Talk:Antonov An-225 Mriya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Warning

Someone has been deleting all references to the use of the An-225 by the U.S. government and by U.S. customers of Antonov Airlines. The operation of the aircraft by Antonov Airlines is the most important chapter in this plane's service history. Stop making it sound like the plane just appears at airshows. Also, the An-225 was not grounded by the collapse of the Soviet Union. It continued flying for three more years and was only mothballed when the Buran space program was terminated.

The Mriya has recently (in 2003) been spotted at Shannon Airport, Ireland and in various U.S. airports. It was hired for transporting cargo to the Gulf to support the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq ([1]) ([2]). - is it really that important that someone spotted it somewhere? After all this shouldn't be strange, especially that the sole Mriya is frequently leased to anyone who pays. If we follow that way I should mention that I saw Mriya in 2003 in Kyiv and anyone who ever saw the plane should add similar info. Does it really have sense? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 04:39, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Nuke it. It's more interesting if it's found somewhere coincident with a major event. -Joseph (Talk) 05:01, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I think it's improtant since only one Мрія exists in the world. Although, it might be only necessary to say where it was seen last, if at all. --Berkut 00:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

--Also, any spotters should make sure they aren't seeing a 124. At least one of my sightings at and around CFB Trenton must have been 124's as there were 2 of them, having originally judged the class by the mass of wheels. Though I believe the 225 was also in yce there.

Latest flight seen at East Midlands Airport in the UK December 2005, the first commercial flight to the UK- Photo here-http://www.airliners.net/open.file/970908/L/ and video here- http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=4935 2330 15 Dec 2005

Hello, I visit Gostomel from time to time. I can bring photos, or other data. Oh, by the way, An225 wasn't operative for long time (they serviced it, etc.) but now (actually a week before this post) it's again working (they even tested it few days ago). Black Phoenix 11:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Who CARES!? This is why I am starting to hate this place. People are more concerned with "rules" and their opinion/interpretation of the "rules" then with the spreading of information. If someone wants to mention where they saw it, that is FINE! It might be important to them, because they have never seen anything like it. It will also allow some of us to track its progress, and hints to where it might end up. Please stop acting like little girls about nitpicking on the rules. Some of us want any information on this stuff possible. As I have not ever seen one myself, I can understand someone wanting to say they saw one. On top of that, I am also getting disgusted on how the US Government and general "Americans" don't like people talking about Aircraft made by other countries that happen to be better in some aspect then anything WE have built. As an American, how are WE going to surpass it, if we keep trying to pretend it doesn't exist. As an Adult, I have also come to respect and marvel at other peoples inventions, no matter where they are from. Russia has given us MANY things. One of them was the "Space" competition that resulted in the single greatest technological leap forward in Human history. I have grown to appreciate them as a country for that, and I respect them as Men for their inventions under such harsh conditions. I wish the Russian people the best of luck, I hope they can prosper from their work and to continue making amazing pieces of engineering. TheCyndicate 14:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.181.98 (talk)

Price

What is the price of this aircraft?

I doubt it is possible to estimate the price of such an aircraft. Halibutt 14:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the price, but as for spotting the aircraft, this is not difficult. The 225 has displayed at numerous air shows around the world for years; from Paris to Farnborough.

Payload

There seems to be some confusion about the payload in the article. In the Service section, 227 metric tonnes is quoted, converted to 250 short tonnes, yet in the General Characteristics, the figure is 250,000 kg (which is 250 metric tonnes). Which is correct ? Ruleke 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Specs are correct, it's 250,000 kg or 250 metric tonnes. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello! According to the book "Antonov’s Heavy Transports" the max take-off weight of the An 225 is 640,000 kg!! The cargo floor and loading ramp were reinforced in 2000 when the plane was modernised at Kiev. The giant has took-off with the max weight 630 000 kg two times in the history of the plane according to the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by viggenmannen (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure which figure you're saying is the maximum gross takeoff weight. Is it 640,000 kg, or is it 630,000 kg? The aircraft can't have two max weights; its takeoff weight was 630,000 kg, then it's taken off twice with a 10,000kg- less-than-maximum weight. ericg ✈ 17:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If the cargo floor was reinforced in 2000, is the payload figure in the article still accurate ? (in other words, is the 250,000 figure post-modernisation ?) Ruleke 08:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The maximum take-off weight is 640, 000kg. The plane has lifted off twice at 630,000 kg weight. They hade a marginal of ten tons. For safety I think. I have looked really hard for the source about that the second An 225 is going to fly this summer but I can,t find it. I hope someone can help me! David

