Jump to content

Talk:Antonov An-124 Ruslan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Images

Would interior photos be helpful for the article? Akradecki 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if its actually 'Useful', but if you've say taken some yourself, put a couple up, and they'd help enhance the article Reedy Boy 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I Think the crash in Windsor, Ontario is supposed to be Gander,Newfoundland. It crashed around the same time and with no casualties also. It too slid off the runway and had to be dug out with excavaters. It was holding military equipment for the US I think, which they unloaded and reloaded onto another An124-100.

The Windsor incident was removed from wiki a few years ago, apparently deemed not notable. The excavator incident of RA-82046 (video at 2:33) seems gone from TSB, maybe because the date was 18 December 1998 - notability could be the repair time of one year. TGCP (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the crash in Windsor did happen, and included in the wiki was a reference link to the official accident report from Transport Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilmaster (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pressurised cargo bay?

Is it true the AN-124 does not have a pressurised cargo bay?

Taken from Warplane, issue 12 from 1985:
"Above the lightly pressurized cargo hold is the fully pressurized flight deck for a crew of six, to its rear accommodation for a relief crew, and behind the wing a cabin for 88 passengers." K... 23:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be nice to add this to the article - I remember at an airshow hosting a AN-124 along with a C5 Galaxy, the C5 crew were very eager to point out this fact!

The answer would be somewhat. It has problems keeping the cargo bay presurized. However like already pointed out the C5's cargo bay is presurized and even heated and air conditioned. However the HVAC system does not work well. I remember it was freezing cold in the passenger compartment if you sat near the ladder area that goes down to the cargo deck. The further away you got from it the warmer it was.

Also I would like to point out that the C5 can carry more in weight than the AN-124. This article states that it can carry I think 150 tons when the C5 can carry 180 tons. The C5 can carry 36 463L pallets at 10,000lbs each = 180 tons. I used to load the C5 in the Air force and was a load planner and also know that when using the load planning computer program it would not let you attach a load to the aircraft unless the C5 could fly with just two engines with it. We had to continually shift cargo around in order to get it acceptable for two engines. Something I doubt the AN-124 could do. http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5.asp GZUS96 18:55, 17 January 2009

If you care to go to the Lockheed Martin Website, the aircraft's manufacturer claims the aircraft can carry a Maximum payload of 130 tonnes (130,000Kg)

www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/c5/A07-20536GC-5PC.pdf Hudicourt (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruslan

What does that translate too?--Marhawkman (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean "what does word "Ruslan" mean?" Its just man's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.6.43 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruslan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.143.63.60 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Boeing An-124

It seems that a resumption of production is planned, with Boeing being involved in final assembly. story here. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename

According to Antonov's web site, the An-124 is named 'AN-124 "Ruslan"'. I see no reason why this article shouldn't be renamed to include Ruslan. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Polet Airlines An-124 RA-82075 in flight 28-Jul-2011.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Polet Airlines An-124 RA-82075 in flight 28-Jul-2011.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 31, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-01-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Antonov An-124
An Antonov An-124 belonging to Polet Airlines on final approach to Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow, Russia. The An-124 was designed for strategic lift capability and remains among the largest operating cargo aircraft.Photograph: Sergey Kustov
Archive – More featured pictures...

Operational History

"The current contract is valid until 31 December 2010." Overtaken by time; as is "... will be appearing as ... on January 31, 2013." Surely there must be some way of getting round dates which become obsolete with time. It is a very frequent problem when dates are quoted and the author moves on to a different project, losing touch with the original. Dawright12 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just changed is to was. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not world's largest serially produced anymore?

A380 is bigger, so An-124 is not anymore world's largest serially produced aeroplane? -- Hkultala (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninety 747-8's have been delivered as of mid-2015. Higher max takeoff weight. Seems that this article should change to reflect this. Anyone care to comment? I'll make the change if there are no objections. Fanyavizuri (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Changed lede to article to reflect 747-8. It seems that based on the Antonov webpage, plans had been made in 2011 for new variants of the aircraft by 2013, but that is as far is it got as of 2015: http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/transport-aircraft/an-124-100-ruslan . Fanyavizuri (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

World's largest ever serially-manufactured cargo airplane?

