Talk:Antonov An-2/Archive 1

Archive 1

no "Russian" production.

I have corrected this article to account for the fact that production of AN-2 was SOVIET, not "Russian." whoever listed the variant types went out of their way to call the versions 'Russian' and ignore the fact that initial production was in Soviet Ukraine. I have removed nonsensical references to "Russian" vesions and replaced this with "Soviet" and have added to the development history to better clarify the situation.

I continue to be in utter shock how people can be such rivet counters over the smallest little technical details and yet be so very wrong and sloppy with things like the actual countries involved. "Russian" and "Soviet" are not the same thing. Please try to be more careful, people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy 60-th Birthday

Ан-2 Кукурузник - has it's Happy Birthday today, wish you clear sky Анна and be the same good in your 70'th 80'th and so on :-)!!! Oleg_Str —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.223.137 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical Events?

I fail to see what's so historically significant about an An-2 getting shot down while engaging South Vietmanese naval forces. An-2s were historically heavily engaged in military actions (especially during the Korean War and African brush wars) and I fail to see how this incident is encyclopedic at all. 24.9.10.235 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It was the only case known by me :-) Hence, the "importance". Write the "Combat Service" section, if you may. I believe, it'd be of interest. --jno 11:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

2 24.9.10.235: BTW, why not to register? --jno 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request

If someone could add some images of more special variants to this article, I think that would help. Some good images are found in the reference links 24.9.10.235 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There are old good well known © problems... I post my own photos, when possible (listed here). --jno 09:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some home-grown silhouette drawings of special variants in the article on the An-2 on Greg Goebel's Air Vectors website. They are his drawings and he has declared them public domain.

MrG -- 22 Oct 06

Kukuruznik?

Is it really called kukuruznik after Po-2? Pibwl ←« 21:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. --jno 08:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you say so :-) Pibwl ←« 20:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have any thick printed book in hard cover to confirm the statement. The name for both aircraft is colloqual only. :-P --jno 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean, that you should know how it is called in Russia :-) Pibwl ←« 20:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. "Кукурузник". From "кукуруза" (maize, Indian corn). Just because of common use pattern of low flight (at the level of maize tops). --jno 11:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Уважаемый, jno, пологаю, что всё-же вы ошибаетесь присваивая название кукурузника По-2 и Ан-2. Вероятнее всего наименование кукрузник появилось в 60-е, во время массового применения в сельхозавиации АН-2 и внедрения Никитой Сергеевичем кукурузной агрокульутры. Уж если По-2 и называют кукурузником, то только путая его силуэт биплана с Ан-2. Кст, Аннушка наименование мне известное. --213.228.99.160 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an An-2 article for my website and got, for what it's worth, feedback from a Russian who said that the nickname "Annushka" was unknown to him, but that "Kukuruznik" was known to all, and in fact was a general term for any cropduster.

MrG -- 22 Oct 06

It's common thing here - different societies use different names. Just like "tushkan" (jerboa) and "tushka" (body) for Tu-134 and Tu-154 respectively - they are widely used but not in "all contextes". --jno 08:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(ADAM)kukuruznik was the name of Po-2(U-2). It was in the Polish Encycklopedia of Aviation (WNT Warshaw 1970)and AN-2 was called "kolchoznik" in the same book.

Well, I konow nicknames used by Polish Air Force soliders for different types of machins. Some of them are: Antek (diminutive from Antoni, so could by translated as "Tony") for all constructions of Antonov OKB, but usualy for An-2, szparka ("crack" or "pussy") for SB Lim (MiG-15UTI), tutka ("cornet" or "cigarette tube") for Tu-154, ołówek ("pencil") for MiG-21, suka ("bitch" or "female dog") for Su-7 and Su-20/Su-22 and so on... ;) Radomil talk 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Power/mass typo?