Okay, that makes sense. Unless we find someone who can read Russian, I don't think we'll have much in terms of An 225 news for the near future. Once it is completed, then we'll hear something. ericg ✈ 18:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can read russian and ukrainian. If you have any questions you can ask me LOL) I have some additional information about this machine. Currently An-225 (as well as An-124) is working hard for strategic transportation with Antonov Airlines. I don't remember exactly but you can rent it for ~$40K per hour. Antonov Bureau gonna use this funds to build the secound flight. Alex.

I found a link to the An 225 payload record : http://www.airfoyle.co.uk/news/heavy-lift-news.asp?NewsID=36 Pretty heavy! David Airways June 2004 have a very fine article about the An 225. "The AN-225 can also carry pieces weighing up to 200 tonnes and 70m long externally on its upper fuselage". David

The thingie once flew with five soviet T-80 battle tanks stuffed inside for FAI world record in the late 1980's. There are photos on the net. That should be about 245 metric tons. 82.131.210.162 09:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Door dimensions

Currently the article says:

Door dimensions: 30×70×75 cm (1.2×2.8×3.0 in))

The metric dimensions look tiny (75 centimetres for the largest dimension???? Even Hobbits couldn't get through them!), and in any case the conversion to inches is a factor of 10 too small even for those preposterous dimensions. Can someone ascertain what the actual size of the door is? -- Arwel (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's a much more reasonable figure of about 12 × 27.5 × 30 inches. I found 4.40 × 6.40 metres, which sounds even more reasonable .[3] —Michael Z. 2006-08-17 00:35 Z

That's much more believable. Thanks. -- Arwel (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Powered?

The intro says this is the “largest powered aircraft.” Are there other larger aircraft that aren’t powered? I think it could remove some confusion to either mention why the “powered” qualifier is necessary (e.g., The unpowered Acme Glider weighs more) or omit the qualifier and say the An-225 is the largest outright. --Rob Kennedy 06:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to make the same point. I am sure there is a reason why the term "powered" is necessary, but could someone please clarify? 203.87.116.93 07:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there an airship that is larger? That would count, if there is one.--Raguleader 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

An airship is powered too. Malamockq 00:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think an airship is strictly speaking a powered aircraft, since it doesn't use it's engines to maintain it's airworthyness. *thinks*, actually, I suppose the phase I'd be looking for would be "Heavier Than Air", which an airship wouldn't be. Dunno if it'd be considered a powered aircraft or not, now that I think about it. *shrug*--Raguleader 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why "powered aircraft" is a meaningless phrase, nor an official designation. Malamockq 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe larger are Hindenburg, British R101 and R100, the German Los Angeles and Graf Zeppelin I and II, and the American Shenandoah, Akron and Macon (per [4] or [5]) --TAG 13:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we weaseling? Just say "airplane." —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Extreeeeeemly long sentence

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, and the cancellation of the Buran space program, after a bad landing, where the plane clipped the ground with is wing[citation needed], the lone operational An-225 was placed in storage, its engines removed for use on An-124s.

This sentence is really really long, and covers two or three different events. It needs to be broken up into seperate thoughts, otherwise it is very confusing, as it makes it sound like the space program was cancelled due to the bad landing (which is possible, but unclear), and the relevance to the collapse of the Soviet Union is even less clear.--Raguleader 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but is fixing it yourself not possible? I don't understand why this needs discussion. ericg ✈ 04:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Partially because I am unsure of exactly what the sentence is trying to say (did the clipping of the wing of the An-225 lead to the cancelation of the Buran program?), partially because I was posting from work. If it hasn't been redone by now, I'll go take a swing at it.--Raguleader 04:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The supposed clipping of its wing is a new addition to that sentence (not to mention unverifiable), and it's where most of the fault for the run-on lies. I'm assuming vandalism until someone finds a source saying otherwise. ericg ✈ 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And now I see you took care of it. Cool beans.--Raguleader 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Antonov Airways: Based at Luton or Stansted?

