Talk:Mil Mi-26/Archive 1

# f crew
General characteristics

* Crew: Five – 2 pilots, 1 navigator, 1 flight engineer, 1 loadmaster, 1 radio/electronic systems operator

thats 6 yo

Another civil operator: CANADA
I'm not sure if this is official (if Mi-26 has been certified there or just doing trials), but I recently got back from British Columbia.. and I saw several of those transporting heavy equipment and lumber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abanamat (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's only one MI-26 in Canada right now and it's operating at the Galore Creek mine site in northern B.C. It's operated by a company called UTran, under the license of the canadian company Airborne Energy Solutions.  It's still a russian registered aircraft, so I'm not sure that that would make Canada an actual operator.  You might be thinking of the russian Kamov KA-32, of which Vancouver Island Helicopters operates several under canadian registration. 207.194.0.194 06:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent News
Anyone want to add this. I don't have the time and don't really know how to make major edits 203.49.232.252 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesnt appear particularly notable it just describes what the helicopter does (lifts big things) nothing unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Image
A better image than the current main one would be a big improvement. This one shows the airframe overall shape poorly, due to the overlap with the background machine, and there is nothing in the image to show scale. Random (non-PD) pictures online show that it is hard to find images of the Mi-26 where neither the nose, tail or rotors have been cropped. | E.g.and. It's unfortunate that none of the six images on the page gives a clear idea of the notable size of this aircraft.

Anyway, I've added this image to the page for the reasons I just stated. It's nowhere near perfect, but it will do until a better one becomes available. Perhaps one of the less interesting images (e.g. this one that appears only as a thumb) should be pulled from the article. Centrepull (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about File:Mil_Mi-26_on_the_MAKS-2009_(01).jpg or File:Panh Mil Mi-26.jpg Hohum (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hohum, those aren't bad images, but they are proba bly "uninteresting" too. As to "appears only as a thumb" - thumb sizings are set be user preference, so are not generally used in thumbed images. (The 3-views aern't thumbed, so they are the exeption.) The mexico image looks bad with the traps orve the cockpit, and the side of the fuselage appears really dark. I frankly thinks it's a poor image. File:Panh Mil Mi-26.jpg is probably the best one for "showing scale", but that's not a requiremnt here. - BilCat (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A genius' work
Please, I'm not a communist. But, such as the T-34, AK-47, RPG-7, Mi-8 and Mi-6 the Mi-26 is a genius' work. Everyone that built this massive helicopter is a genius. After more than 30 years after its first flight, no ther helicopter so big, as the Mi-26 does exists in any place of the world.Agre22 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * agree 2, engine pwpl , there is a Mi46 (dv) , pd12v (d12sv read somewhere few min ago ,idk) , but prefer LoD136 ai136 tho . - ~ cnd Alcor

Nepal operations
On March 3rd, 2010, the mention of 2 aircraft in Nepal was removed. Why? Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The omission was not explained or justified after a week of patient waiting; I therefore undid it.Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont know why it was removed probably like the rest of the section it is lacking in references (only one), rather than fact tag everything just like to ask if anybody can provide any refs. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again removed anonymously, again undone. Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed again! I've added it back, tagged it as dubious, and added an Unreferenced header to the section. - BilCat (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done, BilCat.Again, the remover was anonymous, and again did not join the discussion. Confirming my suspicion of sheer vandalism.Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In service as of 2008?
It seems to me, that a lot of aircraft articles, (including the Mil Mi-26) have this "In service as of 2008" tag, with all current operators. I'd like to propose removing this, as the reader should have the impression, that we are referring to the present, and that this note in most cases is two years old.Dancaffey (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This article does not say that. As of 2008 is most likely the date of the reference used for the data.  It can be misleading to leave that off, -fnlayson (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

China, Wenchuan Quake emergency
Greetings all; I removed the two following sentences from the China earthquake incident section as they were not directly related to Mi-26 involvement:

''This was in conjunction with PLAAF Mil Mi-17 helicopters bringing in combat engineers, explosives specialists, and other personnel to join 1,200 soldiers who had already arrived on site by foot. Five tons of fuel to operate the machinery had also been airlifted onto location, where a sluice was constructed to allow the bleeding off of the bottlenecked water.''

Any thoughts? Benjamin22b (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems for the most part, provided that the Mi-26(s) did not help bring the 5 tons of fuel. The text does not specify this.  Also, edits where content is removed like this should not be marked as a minor edit. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Chernobyl reactor clean-up operation.JPEG Nominated for Deletion

 * Photos of decommissioned vehicles, now buried to prevent recycling radioactive material. Unclear which helicopter hit a crane. TGCP (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/milmi-26heavylifthel/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents
Given the amount of hull losses, this article should have a section for Incidents and accidents. Another was just lost to refueling fire - perhaps not notable for text, but at least for statistics. TGCP (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tail Rotor
"The tail rotor has about the same rotor diameter and thrust of the four-bladed MD 500 main rotor."- Ok for the size of this thing, the tail rotor might has to generate as much thrust as the main rotor. But with the main rotor diameter greater than an hundred (100) feet - that would require the tail rotor hub at 50 feet above the ground/ bottom of landing gear. Yet the crafts height is listed at 27 feet (rounded). Something does NOT make sense.. Wfoj3 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you get 50ft from an MD500 rotor is 26ft diameter so would only need to be 13ft from the ground (and a bit more), it is not a particularly usefull statement in the article as most readers would not have a clue what the MD500 rotor diameter is. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)