Talk:Antonov An-72

Latest comment: 2 years ago by BilCat in topic An-26 replacement changes

Comments

edit

Their seems to be a discrepancy of the specifications of the An-72. Sources online claim either 31 August or 22 August of 1977 was its first prototype flight. Other Specifications list different dimensions/take off weight/performance of the aircraft. Just make sure to check different sources before adding info.--Kakonator 09:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've went ahead and added info. One source that I used is "Warplane" #12 magazine from 1985 and other various online sites. I'm not sure if any of the info is correct but if anyone has a better source, please fix itup. --Kakonator 11:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

No idea which date is correct, but it would seem more likely that the Russians would decide to test new aircraft in mid-summer rather than mid-winter. Drutt 02:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

YC-14 mention

edit

Isn't the mention of the YC-14 being the only turboprop in it's competition grossly off topic? It has nothing to do with the An-72, and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.110.108 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply


YC-14 is not a turboprop.. it has high by-pass turbofans located in same configuration than the AN-72.. in fact they are 2 very alike planes and the YC-14 is the closest think i have seen to the AN-72 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.223.231.72 (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antonov An-72. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

An-26 replacement changes

edit

A dynamic IP user has been making changes to the Lead based on their own interpretation and ideas (WP:Original Research) rather than using reliable sources. In particular, they have been changing this, "It was designed as an STOL transport and intended as a replacement for the Antonov An-26", substituting "An-8" for "An-26" based on relative payload capacities. I checked several reliable sources, both print and online, and they all stated that the An-72 was developed as a replacement for the An-26 in Soviet service, and I cited one of them. However, none of my print sources went into any detail, as they are minimum-coverage aviation encyclopedias. One of the online sources did go into further detail here. Of itself, Air Vectors over isn't a reliable source, but his (Greg Goebel) article is based primarily on a reliable print source, Antonov's Jet Twins, by Yefim Gordon & Dmitriy Komissa (v, Midland Press, 2.) Unfortunately, I don't have a copy this book.

According to the Air Vectors article, the An-72 was originally intended to have a payload capacity of 5 metric tons, which is very close to that on the An-26. However, Aeroflot wanted a much larger payload for the An-74 airliner version, so the An-72 was redesigned. If I can obtain a copy of the Yefim Gordon book, I will try to add something on this to the development section of the article, which is very short on development details. If someone has or can get a copy of the book, feel free to update it yourself. Thanks.

By the way, the An-32 was never until intended as a replacement for the An-26, but was developed for the Indian Air Force as a hot-and-high variant of the An-26. BilCat (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply