Talk:Antonov An-124 Ruslan

Inconsistent weight figures

The "Design" and "Specifications" (the latter one specific to a An-124-100M variant that is not listed in the "Variants" section) sections state maximum payload to be 150 t, while "Development" and "Variants" state that only newer variants are able to do that. The payload-range diagram right next to the specifications shows a maximum payload of 120 t, contrary to the specifications right next to it. The Ilyushin Il-106 PAK VTA article ("Characteristics" section) currently states the An-124's max payload to be 120 t.

In addition to the inconsistent payload number, the fuel capacity stated in "Specifications" seems a little odd - with the typical density of jet fuel being about 0.8 kg/l, if you add the weight of 348740 l of fuel to the stated empty weight of 181 t, you get 460 t, 58 t more than the stated maximum takeoff weight. While I might imagine some design solutions that might combine these numbers, there is no mention of the excessive fuel capacity in the rest of the article. Unfortunately, I do not have direct access to the stated source of this information (Jane's all the World's Aircraft 2006-07), so I cannot check if this might be a misreading of the source.

A third issue is with the unclear "maximum fuel weight" stated under "Gross Weight". What does this number mean? --TheDestroyer111 (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Fuel is heavy, approx .8kg/litre. A full load of fuel totals about 200,000kg which must be subtract from the max load capacity. Therefore more freight means less fuel after the math is done. Less fuel equal less distance can be flown. Henrilebec (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Total fatalities

Hi, after counting the fatalities of each incident & adding them together it seems there has been 101 total fatalities, not 97 as mentioned at the beginning of the article. If you concur you might like to change that figure from 97 to 101. Thanks. 120.16.32.79 (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Canada transfers an An-124 from Volga-Dnepr to Ukraine

This is probably worth a mention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, but likely no use to Ukraine. The plane cannot be certified for flight without inspection and approval of an engineer certified by the registered-owner country (Russia). Since it's a Russian-build plane (not Ukrainian) Ukraine is likely unable to service it prior to flight. Ukraine doesn't have the documents/records required to service and certify the plane. It's likely the plane will just sit there taking up space (approx 4 acres of expensive pavement) for the next 20 years until the airport gets tired of it being there. This is not an unusual event. The airport can make a deal with the owner (the usual remedy), or plan to part it out for recycling. Henrilebec (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Rusian replacement design

It says: "The Russian MoD wants a range of 4,100 nmi (7,600 km) with five Sprut-SDM-1 light tanks, their 100 crew and 300 armed soldiers."

The Sprut has a crew of three (driver, commander, gunner). Five Spruts means a crew complement of 15, not 100.

The cited source does indeed imply that the plane is supposed to carry 5 Spruts, plus their crew of 100; but that doesn't make sense, or at least it needs more explanation. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)