This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While the related cancelled aircraft are certainly worth mentioning and linking to (even freshly created pages) in the article - placing it into the infobox as having been developed into that is a false statement, as it never came to exist. Is that really the norm? I do not see this on other articles - both in and out of the aviation wiki space. Picard's Facepalm ( talk) 16:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Not the subject for Wikipedia article talk page, try Twitter, closed by
Ahunt (
talk)
21:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
The Antonov-225 worlds largest payload aircraft is loved by many many nations of the world. When people learn of its arrrival to their country many flocks of cround come to see it from the airports fence lines. It is so huge it is a wonder of the world to see fly and unload. Again is is loved by many nations for its humanatary services. Such as sumani, typhoon, huricane, cyclone, earthquake relief actions. carrying relief cargo all over the world. Many people have thankfulness for this aircraft the Antonov-225. Please build another modern AN-225. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9008:137E:2700:403:B276:2A91:FC9D ( talk) 21:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
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)
It's gone. It caught fire and the entirety of the front part literally burned down to ashes. The fire stopped at the tail section which is the only part remaining. My guess is that it had fuel on board and it literally melted the thing into the ground. The pictures are fuzzy and not really clear it's the same hanger I'm on mobile and it's too much of hassle posting a link anyway. However it does come from a trusted source i.e. a Ukranian pilot that is very familiar with the airplane and the ground situation. Sad. Hopefully there can come a day to finish the other one. Because the pictures are not really citable I'll leave it for others to develop the article as time goes on. Nodekeeper ( talk) 12:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497947370008547332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.160.149 ( talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
In the lead section it states it can "carry up to 640 tonnes of payload" while in the specification section it is clearly stated, that 640 tonnes is the maximum weight it can fly with. I think "payload" should not be used for the fuel and the empty weight, though I am not a native English speaker. JSoos ( talk) 19:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI File:An-225 Destroyed.jpg has been nominated for deletion on COMMONS -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 05:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
When, and from where, was the An-225's last flight? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
FYI File:AN-225 Mirya ablaze in it's Hangar on February 27th, 2002.jpg has been nominated for deletion on COMMONS -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 03:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the An-225 was unique, and for a reason: it only had one job, carrying the few Buran that were made. And even for that purpose, it came too late. Unlike the Space Shuttle glider, the prototype did fly on its own, and the spacecraft has been in and out of space in 1988 before the An-225 was even in the air. Shortly after, the Buran program and the whole USSR vanished, An-255 was mothballed, the Buran glider was even sold to foreigners and is in Germany since 2008.
The Shuttle Carrier Aircraft is basically still a civilian second-hand 747, and the article fails to point out the reason why the Americans did not convert the C-5, but the Sowjets had to make the even bigger An-124 into an oversized and overengineered carrier, compared to the simple American one which also retained its tail fin despite having to release the glider in flight, unlike the 225. Also, both 747 and A380 are discontinued, while Boeing Dreamlifter and Airbus Beluga are much "fatter" airplanes than the An-225, which only had a very narrow unique selling point: fans, plus occasionally customers for loads that were too heavy or too long to fit in any of the hundreds of large freighter airplanes in military and civilian use worldwide, but still fitted into the An-225 and needed to be transported in a hurry. And that hardly made a living for the single An-225 in more than three decades. It was a white elephant for the USSR, and then for Ukraine. Even without the costs of a war, spending a lot of money to make an An-225 fly would be insane when Lockheed never found a customer for the C-5, Airbus had no market for a A380 freighter version, and the Cargo-747 is history, too. Spruce Goose and Hindenburg are gone for good, the only spacetravelling Buran was destroyed in 2002, the US Shuttles are in museums or destroyed. Mriya more or less has followed Buran into the history books. Matthead ( talk) 08:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"using reliable sources" would be a good idea, as the article currently claims "The use of a twin tail arrangement was essential to enable the aircraft to carry its bulky external loads that would generate wake turbulence, disturbing the airflow around a conventional tail.[1][17]" while failing to consider the obvious contradicting fact that the SCA already had demonstrated for years that the conventional 747 tailfin plus minor additions were sufficient to carry bulky external loads like the US shuttles - and even for a safe release for gliding. The article also fails to point out that the 225 was neither needed nor available for carrying the Buran to glider flights and had its maiden flight after Buran had been in space already. It only took one Buran to Paris, six years after the SCA brought a shuttle, then was mothballed for years due to lack of usefulness. Matthead ( talk) 08:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I have a recent photo of this aircraft which I took myself from my HTC U11+ phone at Athens International Airport, while my own flight was taxiing. I sat on it for a while, but decided to upload:
