Antonov An-72P | A cartoon friend for Gena

Suggestions Aircraft
1

Antonov An-72P

image

Overview and History

In the early 1970’s designers over at Antonov design bureau were tasked with the creation of a cargo plane, as usual with Antonov. But this was no ordinary cargo plane, it was to be designed as a direct result of the United States AMST program, or as many may know it, simply as the Boeing YC-14. AMST standing for Advanced Meduim STOL Transport, the main reason for the An-72’s existence, the YC-14, which was eventually scrapped with the project, as the C-130 it was seeking to replace was better, more reliable, and easier to maintain. This didn’t deter the Soviet engineers at Antonov design bureau to finish their end of the deal.

With the first prototype flying in 1977, was considered a major success, being very similar in design to the Boeing YC-14, both using the same engine layout, a T-Tail, and the Coandă Effect, while the YC-14 did come much earlier, it fell much flatter than anticipated, and like earlier stated, scrapped. However this design was promising enough to enter the planes into full production in 1980.

While this is just the basic form of the An-72, we know this is all about the star ‘fighter’ of the many variants of this plane. The An-72P, with NATO call sign ‘Coaler’ or as its Soviet pilots called it ‘cheburashka’ after the large eared cartoon, was armed to the teeth with weapons, that is, for a cargo plane. Designed as a patrol aircraft in post Soviet Russia in 1992, packed with old Soviet S-5K rockets in the UB-32 launch containers, one under each wing, as well as a UPK-23 gun pod system mounted on the starboard bow just in front of the rear landing gear. It also had a rack store of four FAB-100 bombs that could slide out the cargo bay door to be dropped. With this new armament system, the plane that was once simply distributing ammo to its comrades, was now shilling out rounds to its enemy.

image
image1038×589 538 KB

The An-72P in game

The An-72P, with a top speed of 705 km/h (438 mph) and no guided air-to-air weaponry makes it almost exclusively a strike aircraft. However, its allowance of the GSh-23L in a similar setup to the UPK-23 gun pod, allows it to have some offense when facing other aircraft. It’s S-5K 57mm rockets, while not being of extreme precision do have decent anti-tank capabilities when used properly, and it’s four FAB-100 bombs are effective against ground targets of small and medium size. Its engine setup with the Lotarev D-36 engines allowed STOL capabilities, also having thrust reversal systems, and good acceleration makes it a good light CAS pick for players.

Specifications

  • Crew: 3 (Pilot, Co-pilot, & flight engineer)

  • Engines: 2x Lotarev D-36 Turbofan engine | 63.74 kilo-newtons of thrust (14,330 Ft-lbs)

  • Max speed: 705 km/h (438mph)

  • Max Take-Off weight: 34,500 kg

  • Empty weight: 19,050 kg

  • Fuel weight: 12,950 kg

  • Service ceiling: 11.8 km

  • Combat Range: 800 km

  • Take-Off distance: 620 meters

  • Landing distance: 420 meters (nice)

  • Bombs: 4x FAB-100

  • Rockets: 64x S-5K rockets (Two UB-32 pods)

  • Guns: GSh-23L (250 rounds)

image

sources:

Antonov An-72 - The Aviation Zone

AN-72

https://www.redstar.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2134:an-72p-patrol-aircraft&catid=412&lang=en&Itemid=526

https://web.archive.org/web/20090107030001/http://www.m9.com.ua/en/vs/passenger/an-74/characteristics.html

OFFER#

Other media:

image

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=El7iVkGF3yg&pp=ygUGQW4tNzJQ

image

Would you like to see the An-72P in-game?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
7 Likes
2

+1 would be funny

2 Likes
6

Copy-pasting what i’ve told on earlier thread, because i think it make sense to avoid OP/DOA for such aircraft:
“1st Post”

Spoiler

i thing that this aircraft is alike the Strikemaster → battlepass / Event

the fact it have an Heavy Engine Power and a large Wing Surface makes the aircraft to handle low speed far better than any 6.0/6.7 BR aircraft, coupled with GSh-23L guns which are currently pretty good and easy to use.
that makes it impossible to be in such low BR of 6.0/6.7 you’ve proposed.

Of course, the Aircraft low amount of Ground attack weapons would definelty be a drawback for Ground BR.

in facts, i would suggest you precise the following BR for that suggestion:
Air Modes : 7.3 BR
Ground Modes : 6.7 BR

as i feel those BR are fair.