Empty weight: 3,300 kg (7,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,500 kg (12,000 lb)
Powerplant: ... 1,000 hp (750 kW)
Power/mass: 140 W/kg (0.83 hp/lb)

I believe the last number is missing a zero:

1,000HP/12,000lb = 0.0833 HP/lb

68.239.207.148 (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Combat service

Vietnam Air War Debrief by Robert F. Dorr and Chris Bishop gives shootdowns of two An-2s by US Navy F-4Bs on 20 December 1966, but does not mention any help from the Long Beach . It also mentions the attack on Phou Pha Thi in Laos on 12 January 1968, but says two aircraft were invbolved, not three, stating that it is not clear what ordinace was used. For what its worth, AICG here refers to two An-2s being shot down by CIA UH-1s on the day in question, and lists them as confirmed kills, but whether that counts as a reliable source I'm not sure.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Description of January 12, 1968, attack on Phou Pha Thi in Laos (Limasite 85) is in error. Limasite 85 was a clandestine ground directed bombing site employing a TSQ-81 radar manned by US Air Force personnel of the 1CEG. The attack was ineffective. Sources say four AN-2's were involved, but only two attacked, with gunfire and what were believed to be mortar shells. See Limasite 85 and limasite 85 shootdown. Print source: Christopher Robbins, The Ravens : Pilots of the Secret War of Laos, page 63. Pawyilee (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Longest production run

The Beechcraft Bonanza first flew on 22 December 1945 and was certified on 25 March 1947, so it is older than the Antonov An-2. Aldo L (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

File:An-6.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:An-6.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not the largest single-engined biplane

Despite recent changes to the article, the An-2 is not the "World's Biggest single-engined Production Biplane" - the Avro Aldershot single-engined night bomber of which 15 were built, and served with the RAF 1924–1926 had a wingspan of 68 ft (20.7 m) and a length of 45 ft (13.7 m) and the American Huff-Daland LB-1 (10 built)had a span of 66 ft 6 in (20.27 m) and a length of 46 ft 2 in (14.1 m), which compares with the An-2's wingspan of 18.2 m and length of 12.4 m, were both larger. The statement is misleading and should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I had wondered if perhaps it was heavier than the others but the LB-1 is a fraction heavier. Perhaps a rewording of the offending sentence to "promoted as the World's....". Just found the Antonov An-3 which is heavier though a turboprop. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And the PZL M-15 Belphegor has a yet larger wingspan ((22 m) and is heavier still. Since the whole sentence appears to be unsourced anyway the reference to world's largest can probably be lost anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You think you've seen everything and then you see the Belphegor... I think there's enough examples now that the claim will need solid referencing to stay. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not important, but just to complete the picture ... in the German Wikipedia the statement is "largest single-engine biplane currently in use". I bet somebody will be able to find something out there that's larger and flying, but of course not in significant numbers. It's probably the most significant large single-engine biplane in aviation history and that's why we want to stick a record to it, but it does not matter. It's like with the MiG-25, impossible to say it in a sentence or two. It's not a record if you need to explain it :-). JB. --92.193.177.97 (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Antonov An-2/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Was listed as A-class, but it need some work before it can go there. Needs re-writing of Usage and characteristics section to following in Project standards of "History" and "Development" etc. Needs sources. Need peer review to be A, re-assessed as B-class at best. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 08:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Most Produced Aircraft needs citations

Howdy all Wikipedians! This aircraft appears on the list of most-produced aircraft but there is no citation for the production figure cited in that article. I respectfully ask your help in adding a citation, along with any necessary explanatory notes about the production figure (e.g. whether it includes licensed production and significant minor variants, and if so, which ones). Thanks in advance! Carguychris (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Stall speed

The article says:

The An-2 has no stall speed

And in the paragraph after that:

This slow stall speed makes it possible for the [An-2] to fly backwards relative to the ground

And further down:

Stall speed: 50 km/h (31 mph, 27 kn) circa

The first quoted sentence is contradicted by the other two. 79.178.188.184 (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t had a chance to look yet, but the first sentence is most likely the problem. I’ve never heard of a plane, even a STOL, without a stall speed. I’ll look into it later when I have more time. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Dubious

None of the sources for Y-15 stated it is developed from Y-5. One is from a blog and another from a forum. They are appropriately marked. Mys_721tx (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)