A fact from Antonov An-70 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 October 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Antonov An-70(pictured) was the first aircraft to take flight powered only by
propfans?
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
Don't merge - Since no reasons for merger were given, here are all reasons the article should be allowed to stand alone IMHO. The aircraft is one of two ever built, and initially was determined to be a total loss. In order to save the 5 billion dollar AN-70 project it was decided to return prototype 2 to flying status with GREAT effort and cost. This was a high-profile project at the time with much infighting among the program participants This article is about the 2nd prototype's crash, there is a separate article about crash of the first one 6 years earlier
1995 Antonov An-70 prototype crash. Both have interesting information. Finally the
2001 Antonov An-70 Crash is too large and unwieldy to be merged into the
Antonov An-70 article.
Samf4u16:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Antonov bankruptcy
Some discussion is needed on the topic of Antonov's bankruptcy, especially as documented by reliable sources. Antonov has been merged into Ukraine's UKROBORONPROM State Concern and production of all aircraft by Antonov, including the disaster-prone An-70, has ended. Russia's Ilyushin (VORONEZH Aircraft Production Association), which produced 70% of the 148 before Antonov's bankruptcy, has taken over production of the An-148 and has been the de facto sole-source of the 148 for the last 2 years. As can be expected, there will be hot feelings over this topic, and even some denial, but discussion is still needed to ensure that the information is properly documented.
Santamoly (
talk)
21:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)reply
No discussion is needed in an individual aircraft article, take it to the company article. As Bill indicated in his edit summaries, it's not as clear as you make it sound. Certainly not worth adding to every single Antonov aircraft article. --
Dual Freq (
talk)
22:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Agreed. It doesn't matter to me where it's discussed as long as it's not buried. I just sprinkled it around a bit because someone was determined to stifle discussion and was deleting any mention of it, denying that sources were reliable, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's so clear, rather I said "discussion is still needed to ensure that the information is properly documented".
Santamoly (
talk)
10:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Foreign Language Sources
If someone proficient in the languages could translate the titles of the foreign language sources (Russian and German) that would be good.
Scotteaton92 (
talk)
18:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Antonov An-70. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
YAn 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.
This article has issues. The narrative jumps around and presents events out of sequence, and isn't consistent. For example, it is stated that the project is dead, but later production is going to resume. I don't have sufficient knowledge or experience to rewrite it, but can it be flagged as needing improvement?
Marzolian (
talk)
22:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The category "Russian military transport aircraft 2000–2009" is probably inappropriate however, as i) we categorise by first flight date, and ii) Antonov was definitely not Russian.
Nigel Ish (
talk)
08:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
You're alright. I was just waiting for the article to settle anyway after having added more content. Thank you for taking this on. Regards, --
Sp33dyphil (
talk)
14:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)reply