Antonov An-2 crash

Cyka blyat!

Or, to be precise, счка Блядь
 
Actually Gust lock might be it. Once airborn, it gradually appears to pitch up. Wonder if he reduced throttle to try and stop the climb.
 
JonH said:
Drunk pilot?
Click to expand...

Drunk reporter? Was that a machine generated story? It was as if someone took a random aviation-related word generator and published the first thing that came out...

There was an AN-2 stuck on Guam for years... Something about how they flew it there from Russia without proper authorization and it was not allowed to leave. This was taken in 2002 and it is likely the AN-2 is still sitting there if a typhoon has not carried it away.

Guam044.jpg
 
I'd never heard of an An-2. Turns out it's a biplane taildragger with a radial engine -- and it's commonly used to haul passengers! That and crop dusting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2

According to that Wikipedia article, it's good at flying slow. But just the same, having watched the video in the OP, it's clear that it's possible to stall it on takeoff.
 
I've flown in two of them. One belonged to Caroll Shelby. The plane landed and the pilot got out. I asked if I could check out the plane and he said something like, "Yes, and say hi to the guy in the right seat." It was Caroll. I soon forgot about the plane!

To turn it, you lock up one brake and I believe it's hydraulic. There's a hiss and a pop, and then the plane starts to turn. When coming in to land, you'll get a little nervous because such a big plane doesn't feel like it should go so slow. Then the slats pop out with a loud bang and you might have to change your underwear!
 
JonH said:
W&B?
Click to expand...

That's a possibility:
14 souls on board, according to the LiveLeak article in the OP.
12-passenger seating is the most common version of the AN-2, according to the Wikipedia article.
 
"Experts are inclined to believe that either technical malfunctions or a pilot error led to the accident."

Gosh... you think? That's insightful.
 
Sounds like the engine cut out and the pilot forgot to push, or just didn't have time. Those things take off slow and steep, unbelievably so.
 
From what I remember they can’t be certified due to the old Cold War FAA rules that no Soviet aircraft can ever be certified in the US. Interesting aircraft, which has been revived with a new turboprop version.

Fun Fact: a pair of Hueys had an air to air kill of one of these beasts in Nam, using their door guns.
 
McDonnell Douglas used to show all mechanic new hires a short clip of an F-4 that crashed due to a box wrench left in the controls. It took off normally, then pitched up at a steep angle. Both the pilot and GIB ejected safely and the plane stalled and crashed spectacularly. The fact that this AN-2 increased its pitch radically may indicate something was wrong with the flight controls. Too bad, nice Biplane.
 
AN-2 is a pretty great plane for what it was meant to do. It was a Russian work horse for decades. They made a lot of them. I flew in it a few times as a kid. And flew its full motion simulator when I was in my teens. It’s one of the reasons I became a pilot

incidentally, there was an AN-3. A turboprop version. Didn’t really take hold
 
They are cool! There was a nice one at Oshkosh last year and a sadly derelict-appearing one at Chino, CA a few years ago.
 
Geosync said:
FAA rules that no Soviet aircraft can ever be certified in the US.
Click to expand...
FYI: it isn't that there is a specific rule prohibiting FAA certification rather the Russian aircraft don't meet the existing rules that all aircraft must meet. It's primary the unique manufacturing/tracking/standards processes used in Russia that do not cross over to the international standards, etc used by most western countries. But Russia is getting closer as I know of one Kamov helicopter that received a EASA TC and TCCA TC. And I think with their Ka-62 they will actually achieve a bi-lateral agreement on aircraft manufacture to include the US. However, I think it is doubtful any of their legacy aircraft like an AN-2 will ever be brought into that fold--which is a shame as we used an AN-2 in SA to haul fuel barrels and it was a pretty neat aircraft.
 
Tantalum said:
There looks to be a potentially viable option again now though, TVS-2DTS, glass cockpit and fully composite.. apparently in 2018 and outfit ordered 200 of them

View attachment 82938
Click to expand...