I'm sure I've seen the An-124 at Stansted. Are you guys sure Antonov Airways operates out of Luton? 84.9.33.224 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Second plane

...the decision was made to complete the second An-225. This should be accomplished by mid-2006, with certification expected later in 2006

Well where is it then? --80.63.213.182 21:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The second An 225 should be completed by 2008 if all goes to plan.http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_sep4.html#27sep I hope they have the money in Ukraine to complete the megaplane!! David —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viggenmannen (talk • contribs) 15:23, 17 December 2006.

Heavy work must be done to complete number two. http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=833603 According to Air International December 2009: 120-150 million dollars is needed!! David from Sweden

Launch platform

The article says "Design work is currently under way to use the aircraft as a flying launch system for future aerospace system", but the first reference in the paragraph says it's an unsubstatiated rumor, while the second one doesn't mention it at all. I'll change it to a citation needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.249.138 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible sighting of 2nd aircraft?

Was unsure where to put this, but I recently spotted one of these when I was at Ashgabat Airport in Turkmenistan. It appeared to be having some work done on one of it's engine. I am definite it was an An-225 because I have not seen anything else that could be mistaken for one. What I was wondering is could this be the 2nd plane that is being reconditioned, or that one that does deliveries. Indy2k6 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for the same things that you have been, but i only found the exact same information. "Early 2002 Antonov was working again on this second aircraft to bring it to flying status." Im going to keep on looking to see if i can find anything different.

Nrpf22pr (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the Spruce Goose stuff really fit here?

This article contains all this Spruce Goose stuff - could someone remove that or create a pointer ? Edmundronald (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

World record weight lift

An An-225 is to take the heaviest ever load on Aug 2nd See this German language link. Worth including once it has happened? Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would go ahead and add it since the attempt is there, once it happens, the info is allready there so its allright to place the information on this article.Nrpf22pr (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Add it now, even to the german page; probably some Wikipedian is providing us some nice photos. Wispanow (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On the MTOW figure

Where did you take the 640,000 kg MTOW figure from? As far as I know, it's "only" about 600,000 kg.

Greetings from Argentina :) --MaxBech1975 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The MTOW IS 640,000 kg!! Air International December 2009 have six pages about the An 225.http://www.airinternational.com/central/images/covers/large/248.jpg David from Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.32.17 (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So change it and properly cite it with that. Currently that is unreferenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the many attempts to cite the above magazine cover as a ref. The cover doesn't say 640t, so it isn't a useful ref. We have lots of refs at 600t, however, so if you can't cite something this will have to be changed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but your attempts to cite this didn't work. I would have fixed it up for you, but there wasn't enough information there for a citation. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style and also Wikipedia:Citation templates to see how to do this. Also I don't understand where this 640,000 kg number came from. I have looked up every ref I can find and they all say 600,000 kg, including Janes, Observers Book of Aircraft, all very reliable. Was the GTOW of the sole example aircraft changed? 40,000 kg is a big increase in weight and not likely to be changed without mods to the aircraft. Does the article explain the history of that? - Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We might ought to ask at WP:AIR to see if someone has a copy of this issue. Also, I'd lik to see if it has any info on the second An-225. Air Int'l is usually quite up-to-date, in my experience anyway, and it should have a clear current staus on the second airframe. - BilCat (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have 640, 000 kg from two different two sources now: Air international December 2009 and Antonov,s Heavy Transports Red Star Volume 18 + Airways June 2004 gives 630,000 kg as the MTOW of the An 225. They reinforced the cargo floor and loading ramp to take cargos of 200 tons inside the fuselage.This is 100 % correct info. Hurry now to buy Air International December 2009 and see for yourself that my info is correct. Excuse my bad English! David from Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.32.17 (talk • contribs)

Okay, can you at least give us the following info and I'll add it to the article: Title of article, page number, author's name. - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

When did the MTOW get increased to 630/640 Mg; in the late 1990s before the first An-225 was made operational again? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Okey! Airways June 2004: "Antonov,s Dream Machine" page 23 by David C Forward. Air International December 2009: "When size matters" page 29 by Andreas Spaeth and finally "The Six-Engined Dream" page 76 in Antonov,s Heavy Transports ,The An-22 .An-124/225 and An-70 by Yefim Gordon,Dmitriy and Sergey Komissarov. Yes, Antonov reinforced the An 225 from summer 2000-spring 2001. It cost Antonov 20 million Dollar. David

Sorry for the delay in addressing your post here. Thank you for the references - I have incorporated them into the article and made some adjustments to the text to make it all fit and make sense. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Antonov's Heavy Transports is a book I've been looking to get. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks great!! Thanks from David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.32.17 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, I haven’t found any official info at the official Antonov website regarding the An-225’s MTOW. However, in the traditional Airliners.net site we can “only” see 600.000 kg, the same as in the corresponding article within the Ukrainian Wikipedia.

