Talk:Antonov An-225 Mriya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Developed Into"

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)

Picard's Facepalm The development of an aircraft includes the proposal stage. While the AKS never entered the full scale development phase, preliminary development had already been undertaken by the time it was canceled. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

One example is at Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster, which lists the proposed Douglas DC-8 (piston airliner) under its "developed into" parameter. Boeing B-50 Superfortress also lists the proposed Boeing B-54 in the "variants" parameter. (I had done one this several years ago) - ZLEA _T\^C 17:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from a consensus on this issue as to the norms, as you are reffing your own work as the answer to my question, and a ref to your own (and new) work is also the item in this article that I am questioning/disputing with this thread. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I had forgotten I did that. However, I will politely ask that you retract that conflict of interest statement, since I am in no way being paid or otherwise benefiting from these edits. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added a link to this discussion at WT:AVIATION. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a very simple solution. If the developed type is notable enough to have another article describing it, then yes it should be included. If the developed type is not discussed elsewhere, then no it should not be mentioned in the infobox even if it is in the parent article. Redlinks can be provided, but would be subject to the customary tests for verifiability. No "can angels fly if they are dancing on the head of a pin?" type quandaries necessary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The beloved AN 225 aircraft

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)

Reports and Visuals Confirming Destruction of the An-225

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

Further confirmation of its destruction https://twitter.com/canada_osint/status/1497881565715525636 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.196.24 (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Image is a bit unclear so we might have to wait a bit longer to verify that Opecuted (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Further confirmation from another OSINT Twitter account: https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1497877298774695936 Yaitz331 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Further confirmation from Radio Svoboda: https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news-v-rezultati-rosiyskoyi-ataky-z-horiv-naybilshyy-v-sviti-litak-mriya-/31726400.html --Shishkin (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

To note, no confirmation from Antonov Company yet, wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast. Moreover, the article says it was destroyed on 24 February, while there was report from Antonow that evening that An225 was intact. Kuracyja (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine's Minister of Foreign Affairs confirming that the An-225 has been destroyed: https://mobile.twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497947370008547332 A6.mtr (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And Antonow does not confirm: Currently, until the AN-225 has been inspected by experts, we cannot report on the technical condition of the aircraft. Stay tuned for further official announcement. Kuracyja (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In that case, we should say that it was reported destroyed but that the company is still analysing the aircraft. Since Antonov is an MoD enterprise, and MoD says it is destroyed, it should be mentioned, you know. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I know. I just oppose to say it was destroyed when Antonow did not say anything on the matter, not even reblogged the MoD tweet. Kuracyja (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If the Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs say the aircraft has been destroyed, we have to accept that as fact. Now, let's have an end to the edit warring and get the article updated. Otherwise, administrative action may have to be taken, which I something I would rather avoid. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify: I did not edit the article, only left a note on the Talk page since just looking at the edit history left me sure that more experienced editors should do this. Only wanted to follow WP:5P2. Kuracyja (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Another source that has analysed the situation and say it has been destroyed. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Yeah but the statement by Antonov is more recent. Even if the aircraft is damaged, that does not mean completely destroyed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Knowledgedkid87: - see the analysis by OSINT Canada in their tweet I posted at WP:ITNC. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s very likely that it is destroyed or heavily damaged. (even Ukraine tweeted this) Opecuted (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the Ukranian Foreign Minister in charge of Hostomel Airport? This is what's known as the fog of war, rumors and easily doctored videos unless confirmed by those on the ground should be taken with caution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Twitter isn't much of a source, Ukrainian official statements have been all over the map in their veracity, and none of them have even talked to someone on the ground, so their statements are irrelevant, as are the analysis by foreign agencies that are working from the same inadequate imagery. The explosion may be elsewhere, while the aerial view of the HAS shows the tail at a normal angle and location - suggesting that calling it destroyed is premature since it retains sufficient integrity that the tail hasn't moved. We know it was damaged, but to call it destroyed without an observer who knows aircraft, on the ground? "It has been damaged by artillery fire, possibly beyond repair, while some reports suggest it may have been destroyed" - is probably all that can be said within the constrains of what is actually known. From having seen a stressed skin airplane that rolled down the side of a mountain after flying into it, be rebuilt and put back in the air - it can take a lot to actually destroy an airplane. Short of the wing spar being broken, or most of the airframe consumed by fire, damaged does not equate destroyed, but that could change quickly - another Russian attack could be happening right now that changes that, but until we see pictures taken inside that HAS showing clearly identifiable wreckage, it is all just speculation. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 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)

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

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

• Destoryed AN225.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2022 (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:

• Destoryed AN225.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Source for “citation needed” at the end of the third paragraph

https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497947370008547332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.160.149 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The source was already in the body. Generally, citations should not be used in the lede. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, anyone interested can read MOS:LEADCITE for more detail. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Max take off weight vs payload

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)

This wording has been corrected/clarified. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

File:An-225 Destroyed.jpg

FYI File:An-225 Destroyed.jpg has been nominated for deletion on COMMONS -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, BBC has a different image of the wreckage if that is preferable to be the fair use image (assuming that's how the deletion discussion goes). Chris857 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You should probably just go ahead and upload it. "File:An-225 Destroyed.jpg" can be transwikied here for use with the Battle of Antonov Airport article. While a different aircraft profile, the BBC one, can be used on this one -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Last flight

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)

its final flight was from Billund on feb 5th

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/a-tribute-to-the-antonov-an-225/ 73.250.130.247 (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, now added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

White elephant

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)

The article speaks to the aircraft's operational history, using reliable sources. I don't see anything in the above discussion that merits additions to the article or a change in its emphasis. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, in fact the above is more along the lines of WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 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)

The first statement you mention is cited to two reliable sources. You can note that the Soviets were unlikely to be influenced by American design thinking, so unless you have a ref that the twin tail was unnecessary then that claim is WP:OR. As for remarks on the interface with the Buran program, again we need refs that detail that. Note that, as the "Operational history" details, in the 1990s the An-225 was returned to service and thereafter flew a large number of heavy lift missions worldwide. From the 1990s to its destruction it was hardly a white elephant, but if you want to claim that you will need to cite a ref that supports that, as per WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a recent photo of it (1.5 months before it was destroyed)

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:

The Antonov An-225 Mriya aircraft spotted on Athens International Airport (Eleftherios Venizelos airport) on 15 January 2022

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)

Thanks for uploading it, but it is really not a very good photo, not clear and a very long shot with the aircraft partially obscured. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)