Talk:Antonov An-225 Mriya

Destroyed, W/O

Recent Pictures by Satellite shows the Aircraft still Standing inside the Damaged Hangar. This dated 1 March 2022. Probably Damaged, but seems Repairable, --90.186.219.179 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

and your proof is...? - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Somebody has edited the article to read "reported as being destroyed" (my italic). I think that is excellent wording at this time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

my proof is this picture, where analysing, the aircraft seems standing, just hangar had some failures https://ibb.co/dMByqLZ --90.186.219.179 (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The picture shows only the tail. It is original research to make assumptions about the rest of the plane, and Wikipedia editors may not do that. What the article does do is cite several reports from reliable sources that it has been destroyed. This is what we are required to do. It is fair to water down the claim of destruction and say that the plane is "reported to be destroyed", and the article has now been edited accordingly. If new and reliable reports contradict or qualify those, then we can amend the article according to those, as well. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Truth, but Standing on its feet, not felt down on floor, due Structure Rupture, and the Hangar does not was all imploded. So, for me, can be used again after a huge refit. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

And those Internet Rports, Reporters are not reliable sources also, they copy & past with wrong words what others says, repeating and spreading. I believe in pictures, true ones, as Mechanical Engineer & Designer of several Vehicles, even to SSJ100 aircraft, can tell, Regards. Know what is a Vehicle Project. In this case was a missunderstood propaganda, due insurance and emotional feelings, translating words not precise --90.186.219.179 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a new aviation media item: Satellite Photos Give Hope AN-225 Might Have Survived. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

So, you concluded the same, as had posted same pic... So maybe ¾ are 'Intact' --90.186.219.179 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside the misunderstandings about Wikipedia's editing policies, is that source alone enough to warrant updating the article? Was the photo taken before or after the reports of destruction? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A. WELL, Personally do not Agree with many Ways Wikipedia works, it is a War like this 6 Days Russia Invasion to Ukraine, but the Discussion is An225. Think Wiki must Improve its way as well... but this got old.

B. 1. The An225 had an Air-to-surface missile attack, picture taken from fighter confirming. 2. Then came this Satellite Detail after. 3. For me, Wiki should step down to Damage, not Full Destroyed, so ¾ of Vehicle is there. Regards, as said, am Fed Up with Wiki too, the Way it is... so Up to You if Changing or not ... --90.186.219.179 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: There is a parallel discussion to this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Antonov An-225 Mriya, which you might like to check out. I have asked that any further contributions be made here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have also updated the article a little, to reflect the new image. Any better? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Now only a Russian Soldier could be Informed... We are in West Cold War Block, or Far Away East, not in the Hot Stage... so up to u guys, maybe in one day in future we seee Regards Or Ask direct Putin, maybe he knows As said, continue appreciating a lot the Planets, Animals, Trees, Design, Vehicles, Murano Glasses, Wife & Cat a lot ... but no other humans, can not trust, sorry, nice sunny days --90.186.219.179 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are trying to lead this discussion with the above unintelligible comment, but you don't seem to realize that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. While the aircraft may indeed be damaged and not destroyed, any claims of its status are speculation at this point. We likely won't know for certain the state of the aircraft until the fighting stops and a proper survey of the site is done, therefore, we cannot present any one claim over another as fact. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

know you understood pretty good... the same now... biw where are u in Florida ? mean, which Florida, Palm Beach or Key West, Cape Canaveral or so ? and which coin you have in your collection you most like ? just curiosity ... --90.186.219.179 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That's absolute rubbish, and also Original Research. I don't see you being here to build an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.206.38 (talk • contribs)

This discussion ended months ago and we have learned a lot about the An-225's condition since then. Care to elaborate? - ZLEA _T\^C 00:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want to start a personal discussion, please do so at my talk page. Otherwise, let's try to keep this on-topic. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I seem to understand all right. And you are correct, Wikipedia is not the place to talk of such things. I do the best I can here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Relax, Take It Easy --90.186.219.179 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It really is gone. The source is not citable as it comes from a snapshot from a brief video and is fuzzy. It literally is a pile of unrecognizable ashes. The fire stopped at the tail section. The jet fuel caught fire and literally melted the plane to the ground. A Ukranian pilot who is very familiar with the plane and the airport posted it. Because it's not really a citable source I leave it for others to find citable and verifiable news sources. Nodekeeper (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The pictures are now on Twitter and it has been confirmed by an official Ukranian source Nodekeeper (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Nodekeeper Could you provide a link to this Twitter post? It will help us find any reliable sources if they exist. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

And also the satellite picture saying the An-22 is Intact, because want to put as source there, thanks ... --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, found the Video, but strange, the front felt on floor, wings detached ?!! seems strange failure, but if solved or not do not know https://twitter.com/AntonovCompany/status/1499355838854701064?s=20&t=ShXw7-_i-89FYMNKVYgwCw --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that the post is from Antonov's official Twitter account, I think we can use it for something. We can't say whether or not the aircraft is a total write-off until the inspection is complete, but I'm sure we can still use the source for something. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, made a clear pic from video increasing and edit, An225 Written Off Beyound Repair ... but you can still take the fuselage section of the second airframe and merge all into 1 in future at a stratospherical cost, so left 1/2 szill belonging to AA. Of course this video is 1 week old, it means the satellite without smoke after --- you take your conclusions https://ibb.co/NVDQ142 --90.186.219.179 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion on how the An-225 could be repaired. If you want to speculate on the future of the aircraft, please do so off-wiki. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

oh guy why so much arrogance ?! me as mechanical engineer and industrial designer go further... not collecting common coins here Regards --90.186.219.179 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• User:ZLEA is stating the talk page guidelines (see WP:TALK). Article talk pages are supposed to be for improving the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

IP editor is now blocked, for 31 hours. This can be lengthened if need be. Text like this, "As Another half Fuselage of a possibly Second An225 exists, it is unknown due high costs, if is repairable, making from both halfs, one", just cannot be accepted, and neither can that type of sourcing. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

THIS CAN BE ARCHIVED The Source is Ukrainian TV Report between Hangars at Airfield https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220227-0 --90.186.249.178 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

She's definitely destroyed

Video report showing closeups confirming the 225 markings and the complete write off of the vehicle: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/t6cvri/close_up_view_of_destroyed_an225/

0:43 to see the hull markings on the cockpit and the remains of the port wing.

• If only a source appropriate according to WP:RS can be obtained then I don't see why the page cannot be updated for that. I see the post you referenced in talk used a TV clip. --71.198.188.8 (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I don't know which news station it was, I do not read Cyrillic. It appears to be a CNN affiliate in Ukraine. Until a written source comes out that's verified of course, since this is an on-the-ground news report, it should dissuade any further arguements as to the condition of the plane, pending an appropriate source. You can't get any more factual than a news report 100 metres from the plane's wreck. - 2001:8003:3C3F:B700:717F:6F3C:9F9D:90A9 (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary section on destruction: date

No source support the sentence in summary; "On 24 February 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the An-225 was reportedly destroyed…"

This summary sentence also directly contradicts content in the related body section, and I propose the summary to be amended, removing the date since there's no proof for the exact date of its perish.

Specifically, I propose the aforementioned sentence to be changed to "During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the An-225 was reportedly destroyed after Russian forces attacked Hostomel forces [[Battle of Antonov Airport|attacked Hostomel Airport]]."