We should also bear in mind that the An-225 is directly derived from the An-124 (In fact, apart from the different tail assembly, the An-225 wing structure from each internal engine -and obviously excluding it- is identical to the An-124’s). And what is more important: both aircraft have exactly the same thrust per turbofan, and if we make a rough comparison between both planes we have 6/4*405,000 kg=607,500 kg (50% more), that is, resulting in an approximate MTOW closer to 600 tonnes than to 640 tonnes. Finally, although the An-225 may have been reinforced in the last years, it has not been refitted with more powerful engines than its original D-18Ts.

MaxBech1975 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory Sentences

I've recently removed the following passage from the development section:

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 and the cancellation of the Buran space program, the lone operational An-225 was placed in storage. The six Ivchenko Progress engines were removed for use on An-124s, and the second An-225 airframe (nearing completion and awaiting engines) was also mothballed.

How could the An-225 been placed in storage and its engines removed if it's in fact still in service and flying. The second An-225 might well have been mothballed, but this passage as a whole is contradictory to the later parts of the article.--RossF18 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That happened around 1991 and was short term. This is explained in the operational history section also. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The passage didn't say it was short term. If it was short term, it should say it was short term and be cited. This is not explained in the operational history. It just says that it came back into operation in late 1990s. The point is that in both sections there is a gap in time that makes both sections contradictory. The development section should just have development information and the mothbolling sentence should really be moved down to operational history. As it stands, the development section makes it seem that the plane was scraped and then the operational section makes it appear that the plane came out of nowhere. So, I suggest moving the two sentences in question down to the operation history in right before the mention of the plane being brought back into service.--RossF18 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I clarified it in the Development section earlier today. The two sections have different purposes. Nothing has to be moved. Some content on operational use before the early 1990s would be good though. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

A number of IP editors have added a popular culture section to this article mentioning the use in the film 2012 of an animation of an aircraft that is identified as as "AN 500". You will note that the actual AN-225 aircraft does not appear in the film and, other than a possible superficial resemblance to the animation used, there is nothing to connect the film to this article. Furthermore all text added has been unsourced, too. These have been removed several times now by several different editors as unsourced, non-notable and failing the inclusion standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Notable_appearances_in_media. If you think this should be put back into the article then please discuss here to gain consensus, provide refs that show that this is indeed the AN-225 and not just a generic animated aircraft that looks a bit like a 225 and show that this inclusion meets the standard for inclusion cited above. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well User:Mathewignash has sort of suggested a compromise in putting in a link to Aircraft in fiction under the heading "Popular Culture". I have changed it to "Notable appearances in media" as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Notable_appearances_in_media, although I have to admit that as far as can be figured it is a non-notable non-appearance of an animation of a fictional AN-500 that looks a bit like an AN-225. I am really not sure the link belongs here. I have also read the entry Aircraft in fiction and it is just what was here, still unsourced fancruft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed "Notable appearances in media" as the target article, Aircraft in fiction, no longer contains info on this. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Further on this issue, recently User:Wispanow has moved and then removed the Notable appearances in media section. We have a consensus standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content that this section should be included when there is any content at all and also a consensus at Talk:Aircraft in fiction that for aircraft that have entries in that article to have a Notable appearances in media section in the aircraft type article pointing to the section in Aircraft in fiction. This decision was not arbitrary, but was done after careful consideration and as a result of tons of fancruft being added to articles, in particular this one (mostly about the film 2012). The purpose of the link is to direct the fancruft for all aircraft type articles to Aircraft in fiction where it is supervised by a large group of editors and dealt with according to a rigid standard there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:NoMoreCruft: "ALL anime/fiction lookalike speculation, WILL BE removed". That seems to be CLEAR! I know many guys want to include stuff here. But the maximum what is in any case appropriate is a entry under "See also", not a whole section. And i challenge even the relvance of THIS "See also" entry, but would not revert it. Wispanow (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is this link Aircraft in fiction#Antonov An-225 itself look-a-like speculation? For that matter, there's none of that in that article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just about a toy: anime/fiction: ":For the fictional An-500 aircraft seen in the film 2012 see List of fictional aircraft. The Decepticon character Jetstorm from the 2007 Transformers movie line is based on the Antonov An-225. This toy shares its body design with Cybertron Jetfire, Classics Fireflight and Universe Air Raid."