It's blurry because I had to use zoom and it was taken from inside another airplane, but I released it on the Public Domain (CC0), so use it if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim k3 wiki ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While the related cancelled aircraft are certainly worth mentioning and linking to (even freshly created pages) in the article - placing it into the infobox as having been developed into that is a false statement, as it never came to exist. Is that really the norm? I do not see this on other articles - both in and out of the aviation wiki space. Picard's Facepalm ( talk) 16:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Not the subject for Wikipedia article talk page, try Twitter, closed by
Ahunt (
talk)
21:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
The Antonov-225 worlds largest payload aircraft is loved by many many nations of the world. When people learn of its arrrival to their country many flocks of cround come to see it from the airports fence lines. It is so huge it is a wonder of the world to see fly and unload. Again is is loved by many nations for its humanatary services. Such as sumani, typhoon, huricane, cyclone, earthquake relief actions. carrying relief cargo all over the world. Many people have thankfulness for this aircraft the Antonov-225. Please build another modern AN-225. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9008:137E:2700:403:B276:2A91:FC9D ( talk) 21:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
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)
It's gone. It caught fire and the entirety of the front part literally burned down to ashes. The fire stopped at the tail section which is the only part remaining. My guess is that it had fuel on board and it literally melted the thing into the ground. The pictures are fuzzy and not really clear it's the same hanger I'm on mobile and it's too much of hassle posting a link anyway. However it does come from a trusted source i.e. a Ukranian pilot that is very familiar with the airplane and the ground situation. Sad. Hopefully there can come a day to finish the other one. Because the pictures are not really citable I'll leave it for others to develop the article as time goes on. Nodekeeper ( talk) 12:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497947370008547332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.160.149 ( talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
In the lead section it states it can "carry up to 640 tonnes of payload" while in the specification section it is clearly stated, that 640 tonnes is the maximum weight it can fly with. I think "payload" should not be used for the fuel and the empty weight, though I am not a native English speaker. JSoos ( talk) 19:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI File:An-225 Destroyed.jpg has been nominated for deletion on COMMONS -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 05:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
When, and from where, was the An-225's last flight? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
FYI File:AN-225 Mirya ablaze in it's Hangar on February 27th, 2002.jpg has been nominated for deletion on COMMONS -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 03:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the An-225 was unique, and for a reason: it only had one job, carrying the few Buran that were made. And even for that purpose, it came too late. Unlike the Space Shuttle glider, the prototype did fly on its own, and the spacecraft has been in and out of space in 1988 before the An-225 was even in the air. Shortly after, the Buran program and the whole USSR vanished, An-255 was mothballed, the Buran glider was even sold to foreigners and is in Germany since 2008.
The Shuttle Carrier Aircraft is basically still a civilian second-hand 747, and the article fails to point out the reason why the Americans did not convert the C-5, but the Sowjets had to make the even bigger An-124 into an oversized and overengineered carrier, compared to the simple American one which also retained its tail fin despite having to release the glider in flight, unlike the 225. Also, both 747 and A380 are discontinued, while Boeing Dreamlifter and Airbus Beluga are much "fatter" airplanes than the An-225, which only had a very narrow unique selling point: fans, plus occasionally customers for loads that were too heavy or too long to fit in any of the hundreds of large freighter airplanes in military and civilian use worldwide, but still fitted into the An-225 and needed to be transported in a hurry. And that hardly made a living for the single An-225 in more than three decades. It was a white elephant for the USSR, and then for Ukraine. Even without the costs of a war, spending a lot of money to make an An-225 fly would be insane when Lockheed never found a customer for the C-5, Airbus had no market for a A380 freighter version, and the Cargo-747 is history, too. Spruce Goose and Hindenburg are gone for good, the only spacetravelling Buran was destroyed in 2002, the US Shuttles are in museums or destroyed. Mriya more or less has followed Buran into the history books. Matthead ( talk) 08:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"using reliable sources" would be a good idea, as the article currently claims "The use of a twin tail arrangement was essential to enable the aircraft to carry its bulky external loads that would generate wake turbulence, disturbing the airflow around a conventional tail.[1][17]" while failing to consider the obvious contradicting fact that the SCA already had demonstrated for years that the conventional 747 tailfin plus minor additions were sufficient to carry bulky external loads like the US shuttles - and even for a safe release for gliding. The article also fails to point out that the 225 was neither needed nor available for carrying the Buran to glider flights and had its maiden flight after Buran had been in space already. It only took one Buran to Paris, six years after the SCA brought a shuttle, then was mothballed for years due to lack of usefulness. Matthead ( talk) 08:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I have a recent photo of this aircraft which I took myself from my HTC U11+ phone at Athens International Airport, while my own flight was taxiing. I sat on it for a while, but decided to upload:
It's blurry because I had to use zoom and it was taken from inside another airplane, but I released it on the Public Domain (CC0), so use it if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim k3 wiki ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)