In addition, further edits may be appropriate considering the emergence of new evidence very recently.--71.198.188.8 (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong date

At the end of the operational history section, there's the sentence "On 5 march a video posted on...". The correct date is 4 march, as right now it's 11:41 of the 4th of march 2022 in Hostomel. 151.46.15.48 (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

The latest image added to the article, File:Destoryed_AN225.png, appears to show the foward fuselage and centre section destroyed but the port (left hand when facing it from behind) wing and rear fuselage structures appear intact. I do think that "destroyed" is unconfirmed until Antonov give an official statement of its condition. In the light of the continuing edit war over its condition, I am hoping to build a consensus here. I propose that the article describe it as "badly damaged", while acknowledging reports of "destruction". How do others think we should describe it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the reliable ref: David Kaminski-Morrow (4 March 2022). "Sole An-225 suffered irreparable damage during airfield assault". Flightglobal..--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Right now, most reliable sources state that the aircraft was destroyed. Therefore, I think it's best to describe it as such until Antonov decides to repair it or write it off. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It's destroyed with an estimated $3bln repair estimate. Ukraine announced it intends to rebuild it, using possibly the 70% finished 2nd airframe, if it's still intact. I think it’s unlikely to happen. Rebuild the AN-225 on YouTube Technophant (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: evidence of Russian trolling

Interview with a soldier who was on site when artillery struck next to Mriya

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Evidence of Russian trolling

Insurance

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Evidence of Russian trolling

Status vs. Type

There have been a few back and forth edits 1, 2, 3, 4 by at least 3 editors regarding the status of the aircraft on the basis of if the article is referring to an individual aircraft or an aircraft type. Rather than continue the back and forth - it is time to bring it to discussion so this can resolved once and for all.

ZLEA stated in both of their reversions that the AN-225 is an aircraft type, rather than an individual aircraft - and that is the basis for excluding the destroyed status of the aircraft in the short description. While a second airframe had been partially built, all efforts to complete it had been abandoned many years ago. Other than the mentioning of that fact - the entire remaining portion of the article is written from the POV of the now destroyed aircraft as being the only one, being referred to as the Antonov An-225, vs. a or an. The article needs to be consistent one way or the other with regards to this.

Until/unless a second one is built and made operational - I am confident in the single-instance POV for this article, and as such am also confident that reflecting the status as having been destroyed is the correct one. As much as the world may wish for it - there have been no efforts or initiatives by either the Ukranian or Russian governments, nor by Antonov to complete the second airframe - and is known in the aviation community to be a lofty and prohibitively expensive goal. The Ukranian government has only once verbalized that Mriya will be back, and that it would be bigger and better - which historically would result in a new designation (See Globemaster. An-250, 500 and 1000 have been rumored - all paired with Mriya II).

As always, I am open to the input and consensus of others. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe we are debating a short description. These are not even seen by readers, except when doing a search on Wikipedia and then only to disambiguate internal search results. Short descriptions should be as short as possible to discern this from other possible topics returned in a search. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if this reply seems a bit off, while I was writing it my userpage was attacked by a very persistent vandal. I agree with Ahunt that this shouldn't be a problem, but since it is, here's my reasoning. First, the An-225 is an aircraft type that was never intended to be unique (that only happened due to a lack of funds after the Buran program was canceled). Second, it is still too early label the type as a whole lost, as there is still a 60-70% complete airframe that was never officially abandoned (work on the aircraft, while excruciatingly slow, was still ongoing as late as 2009, well after the Buran cancellation), and Antonov has stated its intention to complete it after the destruction of the first aircraft. You are right that neither the Ukrainian government nor Antonov have attempted to complete the aircraft, as it probably isn't wise to attempt to retrieve it in the middle of a war, and the government likely cannot divert any funds from the war effort.

And finally, I do not recall the Ukrainian government voicing any intentions to build a "bigger and better" Mriya, so if you can point me to that statement that would be great. If that is the case, however, we cannot assume that it will be classified as a different type. For example, the Boeing 707-320C can be said to have been bigger and better than the 707-120, as it had more powerful engines and a stretched fuselage, but both are variants of the same type. The rumors of a new designation are pure speculation, and as of right now there is no evidence that Antonov is working on or planning an unrelated "Mriya II" type aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and concede to this - as I don't know what the heck I was thinking at the time. I was conflating/substituting short-desc for infobox in my head, and apparently for an extended period of time. Oy. I agree that the short-desc doesn't need this delineation. Sorry about that. Maybe I need to start drinking coffee... Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)