Talk:Antonov

What does this mean?
''It is important to note that the Antonov company has no industrial possibilities for full-circle construction of some of the models it designed. This is a result of Soviet industrial strategy, which tried to split military production chains between different regions of the USSR. It minimized potential war risks, and prevented Soviet republics from developing self-sufficient economies. This is why Antonov airplanes were often constructed by aerospace companies in Kharkiv (Ukraine), Novosibirsk (Russia), and Tashkent (Uzbekistan).''. I have no idea what full-circle construction means. If anyone does could they alter that section please to make the meaning clearer? - Adrian Pingstone 16:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC) Full cycle, not full circle. 77.47.199.122 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not any clearer. - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To me it is. You do not make an essential for war in one location where the enemy could easily throw a bomb or cut the supply line (railway). It is very probable that for each production unit, e.g. in Ukraine, Uzbekistan etc., there existed plans and maybe half prepared sites to take on each bit of manufacturing in case the original one was destroyed by the enemy or sabotaged by hostile local ethnic people. Look at the spread as an insurance policy. Incidentally, airbus plane sections are also made in different locations (France, Spain, Germany, Britain) but the reasons were money since the project was so costly that no country could manage that on their own.


 * I came here because there is a new development with Antonov to monitor, i.e. cooperation with the Chinese to build another one of the gigantic Antonov planes and then transfer production to China. Well, Ukrainians have bills to pay like everybody else. 101.166.86.118 (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

ANT-31 bully?
Can anybody offer a source for the ANT-31/I-14 fighter? Is it real? Trekphiler (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger
As far as I know, Antonov ASTC is already merged into a national airplane building corporation with a similar name. The update tag becomes even more demanding. Ukrained (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems there is some conflict with the state. TGCP (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

An-148
Can anyone answer whether, or not, the An-148 is qualified to fly under international safety regulations? If it is not it cant be flown anywhere in the west and its export options are limited to former Russia, China and the third world. 91.128.113.53 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Antonov the most common airplane brand?
Why Antonov the most common brand when twice as many Cessna 172's have been manufactured than ALL of Antonov's models? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.132.1.254 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The end of Antonov
Any news of the winding-up of Antonov is being summarily reverted by one editor. There's now 4 reliable sources describing the unwinding of Antonov (including Jane's), and this editor appears to be determined to revert all reference to this important event without checking the sources - and without discussion. I'm assuming the editor is reverting without checking the information since the sources are fairly unanimous. Here's another source describing the end of Antonov, although it predates the formal dissolution of Antonov which is just happening now: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/world/aviation-giant-is-nearly-grounded-in-ukraine.html?_r=0. The demise of Antonov is an important (and widely documented) event in the aviation world and WP should at least be recording some of the drama rather than pretending it's not happening. Santamoly (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:BilCat has been reverting any reference to the bankruptcy and winding down of Antonov in spite of many reliable sources, relying instead on the word of Antonov's successor, UKROBORONPROM State Concern, which is a weapons manufacturer. Antonov has been having severe production difficulties due to plane crashes and disruption of production. Bilcat may have some objections to the quality of the various sources documenting the end Antonov as an independent enterprise, but there's no doubt that the sources (such as Jane's Aircraft news service) are qualified and independent. When asked, politely, in his talk page why he's reverting any mention of Antonov's bankruptcy without discussion, Bilcat simply deleted the question from his talk page, which he is entitled to do, but which makes discussion difficult. To sort out a difficult topic like the bankruptcy of Antonov, WP asks for discussion before deletion. Santamoly (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Strategy Page https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20160128.aspx news arm of Strategy World is also confirming the bankruptcy of Antonov and ideally this information should be included in the lede of the Antonov article. I've taken a public beating trying to bring this news forward since Ukraine supporters don't like to hear anything on this topic, but I would still support anyone else who wants to take a run at adding this info to the lede. Santamoly (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Antonov. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221084317/http://www.antonov.com:80/contacts.xml to http://www.antonov.com/contacts.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antonov. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513001712/http://www.antonov.com/products/groundtransport/index.xml to http://www.antonov.com/products/groundtransport/index.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspicion of vandalism
This article is about Antonov State Company, not about its controlling technical legal entities. A concern (Konzern) is a business group that is a result of the merger of several legally independent companies (in our case Antonov State Company, Kharkiv State Aviation Manufacturing Enterprise and Plant №410 of Civil Aviation) into a single economic entity under unified management. That group was State Aircraft Manufacturing Concern Antonov, it was created in 2005 or 2008, not in 1947. All three companies were transferred to another state-owned concern Ukroboronprom in 2015. Antonov State Company continues to function under the same name and the same brand. In July 2017 the residual corporate entity State Aircraft Manufacturing Concern Antonov was liquidated, because there were no companies in it. It was a technical legal action. This is the popular news in some regions of our planet, because it sounds like Antonov State Company was liquidated (i.e. a major failure of the Ukrainian government). I clarified that issue in the article, removed "defunct" status, requsted the source of information about closing down three factories in Kiev and Kharkiv and added the reference citing Antonov's official webpage http://www.antonov.com/news/520?lang=en. I hope the official site is more reliable source than Russia Today, Azerbaijan news agencies or Ukrinform.

My contribution was immediately reverted in spite of this, I restored my version with "Reverting vandalism" note, it was rolled back the same minute. I started a conversation on Alex Bernstein's personal page, where I posted an appropriate warning template and a cite request in Russian. User tried to convince me he's not able to understand Russian or Ukrainian. Nevertheless, he used references in Ukrainian, .az links, all his contributions were "2014 Ukrainian revolution", "Mikhail Lesin", "Ukraine", "Antonov", "CNN controversies", the article was improved with unnecessary USSR-details.

I guess as non-native English-speaker I need the help of other users. Maybe I'm wrong and the official site is not a good source. CaterpillarOfDeath (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, according to Wikipedia rules, the official site is a "primary source" and not as reliable as a secondary source would be. Santamoly (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Anatov" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anatov. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 18:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)