I can´t see any reason for including this here. And especially not as an section. But it is "possible" to mention the Antonov An-124 (in its article) in james bond appearance. Wispanow (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above this is here to avoid cruft being dumped in this article. If you go back and review the history of this article you will see what a problem it was and how having this section and link here has put an end to it. As mentioned above also we have a broad consensus of editors across many articles to do this approach to cut down on aircraft type article cruft and it is working well so far. Removing this section and link will cause far more problems than it solves. Regardless of project wide consensus, your deletion has now been reverted by two editors, clearly you don't have consensus to remove this from this article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if Fnlayson CLEARLY supports it to include a section, i am outvoted. Try to get a clear statement from him to include it. Wispanow (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not supposed to be a simple voting thing. I don't care for an empty section like that, but any text just seems to invite crufters to add more. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats my opinion, too. Additionally i see no sense. So the section is gone. Wispanow (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misreading what User:Fnlayson wrote - he was disagreeing with you, hence the consensus to include the section you just deleted for the third time in one day.. - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You reverted Fnlayson. Wispanow (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I believe he reverted me and you both. To be clear I support the 'Notable appearances in media' section with a link to the Aircraft in fiction article in aircraft articles including this one. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts on that. I believe we have established a consensus to include the section and the link. - Ahunt (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay without any further objection in the last couple of days then I will reinstate the section with a new note to clarify. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Still commercially available?

In the Development section it is stated that

It used to be commercially available for carrying ultra-heavy and oversize freight....

While the Operational history section implies that it is still is commercially available. Which is true, and should this be modified?--Sandeman684 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That part has been missed, I guess. The in-service part is covered later, so I reworded that to remove the 'commercially available' part. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

benefits?

What are the benefits of this airplane aside from the important one of carrying enormous payloads (locomotives, concrete pumps) that can't be flown any other way? In particular, isn't it probably cheaper and logistically easier to deliver "216,000 prepared meals" on 375 separate pallets on (say) two straightforward 747 flights instead of dealing with getting an outsized, one-of-a-kind plane to the right places? For example, I've heard that the Fukushima concrete pump delivery schedule includes some waiting time for construction work at a California airport, whose runways currently can't handle the A-225.

I like the size comparison chart (with the 747, A380, C-5; I'd leave out the Spruce Goose). I think it would be helpful to add a payload comparison chart between those planes. I hope they do finish the second A-225 sometime. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Concrete pump

I've seen some websites claiming that it was the an-225 carrying the concrete pump for the reactor but all the pictures show a plane with a single stabilizer which means it's probably the AN-124 not the 225. Here's one of the picture I was talking about http://media.thenewstribune.com/smedia/2011/04/09/00/1233137.highlight.prod_affiliate.5.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.233.254 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup that is an AN-124 in the photo, but it is possible that it is a "file photo". The non-aviation media generally get everything wrong about aviation. Since it could be just a file picture and one ref cited specifically says it is the 225 I don't see any argument to remove the text. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Payload/Range

This diagram has some gaps for the An-225. These gaps could be filled with data from actual flights (such as the non-notable Thai-NC 120ton recently), but I don't know how we as a community can collect them. Also it is a problem to verify refueling between hops. The combination of payload and range is a defining characteristic of aircraft. TGCP (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't derive range data for an aircraft type from that sort of analysis - it is completely WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how it is done. Plotting readily available data into a diagram is hardly original, but I guess that if a considerable amount of work is required, then it constitutes OR. TGCP (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable ref that states the range, WP:OR doesn't allow this sort of math to come up with information. It wouldn't be sufficiently accurate anyway as you are never sure of all the factors involved, for instance fuel loads may be reduced for balanced field requirements, range my be extended with internal cargo compartment bladders, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon 100tons for 9600km at the External Link ram, that is good enough for now. Flight data might be found in an entry similar to this - track shows unrefueled flight. Single item cargo balance is highly prioritized, so fuel reduction for that reason is unlikely. Due to flight economics, fuel is likely to be reduced anyway. Because An225 has 300ton fuel capacity for 15,400km range, bladders are unlikely to be needed - as cargo weight goes up, fuel (and thus range) is reduced to stay below MTOW, so fuel bladders do not change the picture as long as they are counted as cargo. Anyway, care should be taken to distinguish theoretical from practical data.

