I wonder about the T-tail on the full-scale heavy lifters.
The Antonov's don't use it, but "embrace" many of the other features of similar western airplanes.
I have a feeling the Antonov way is the correct way, for an airplane which might be in an active combat area. With the horizontal on top of the vertical. any weakening of the structure in the vertical due to combat damage requires a more robust construction.
With the horizontal on the fuselage, the vertical doesn't need the added structure to support the load at its upper end.
There may be esoteric reasons for the T-tail, but when Boeing competed with Lockheed for the C-5, their plane was a precursor for the 747, with a conventional horizontal.
Planes aren't always designed with the best aerodynamic features. some sex appeal slips in once in awhile.
Except for the Ruskies. Their planes temd to be more practically designed, if ineptly executed.
I recall inspecting the removable gun tray for the MiG-21. It was maintainable with a wide blade screwdriver and a fits-all.
Next to it was a USAF GBU-10 laser guided bomb. I counted 8 different styles of fastener just on the guide-head, from slot screws of varying sizes, philips heads, hexheads, and bolts which need special sockets to work with.
The guys working with the MiGs said after long periods of non-use, all they had to do was kick the tires and light the fires.. the F-4s they also used took much to pre-flight, and fix the problems that occur just when it's sitting still.