As no examples of the -150 have been built, and that about ~15 examples of the 747-8F (134,200kg payload) have been built (and four of those are flying - although certification and delivery to the first customer has not yet happened), is the above claim still true? Or does it cease to be true at the delivery of the second aircraft to a customer? Rwessel (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ninety 747-8's have been delivered as of mid-2015. Higher max takeoff weight. Seems that this article should change to reflect this. Anyone care to comment? I'll make the change if there are no objections. Fanyavizuri (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Changed lede to article to reflect 747-8. It seems that based on the Antonov webpage, plans had been made in 2011 for new variants of the aircraft by 2013, but that is as far is it got as of 2015: http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/transport-aircraft/an-124-100-ruslan . Fanyavizuri (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Query

"The Rolls-Royce Trent 900 is the only A380 engine that can be transported whole in a Boeing 747F.[31]"

What relevance does this have to the An-124? AnselaJonla (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Since it didn't seem to fit, and since the reference for the sentence was a dead link, I removed it. Good catch. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Antonov An-124 Ruslan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antonov An-124 Ruslan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antonov An-124 Ruslan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Out of production?

In the article in one place it says it's still in production' and in another it says it was halted in 2014 can someone verify and change please Planer 12346578955 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antonov An-124 Ruslan. 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}}).

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) 22:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

December 1997 crash

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about this crash.

- The text here says "total of 97 fatalities" (for 4 crashes), yet 8 + 17 + 4 + 23 + 44 = 96, so it's one low. Perhaps they assumed it was 45 ground fatalities for this crash.

- The flightglobal.com link for that crash is a news report that says "67 people, including all 23 on board, were killed", which would mean 44 on the ground.

- The Wikipedia page for this crash says "Fatalities: 72 (including 49 on ground)", and it links to an aviation-safety.net webpage that says "Ground casualties: Fatalities: 45", and a ria.ru news page that says simply (according to an automatic translation service) 72 fatalities total.

If we don't really know the actual death toll, we should say "about 45" or "between 44 and 49", and not pretend to know a level of precision that we don't. What's the Wikipedia standard approach in cases like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.5.23 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

We use whatever the reliable source has, if the sources are different we just use one of the sources and add a note to say that sources differ. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Antonov An-124 Ruslan. 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) 19:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Antonov An-124 Ruslan. 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) 17:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Largest Military Transport?

“The An-124 remains the largest military transport aircraft in current service”

The C-5 Galaxy is larger in several aspects, should change to Mirror C-5 page “one of the largest”. Missionsurf6 (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The empty An-124 is 9,000kg heavier than the C-5. Does that make it "the largest"?Santamoly (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Max takeoff weight (also called gross weight) and payload weight/capability are more important size measures than empty weight for cargo aircraft and aircraft in general. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

November 2020 landing run off

Recent edit to add engine failure and runway excursion: Is this really a "significant" crash? The previous 5 listed were all complete losses involving fatalities, this one is interesting but not really at the same scale. I'd be minded to either remove it completely or change the list to clearly show "these are Fatal" "these are not". Any thoughts before I do? Skenu (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite having added it to the Volga-Dnepr article, I tend to agree with you. I'd assumed from a quick look at photos like this the plane was a write-off, but looking again it is mostly just uncontained engine failure impacts and might well be repairable. I'd have thought listing both fatal accidents and write-offs would be reasonable. Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if there is any news on repairability? Rwendland (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd agree with the wait and see. Everything is repairable if you're prepared to pay :-) which although meant as a joke is a bit of an issue when using that as a marker of significance unfortunately. I think this is a significant event and worth mentioning somewhere on the page, not maybe because of the aircraft damage as such but the whole compressor fan coming apart is unusual and really dangerous, so if it is a common issue this might have an impact across the fleet which then could cause issues with heavy lift across the world. Skenu (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@Skenu: and Rwendland - I hadn't seen this discussion but was of the opinion that it was borderline re sustaining an article. No fatalities and not clear that the aircraft is a write-off, also not a passenger flight, so far fewer people involved compared against Qantas Flight 32. However, yesterday's voluntary grounding by Volga-Dnepr has pushed it over the bar for a stand-alone article, which can be found at Volga-Dnepr Airlines Flight 4066. Feel free to expand/improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antonov_An-124_Ruslan/Archive_2&oldid=1190474475"