That's crazy looking! I like it. AN-3 lost some of its versatility over AN-2 because it could no longer do very low level operations as easily, IIRC. Turbine lag is definitely a thing if you are doing crop dusting. Probably the gph didn't help situation either. Fall of USSR played in it as well
 
There was an AN-2 at Richmond Airport (08R) Rhode Island. Looked like it was trucked in, and there was a hangar for it under construction nearby. Looks like a restoration was being contemplated. I have no idea if it was finished (either the hangar or the restoration). Anyone know further details?

-Skip

edit: restoration probably not completed. Google Maps Images shows the hangar still a steel frame and the AN-2 isn’t there. . -Skip
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
FYI: it isn't that there is a specific rule prohibiting FAA certification rather the Russian aircraft don't meet the existing rules that all aircraft must meet. It's primary the unique manufacturing/tracking/standards processes used in Russia that do not cross over to the international standards, etc used by most western countries. But Russia is getting closer as I know of one Kamov helicopter that received a EASA TC and TCCA TC. And I think with their Ka-62 they will actually achieve a bi-lateral agreement on aircraft manufacture to include the US. However, I think it is doubtful any of their legacy aircraft like an AN-2 will ever be brought into that fold--which is a shame as we used an AN-2 in SA to haul fuel barrels and it was a pretty neat aircraft.
Click to expand...

The fact that I didn't know: Per Wiki: Most AN-2s were actually built in Poland. Poland has a bilateral agreement with USA and its AN-2 are not as restricted.

The An-2's ability, looks and flying characteristics, and its status as one of the world's biggest single-engined production biplanes, mean that demand for the An-2 is increasing in Western Europe and the United States, where they are prized by collectors of classic aircraft, making it an increasingly common sight at airshows. Many western countries prohibit the use of the An-2 commercially because the aircraft has not been certified by the relevant national aviation authorities. These restrictions vary by country, but all prevent the An-2 being used for any 'for profit' purpose, with the exception of the United States, where An-2s imported since 1993 are limited to experimental certification,[7] but PZL-built An-2s are exempt from this restriction due to a bilateral agreement with Poland.[4]
 
Dave Theisen said:
.

??? An awful lot of Thrush and Air Tractors out there.
Click to expand...

Maybe Russian turbines of the 80s were just not as good. This is coming from memory reading about it as a child, so I could be wrong. Also, this is a hell of a lot bigger and heavier plane than Air Tractor
 
Skip Miller said:
There was an AN-2 at Richmond Airport (08R) Rhode Island. Looked like it was trucked in, and there was a hangar for it under construction nearby. Looks like a restoration was being contemplated. I have no idea if it was finished (either the hangar or the restoration). Anyone know further details?
Click to expand...
When I was there last fall it was still there looking just as derelict as it was a few years earlier.
 
genna said:
where An-2s imported since 1993 are limited to experimental certification,[7] but PZL-built An-2s are exempt from this restriction due to a bilateral agreement with Poland.[4]
Click to expand...
I don't believe that is correct on PZL aircraft as I don't recall PZL following through with the Part 23 certification as permitted by the bi-lateral agreement. So they can only be flown under Experimental Exhibition/Research same as L-39s, etc. If they were exempt I guarantee there would 100s of AN-2s flying in the US. Plus I don't see a TCDS for it either. There are a number of stories out there about individuals who tried to bring them in plus there is an AN-2 website with more info: http://www.an2flyers.org/
 
Bell206 said:
Kamov
Click to expand...
KA26 is a unique beast.. used all over Hungary for crop-dusting work, they're serious beasts

many of the YouTube videos are either in Hungarian or Russian but it's worth a YouTube rabbit hole
 
Tantalum said:
KA26 is a unique beast
Click to expand...
All Russian helicopters are beasts. Went to Canada to see a Ka-32 in action and rode around in a few others in SA to include a Mi-26 which is the largest in the world. From my point of view they're a mechanic's aircraft plus each aircraft has its own spares locker onboard. That would be great, except they need to be worked on everyday.;)
 
