Jump to content

Talk:Antonov An-225 Mriya

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kuracyja (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 27 February 2022 (→Reports and Visuals Confirming Destruction of the An-225). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Horsepower

The standard formula for converting speed (528 mph) and thrust (309600 lbs) to the equivalent horsepower gives just under 436,000 hp needed to travel that speed. AMCKen (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A gross over-estimate. We obtain a more reasonable figure by taking the MTOW, 1.4E6 lbs, dividing it by a ballpark lift-drag ratio in cruise, 20, to find the cruise drag, namely 70,000 lbs, and multiplying that by the flight speed which again we can estimate as unlikely to exceed 0.85 Mach number in the stratosphere, so 823 ft/sec - result 105,000 horsepower. 86.130.154.119 (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in citations

Citation 5: Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ramAn225" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Citation 23: Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "avzone" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

References

Thanks,  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flights included, flights excluded

The recent addition of "first flights to Australia and India" raises the question of which "geographical location" flights should be included and which should be excluded. The 225 has of course been chartered to fly to many places. If it stays in service much longer it will probably have flown to most countries in the world. Do we want to include a list of every place that it has landed at? "First flight to the USA, first flight to Belize, first flight to Lichtenstein" and so on? I am not at all convinced that the 225 just landing in a place by itself is notable. We certainly don't do this for other aircraft types. You won't see "first time a Schweizer 1-26 landed in Australia" or even Boeing 747 mentioned. My own thought is that while largest loads carried are notable that just landing in some country by itself is not. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these comments, both on places and on loads.TSRL (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's newsworthy, but it's not notable to our purposes.
There could of course be historical exceptions to this, or where the flight itself is technically notable - first oceanic crossings etc, or where there is some political significance to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Andy Dingley. Unless a particular incident stands out as significant for other reasons then no, it is not the kind of thing to include - here or anywhere else. The largest load carried is significant, but the time and place are just afterthoughts. The first trip outside the Soviet Union might be too, that sort of thing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for your input. With no further comments in a couple of days I think it is safe to say we have a consensus here and so I will do a clean-up on the article to conform. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National origin in the Infobox

If this aircraft was developed during the the time of the Soviet Union , then can't Ukraine also be mentioned. However "free" Ukranian SSR was, was it not a Nation. This could be solved in three ways, as I see it.

  1. just using Soviet Union (which Ukranian SSR was a part of)
  2. changeing it all to Russia and Ukraine
  3. remove that line

Boeing720 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fourth option, and that is to leave it as it is. Yes, it was developed under the Soviet Union, so that is correct, and I oppose adding Russia to that line. However, while I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea of Ukraine being a "nation" under the Soviet Union, that's not why I favor keeping Ukraine in the infobox. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and Ukraine's independence, the An-225 was placed into storage and stripped of its engines. It was refurbished in the late 1990s and reentered service in the early 2000s. Since this was done after Ukraine's independence, it makes sense to me to include the nation for that reason. - BilCat (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not going to argue against adding Ukraine, my first choice would be "USSR" as it was built by the Soviets. - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bilcat - I think this is a question of development. We do not give the development credentials to all countries that has bought for instance the American F-16. Not even if its weaponry it totaly changed and re-developed elsewhere than in the USA. So even if the Ukranian air force has made some changes to the aircraft, it remains as a product developed by the Soviet Union or USSR. In these words ("Soviet Union" and "USSR") are Ukrainian SSR included. But later changes are not sufficient enough to even change its name. Boeing720 (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The line in question shows "National origin". And by 1988 this undoubtably was Soviet Union / USSR.

SUPPORT - USSR or Soviet Union. Hammer5000 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An-225 gone to China

Recent sources indicate that the An-225 has been sold or traded to China, although useful details are scarce: [1] [2][3]Santamoly (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what they say.
There are two "An-225". One is the single working and flying heavy-lift aircraft, which is staying with Antonov Airlines. The other is the design and rights to build more. This is going to China. A third component is the incomplete airframe, and whether that will ever be finished off and flown. I don't think the China deal makes that any clearer - the Chinese may well have bought the designs for their technical merit, not one old airframe, and they may wish to do the build and completion work in their own plants in China, rather than finish an aged airframe in a Ukrainian plant. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other factors, as noted, in this are that the Russian parts are no longer available for political reasons and will have to be fabricated to restart production and also that the Chinese company is smaller that some in the Chinese aerospace industry and may or may not have the resources to actually pursue this project. While it is possible that more An225s may be built in China, it is also quite likely that this episode may come to nothing. - Ahunt (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://uatoday.tv/business/antonov-to-manufacture-an-225-mriya-aircraft-in-china-738151.html
  2. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/china-ukraine-build-antonov-an-225-2016-9
  3. ^ http://www.popsci.com/china-will-resurrect-worlds-largest-plane

Single tail and Rear Cargo Door

I removed a referenced allusion to the second AN-225 having a single vertical tail and rear cargo door. I removed it for three reasons. First, the second prototype fuselage has no rear cargo door and no provisions for a vertical tail on the top of the fuselage. Second, the reference, which is readable on Google Books, only provides the data as a quote. Finally, the reference did not support the wording in the article. There is no reason to have this speculation in the article especially as hardware is built... without the vertical tail or cargo door.--Winged Brick (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Antonov An-225 Mriya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire?!

The article says:

On November 11, 2016 one of the plane's engines caught fire in Leipzig, Germany. The fire was extinguished within five minutes. The extent of damage is unknown.

However it landed yesterday Nov. 14th in Brazil and is supposed to fly to Chile tomorrow. Tsf (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cited ref does say that, but perhaps it was an insignificant event? Do you have a ref for it being in Brazil on the 14th? If so the original incident can probably be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Portuguese: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2016/11/1831903-maior-aviao-do-mundo-antonov-pousa-em-guarulhos-e-mobiliza-curiosos.shtml Tsf (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that ref. I think that shows that either the "fire" report was mistaken or that the fire was very minor and not consequential. Either way the item can be removed from the article, which I will do. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antonov An-225 Mriya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Antonov An-225 Mriya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel capacity?

This change changed fuel capcity from 300,000 kg to 105,000 kg. Both are unsourced, but 300,000 kg is implausible. It's considerably more than other comparable aircraft (not that there really are any closely comparable) and it's also the difference between empty weight and MTOW. So it might be a ferry fuel load with no cargo, but that would be so exceptional as to need footnoting.

Who has sources to resolve this? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the refs cited for the specs, only RAM-home gives a fuel amount and it says 300,000 kg. I have gone through my library of paper refs, but none give a fuel load for the An-225. Perhaps we need to consult Jane's? - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't appear to be a reliable source, being based primarily on user information. It might be best to remove the fuel capacity altogether until we can cite a reliable published source. - BilCat (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need a better ref than that. Let me see what I can do. - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I biked down to our central library today and went through Jane's. All versions report the same data, that the fuel capacity is "more than 300,000 kg (661,375 lbs)". That includes the final and definitive version in the 1995-96 edition. I'll add this. - Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it normal for an aircraft to reach its MTOW before it has reached both its full cargo capacity and fuel load? Meaning to carry a full cargo/passenger load means carrying less fuel, and vice versa? - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. It makes sense that full fuel is available for basically empty ferry flights and that very little freight can be carried with the tanks full. If you need to carry heavier loads then the fuel and range get reduced. In the case of the An-225, with an empty weight of 285,000 kg, plus 300,000 kg of fuel and a GW of 640,000 kg that leaves 55,000 kg for crew and freight with the tanks full.- Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and no. It's not unusual to have it, but not common to state it in that way.
It's true for tanker aircraft.
For other aircraft, including cargo aircraft, it's usual to state the fuel capacity for the fixed tanks. It's not usual for this capacity to be so great that the aircraft is thus incapable of carrying out its normal role. If it was, that would indicate that some of this fixed tankage would be mostly left unused, a waste of airframe structural weight.
It's common for aircraft to have a ferry range, with the tanks full, and possibly with additional tankage installed. For GA, this might simply mean filling the existing tankage right up (contradicting the para before) but for larger aircraft it usually means adding an additional tank. This is very common for large military transports - all that I can think of have some capacity for this. They might even have collapsible bag tanks which can be carried (empty) on board and still leave room for cargo. But the point is that this ferry tankage is unusual, and when given as a fuel capacity, it's noted as such.
It's entirely possible that an An-225 has both a fixed tank capacity of 105,000 kg, and a ferry capacity of 300,000 kg, but we need to source that, then state it clearly. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jane's seemed to indicate that the 300,000 kg is is normal tankage, not ferry tanks. - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wing loading

The wing loading listed is not the same as MTOW/wing area. Then you get 707 kg/m2. Where does this number come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.85.49 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time to mention stratolaunch?

Wingspan comparison of the Stratolaunch carrier with other large airplanes

Scaled_Composites_Stratolaunch just flew with the largest wingspan, and is likely to fly again. It will hopefully be able to carry some weight, as well. It seems like it is probably worth a mention, even if it does not quite have a comparable role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3840:2980:0:0:0:16 (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pressurised Cargo Hold"? Really?

The article mentiones a pressurised cargo hold. As far as I know it is neither pressurised, nor heated. Only the cockpit and the crew rest compartment in the upper aft section are pressurised. --133.56.199.80 (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited ref says it is pressurized, which ref that you have contradicts that? - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Runway length

What length of runway does it need to land and take-off, please? (Empty and fully loaded - can it operate on dirt strips?) --BushelCandle (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have no info on that. If you have a ref it could be added. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What a pity! --BushelCandle (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.aircharterservice.com/aircraft-guide/cargo/antonov-ukraine/antonovan-225 says it needs 3500 M / 11482'11", although I doubt anybody measures a runway length to the nearest inch. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too long for either Glasgow or Edinburgh, then...--BushelCandle (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An-325?

Antonov An-325 redirects here, and a quick search indicates, from "popular press" sources it was a proposed version with eight engines (4x1 and 2x2 inboard pods) for launching HOTOL. Was this a real project? If so reliable sources should be found so it can be mentioned. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until a reliable source can confirm the fate of this aircraft...

...I request immediate protection to the article. There has been an edit war ongoing already. Naufal Praw (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1, I've only found once source that it has been destroyed. Until it's verified, it's just a rumor. Eclipsed830 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yannn11 15:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Agreed! -Fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Opecuted (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a source saying that the plane's status is unknown. This is a neutral term as we can't say 100% for sure that the plane is okay nor can we say that it was destroyed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting confirmation with evidence would appear sensible: this is an encyclopaedia, not a news site.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Not News, why is it mentioned in the lede? The lede is a summary and shouldn't have content that isn't in the body of the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Redoct87 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

The An-225 has been destroyed at Hostomel airport in a hangar fire. :( Ojoj1234 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reports and Visuals Confirming Destruction of the An-225

Seems the reports of the An-225 being destroyed have been confirmed with visuals https://twitter.com/canada_osint/status/1497895456583475204 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7F3B:B800:285B:63BF:1AA8:204B (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further confirmation of its destruction https://twitter.com/canada_osint/status/1497881565715525636 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.196.24 (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image is a bit unclear so we might have to wait a bit longer to verify that Opecuted (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further confirmation from another OSINT Twitter account: https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1497877298774695936 Yaitz331 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further confirmation from Radio Svoboda: https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news-v-rezultati-rosiyskoyi-ataky-z-horiv-naybilshyy-v-sviti-litak-mriya-/31726400.html --Shishkin (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To note, no confirmation from Antonov Company yet, wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast. Moreover, the article says it was destroyed on 24 February, while there was report from Antonow that evening that An225 was intact. Kuracyja (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine's Minister of Foreign Affairs confirming that the An-225 has been destroyed:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497947370008547332 A6.mtr (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Antonow does not confirm: Currently, until the AN-225 has been inspected by experts, we cannot report on the technical condition of the aircraft. Stay tuned for further official announcement. Kuracyja (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antonov_An-225_Mriya&oldid=1074311895"