Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: "Bi-Plane" in Alaska, help identify

  1. #1
    Member Nukalpiaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    985

    Default "Bi-Plane" in Alaska, help identify

    Here is a photo I took of a fairly large bi-plane that landed in the village back in June 1997. Can anyone tell me what make and model it is, only thing I know about it is that it was made in one of the northern European countries. It sure could carry a load of fishermen and their gear and didn't need much distance on the gravel airstrip to take off. Thanks in advance for any information about these planes.
    Last edited by Nukalpiaq; 08-02-2009 at 00:46.

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Antonov An-2

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Posts
    11

    Default

    This is from: http://an2flyers.com/


    The An-2 can only be certified as an Experimental-Exhibition, Experimental-Research, or (possibly, but not accomplished yet) as a Restricted-Agricultural (crop duster) aircraft. Current FAA policy (apparantly at the direction of the state department) is that this fine aircraft will never be allowed to be certified in any way in which it can be used for commercial purposes in the USA involving passengers, cargo, or parachute jumping. As best we can understand, this policy is designed to protect Cessna, Piper, and Beech from market loss and applies to other Soviet designed aircraft as well. Some FAA inspectors will tell you that it is because the aircraft was never approved under FAR-23 procedures since it was designed prior to normalization of relations between the USA and former communist countries. However, close inspection of other FARs (part-21) reveals that such aircraft could be certified in the USA after passing a conformity check, which the FAA is not presently allowing for An-2s.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    8

    Default

    It's a shame these aircraft are grounded. Ugly as hell but very impressive STOL performance. There is one at Merill field just rotting away. Over the years it's been passed from one chump to another. They think it's a great deal until they try square away the paperwork.

  5. #5
    Member algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seldovia, alaska
    Posts
    839

    Default

    You know that if the FAA can stop all flying their job stat's for safety will be great and of course the work load that they are burdened with will be decreased! Who was it that created that work load?

  6. #6
    Member russiarulez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Yeah, it's a shame that An-2s can't be really used up here... It has no stall speed published, i.e. it doesn't stall in the usual sense, just mushes to the ground. I flew one a little back in Russia and it was the easiest plane to fly. They can also be put on floats, and there's a turboprop version - An-3.

  7. #7
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    NATO code name "COLT"
    They are still used by certain countries to insert commando teams
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  8. #8
    Member algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seldovia, alaska
    Posts
    839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by russiarulez View Post
    Yeah, it's a shame that An-2s can't be really used up here... It has no stall speed published, i.e. it doesn't stall in the usual sense, just mushes to the ground. I flew one a little back in Russia and it was the easiest plane to fly. They can also be put on floats, and there's a turboprop version - An-3.
    Does the turbine version use the 601P or is that not enough SHP? That would be a rush flying one in the bush.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default Why

    Why cant they fly them then, are they unsafe?

    Terry

  10. #10

    Default

    It takes years and a lot of money to have a plane certified for commercial use in the US. That is one of the reasons so many fifty year old planes are still being used in the bush. To certify a new plane for commercial use takes forever. It holds back a lot of innovation.

  11. #11
    Member russiarulez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by algonquin View Post
    Does the turbine version use the 601P or is that not enough SHP? That would be a rush flying one in the bush.
    Turbine one is 1430 at the shaft, piston one is 1000.
    Here's more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-3

    I recently talked to my grandfather who designed the gear mounts for AN-2 when he worked for Antonov bureau or whatever its called, he said they took a lot of ideas out of American WWII planes.

    They flew one to the South Pole in 2001 and it's still stranded there: http://www.adventure-antarctica.de/2...bble-panorama/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •