughly half as much, but their nose-and-tail loading made them more flexible for routine drive-through cargo operations.
How much bigger was the An-225?
The An-225 led all three aircraft in overall length, wingspan, cargo volume and maximum payload. The figures below use the standard An-124-100 and the modernised C-5M; upgraded An-124 variants and earlier C-5 models have different limits.
| Specification | Antonov An-225 | Antonov An-124-100 | Lockheed C-5M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | 84.0 m | 69.1 m | 75.3 m |
| Wingspan | 88.4 m | 73.3 m | 67.9 m |
| Maximum take-off weight | 640 t | About 392 t | About 381 t |
| Maximum payload | 250 t internally | 120 t; up to 150 t for upgraded versions | About 127.5 t |
| Approximate main cargo bay | 43.3 × 6.4 × 4.4 m | 36.5 × 6.4 × 4.4 m | 36.9 × 5.8 × 4.1 m |
| Engines | Six Progress D-18T turbofans | Four Progress D-18T turbofans | Four GE F138 turbofans |
| Cargo access | Opening nose only | Opening nose and rear ramp | Opening nose and rear doors |
These are structural maximums, not loads available on every flight. Fuel, runway length, temperature, centre of gravity and floor-loading limits reduce the usable payload. Our separate guide explains the An-225's payload, range and runway requirements in greater detail.
Was the An-225 simply an enlarged An-124?
No. The An-225 was derived from the An-124, but Antonov stretched the fuselage, enlarged the wing, added two engines and fitted a twin-fin tail.
The twin tail kept the stabilisers clear of disturbed airflow from large external loads. Antonov also removed the An-124's rear cargo door and ramp, saving structural weight while creating a longer uninterrupted cargo floor. Its original requirement was to carry the Soviet Buran space shuttle and launch-system components, covered in our account of the An-225's Buran transport brief and later cargo role.
The result was a specialised heavy lifter rather than a straightforward next-generation An-124. It could accept an internal payload of about 250 tonnes and was designed for external loads of up to roughly 200 tonnes, subject to their shape and aerodynamic effects.
Which aircraft had the most useful cargo hold?
The An-225 had the largest hold, but the An-124 and C-5 offered more convenient loading for many vehicles and military loads.
- An-225: Best for exceptionally heavy, long or wide single pieces. Its nose opened and the front undercarriage could kneel, but cargo could not pass through the aircraft because there was no rear ramp.
- An-124: Combined a wide Antonov cargo bay with opening nose and rear access. Onboard handling equipment and commercial availability made it the practical workhorse for generators, turbines, helicopters and industrial machinery.
- C-5 Galaxy: Used front and rear loading so vehicles could drive through the hold. Its cargo bay was narrower and slightly lower than the Antonovs', but it was designed around military vehicles, rapid loading, troop support and strategic operations.
A common mistake is to compare payload figures without checking the cargo's geometry. A load may be well below the weight limit yet still be impossible to carry because of door clearance, floor loading, tie-down requirements or centre-of-gravity limits.
Could the An-124 or C-5 replace the An-225?
The An-124 could replace the An-225 on many commercial jobs, but neither aircraft could match its full combination of payload, bay width and cargo length.
Very heavy consignments could sometimes be divided between An-124 flights. That did not help with a single indivisible item weighing more than an An-124 could accept. The C-5 had comparable payload capability to an An-124, but it is a United States military aircraft rather than a commercially chartered alternative.
The sole completed An-225 was destroyed at Hostomel Airport in 2022. That loss removed the only operational aircraft in its highest payload class; our account of its destruction and exceptional design features explains what happened.
What do aircraft comparisons often get wrong?
The most reliable comparison uses the same definitions and named variants throughout.
- Variant mismatch: A 150-tonne upgraded An-124 should not be presented as though every An-124 had that capability. C-5A, C-5B and C-5M figures also differ.
- Maximum payload versus range: Maximum payload and full fuel generally cannot be carried together. Advertised ferry range is not the range available with the heaviest cargo.
- External size versus usable space: The C-5 was longer than the An-124 overall, but its cargo bay was narrower. Door dimensions can matter more than fuselage length.
- Capacity versus access: The An-225 carried far more, yet its nose-only loading could complicate vehicle movements compared with the drive-through An-124 and C-5.
In practical terms, the An-225 was the ultimate special-mission heavy lifter, the An-124 was the more flexible commercial outsized-cargo aircraft, and the C-5 Galaxy was the purpose-built military strategic airlifter.