My mechanic was working to restore an AN-2 shortly before I bought my plane and began my professional relationship with him. Unfortunately, they had recently reached the point of assembly where it could no longer fit in the hangar, and it was sitting outside when Hurricane Ike came through. What was left wasn't enough to start over with, and the project was scrapped.
 
genna said:
Maybe Russian turbines of the 80s were just not as good. This is coming from memory reading about it as a child, so I could be wrong. Also, this is a hell of a lot bigger and heavier plane than Air Tractor
Click to expand...
The air tractor 802 operates at gross weights higher than the an-2 by several thousand pounds and it’s turbine engine puts out ~500 more horse power than the an-2.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The air tractor 802 operates at gross weights higher than the an-2 by several thousand pounds and it’s turbine engine puts out ~500 more horse power than the an-2.
Click to expand...

When was 802 first produced? 90s? AN-3 is from the late 70s. Air Tractor from the late 70s is 302 which is considerably lighter than AN-2. AN-3 is even heavier than AN-2. I don't know if lag was as big of an issue as I remember it to be. I was a kid back then. I just remember reading about it in Soviet technical magazines. On paper, AN-3 is much better in pretty much everything, yet it didn't become popular.

Edit: Also, let's not forget that AN2/3 is not designed to be specifically ag plane. It's designed to fill all kinds of roles, one of them is ag. Air Tractor does one thing.
 
genna said:
When was 802 first produced? 90s? AN-3 is from the late 70s. Air Tractor from the late 70s is 302 which is considerably lighter than AN-2. AN-3 is even heavier than AN-2. I don't know if lag was as big of an issue as I remember it to be. I was a kid back then. I just remember reading about it in Soviet technical magazines. On paper, AN-3 is much better in pretty much everything, yet it didn't become popular.

Edit: Also, let's not forget that AN2/3 is not designed to be specifically ag plane. It's designed to fill all kinds of roles, one of them is ag. Air Tractor does one thing.
Click to expand...
I’m just trying to understand what exactly you were saying? The engines in the air tractor were designed in the 60’s. The 802 does have a larger series pt-6 that was certified later in the pt-6 development history so it makes more power but the turbine lag is actually worse than earlier and smaller 6 engines.
Then you said it was because the air tractor is smaller... well that’s not true either.

I’m just trying to understand what was the point in comparison to AG aircraft. The AN-2 is not built for AG. It’s built to haul bulky cargo or a few people and their crap out of remote areas. It does that very well. AG aircraft would not do that well at all. Different airplanes different missions. The primary reason the an-2 didn’t do well at AG was because it sucks at being an AG airplane.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I’m just trying to understand what exactly you were saying? The engines in the air tractor were designed in the 60’s. The 802 does have a larger series pt-6 that was certified later in the pt-6 development history so it makes more power but the turbine lag is actually worse than earlier and smaller 6 engines.
Then you said it was because the air tractor is smaller... well that’s not true either.

I’m just trying to understand what was the point in comparison to AG aircraft. The AN-2 is not built for AG. It’s built to haul bulky cargo or a few people and their crap out of remote areas. It does that very well. AG aircraft would not do that well at all. Different airplanes different missions. The primary reason the an-2 didn’t do well at AG was because it sucks at being an AG airplane.
Click to expand...

An-2 is a pretty good ag plane among other roles it does. What I was saying is that in the 80’s when An-3 came out, its pilots were complaining that it couldn’t be flown in the same manner as An-2 due to, in part, the turbine lag they experience. Whether that was BS, or lack of training, or a crappy Russian turbine engine at the time, I don’t know.

I’m not arguing that turbines make bad ag planes. I’m simply stating that at that time that turbine made that plane not as desirable for those pilots. According to what I read at that time(which could also be BS).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top