Sources disagree on external load - some say 200tons, some say 90tons. Buran was 42tons (Energia booster weight not found). 90tons could be today's limit. I wonder if anything has been carried externally since 2001 ? TGCP (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

oh, and the Antonov specs page has been dead for months now. TGCP (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

-spec page works, but news page is still out of order. An225 has overhead cranes [6] , but Google only showed An124-crane specs - perhaps you can search better than me? TGCP (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I was having a read of the lovely article, and noticed the operational history section mentions jobs along with weights of each one, except for the Buran. Keep up the great work everyone ! Penyulap _talk 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

FAI says the Absolute payload record has been superseded - how and when? The An-225 still holds the record for its weight class, above 500 tonnes. I can't imagine which aircraft less than 500t could heave over 250t in the air. TGCP (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to say both records refer to the same flight by the An-225 on 11 Sep 2011 from Kyiv to Odesa and return (assuming they are using American dates). MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the Absolute record has been superseded, while the class record still holds (same flight, which broke numerous records in 2001. Click Record, use Halunenko as search). FAI uses "retired by changes of the sporting code" if they change the rules, but Superseded if the record is broken later. But what has superseeded the Absolute record ? TGCP (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Rename

The title needs to be renamed to include the official suffix-name of Mriya. I don't see how it is different from Boeing 787 Dreamliner. If nobody responds within 10 days, I will go ahead with the rename. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is Manufacturer-Designation-Name as explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming, which agrees with your proposal! - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to move it back just yet... but did you really wait for consensus? One reply? Are you going to move all of the other antonov pages? SpigotMap 00:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The style guideline suggests using the most common name for aircraft naming which I don't believe is "Mriya"... In fact it says a name should be left off if it may cause confusion. SpigotMap 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The style guideline suggests using the most common name. Well, the only name I've ever come across is Mriya, which is the official name given by Antonov. If I've missed any other names, please let me know. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you have a point. Most other non-Antonov Russian aircraft aren't necessarily "named". If we are going to rename this article, perhaps we should rename all of them? SpigotMap 23:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the named Antonov aircraft that is. SpigotMap 23:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Only a few Antonov aircraft are given names. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Citation

There is a questionable citation (currently citation 23) that was obviously not fact-checked properly. (An-225 aircraft sets new record for heaviest single cargo item transported by air, Eye for Transport, 18 August 2009.) To quote from the article:

Frankfurt-Hahn has, for many years, been a key cargo base Its geographical location in the centre of Europe, the 24-hour operating licence, the 38 km runway and the short access and departure routes between apron and road are among this airport's key competitive advantages

A 38 kilometer long runway? Yes, this is a typo (Frankfurt-Hahn's main runway is 3.8km), but what other figures are wrong in this article?

At 1623 metres long and 427 metres wide, the consignment - a generator for a gas power plant in Armenia and its loading frame - weighed in a record 18909 tonnes.

References:

The [EfT article] obviously has ludicrous numbers, but the digits are mostly correct just missing a comma. The other reference is this which has similar but correct numbers formed by nearly the same digits. I don't know if the missing commas disqualify the EtF article, as the verbal content is more informative. More refs may be found about the flight. TGCP (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have tweaked the refs now, and added a ref from the Buran article although that ref links back to Wikipedia. TGCP (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Video Landing

Video of example landing

Might be a useful external link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian cargo para

I had deleted this as non-notable, but it has been reinserted. We have an entry for the longest and heaviest loads carried and in the past we have always removed attempts to add other miscellaneous loads that are neither bigger nor heavier, because the lists of various non-notable things carried gets very long very quickly and is WP:TRIVIA. Is there any reason to include this load now? - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious reason either, as it's not the first use by a Western government. As far as classified cargo, I don't see how that is significant, as I doubt it's the first time for that too. - BilCat (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is another cargo without more specifics. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• +1. Record-breaking flights can be included as long as they're recognized as such, regular hauls are just too numerous. Wikipedia is not a logbook. --illythr (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Would this make The An-225 has been contracted by the Canadian and U.S. governments to transport military supplies to the Middle East in support of coalition forces as not being particularly notable as well, just the aircraft doing its day job? MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  It might be notable if that's what it's been doing for a prolonged period of time (i.e., as a significant part of its operational history). However, reference 35 doesn't support that statement. So I guess it should be deleted as well. --illythr (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

An-225 gone to China

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

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)

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)

References

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113080326/http://www.fai.org/news_archives/fai/000295.asp to http://www.fai.org/news_archives/fai/000295.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mak.ru/english/kommissions/aviareg/certificates/sertifikati_tipa_na_vozdushnie_suda.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aircraft-info.net/aircraft/jet_aircraft/antonov/AN-225
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716133659/http://www.steelcon.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/News/Steelcon__News_GB.pdf to http://www.steelcon.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/News/Steelcon__News_GB.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430170935/http://www.eft.com:80/freight-transport/frankfurt-hahn-airport-sets-world-record to http://www.eft.com/freight-transport/frankfurt-hahn-airport-sets-world-record
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614024755/http://www.renewable-energy-sources.com:80/2010/06/11/lm-wind-powers-globlades-on-record-breaking-journey/ to http://www.renewable-energy-sources.com/2010/06/11/lm-wind-powers-globlades-on-record-breaking-journey/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211044825/http://www.jv.dk:80/artikel/897243:Haderslev--Se-brugernes-billeder--Verdens-stoerste-transportfly-i-Skrydstrup to http://www.jv.dk/artikel/897243:Haderslev--Se-brugernes-billeder--Verdens-stoerste-transportfly-i-Skrydstrup

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

Y 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)

- Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604020550/http://www.wingsofhistory.org/index.php/library/articles-of-interest/mark-lindberg/a-century-of-flight to http://www.wingsofhistory.org/index.php/library/articles-of-interest/mark-lindberg/a-century-of-flight

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130612071606/http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=7129 to http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=7129
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/transport-aircraft/an-225-mriya
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antonov.com/news/478
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/transport-aircraft/an-225-mriya

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree we need a better ref than that. Let me see what I can do. - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

We have no info on that. If you have a ref it could be added. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What a pity! --BushelCandle (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

Too long for either Glasgow or Edinburgh, then...--BushelCandle (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

+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)

+1 Yannn11 15:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

+1 Agreed! -Fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

+1 --Opecuted (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

Awaiting confirmation with evidence would appear sensible: this is an encyclopaedia, not a news site.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

+1 Redoct87 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine Gov has confirmed on Twitter. They plan to rebuild.

https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/1497961514480902148 Ukeditor3939 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

President Zelenskiy has also confirmed, in a speech today (Feb 27), that the plane is destroyed: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/t2sjt2/update_from_president_zelenskiy_regarding_belarus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.39.65 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

change status to destroyed change all is to was Maxwithdabois (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Cakelot1 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (2)

The an225 is destroyed 206.204.196.96 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AN-225 Mirya ablaze in it's Hangar on February 27th, 2002.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (3)

Change "aviation enthusiast]s" to "aviation enthusiasts" (last line of Operational history section) Guyfromearth2 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Restored. Please do not remove red links with plausible targets. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Antonov An-225

Overtaken by events, closed by Ahunt (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Posted by the antonov company's twitter page a hour after other pages were saying she was destroyed said this... Update on the information of #AN225 "Mriya" aircraft: 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. So to have it saying on Wikipedia that its been destroyed isn't correct because there hasn't been enough information reported on the aircrafts fate as if yet 2A00:23C6:4B2B:3701:340B:DDFC:1175:89C7 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC) As cited in the article (https://ukroboronprom.com.ua/en/news/rosiyani-znishhili-an-225-mriya-vona-bude-vidnovlena-za-kosti-okupanta) the owning agency's press release from yesterday would seem to disagree. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Can someone please delete this talk i started if possible please im unsure how to do so. John Lillicoe (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Operators

Currently, the operators section reads -

Soviet Union

• Antonov Airlines for Soviet Buran program; the company (and aircraft) passed to Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Would it be better presented as this? -

Soviet Union

• Antonov Airlines for Soviet Buran program (1988–91).

Ukraine

• Antonov Airlines (1991–94, 2001–22)

Discuss. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like that has been done except in sentence form. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)