“2nd post”

Spoiler

Ar-234C is already a large target yet pulls incredibly well against 6.7/7.0 jet fighters - it’s already a 7.3

here we’ll got an even better aircraft overall.

i’m simply trying to make sense

“3rd post”

Spoiler

Well yes, the AN-72 is currently 2 times larger,…

Yet you have to account for it’s acceleration capability compared to mass:
About 24 tons(full fuel, no cargo), with 127.8kN of thrust.
→ Power/Weight Ratio of 0.53 which is better than most aircrafts of 8.3/8.7

This can only show a good ability for the aircraft at low speed (i admit: relative to the aircraft size)

But making it too low BR would make it impossible to shot it down,…

The aircraft is currently too good for it’s climb rate, as for the ceilling,… it is possible to hide from any 6.3/7.3 aircrafts and being out of range kinda easily.

Not to forget that it might have Flares/Chaffs(still in use today), and completely out of any cargo in-within the game.

And that aircraft was made for Short Landing and Take-Off and reduced speed,… means the Current stall speed is very low(so low that apart Ar-234, not a lot might be as close)

→ Overall :
Air Mode : 7.3 BR
Ground mode: 6.7 BR
HIgh Lift power, Lift surfaces, and powerful Thrust-Weight ratio (0.53)
Higher Ceiling than most aircraft at 7.3-6.7BR (could be unmatched, so making it safe)
slow high speed, but better handling with very low Stall speed (making it easy to out-turn at slow speeds)
Might Have Flares and Chaffs (immune to missiles basically)
Ar-234C comparative

7

My only thing with that statement is the S-5K’s are horrific at K/O’ing anything within a long shot of roof armor, and the bombs are only 100kg, likely without a computer, and highly likely to not kill a target.

If they ever put S-8KO’s on it, that’s would be a different story, which would make sense considering the plane was post Soviet, and the S-8 was very prevalent, even before the collapse, so it would likely be able to use them, even if they only use S-5’s because they have them in high stock and only use them for A-P and COIN jobs.

Iirc it’s a Patrol plane used to take out ‘soft’ targets and infantry/insurgencies, so the bombs are OFAB, or the Blast-Frag bombs, and the rockets are the HEAT-FR warheads, similar to a variant of the S-8’s.

8

+1
Even if it isn’t that practical, it’s still a unique, unorthodox addition. We need more of those lol

2 Likes
9

I would grind this at the first day they’ve added this thing to the game (if techtree). +1

1 Like
10

I don’t know why, but I forgot to say something about how this being higher than the Su-9 and MiG-9 is crazy, with only 200 rounds of 23mm from a super fast firing gun at a really offset distance (like the F-15’s Vulcan or AJ37’s ADEN) just seem impractical to me, especially with the low velocity, but it may be a skill issue.

11

that would definetly be an issue for dogfights, but it’s not a fighter,…

the plane is a Transport Plane that can do a bit of CAS, and would be pushed so low in BR already because it’s flight performances that asking for it to be a fighter capable aircraft seems too much to me.

AIR BR 7.3 // Ground BR 6.7 at introduction is my best offer, considering the aircraft

it can still change after with BR changes (and it’s Russian, so it will change easily)

12

I don’t know how I missed this one, but it belongs in thr game no matter how impractical or absurd. It would be fun precisely because it is so ridiculous, and I know that people would love it. +1 I was planning on suggesting this one.

2 Likes
13

Nah it should be 6.3. It has absolutely no dogfight capability, and it isn’t even fast. If you compare to the Strikemaster mk. 88 the mk.88 is better, so I mean even 6.0 could be plausible

1 Like
14

Also think about a semi-comparable plane; the P-61C, which is heavier and can’t really dogfight, but it’s the fastest plane of the BR.

1 Like
15

then you’re unable to understands any aircraft performances,…

the AN-72P does have a far greater wing area and a far greater Thrust to weight ratio than the Strikemaster mk88 you used as exemple:

Strikemaster TWR at (thrust being 14,0 kN)
Empty weight (2810kg) : 0.498221
Max weight (Empty + 2406kg) : 0.268405

AN-72P TWR at (thrust being 2x 63.9kN = 127,8kN):
Empty weight (19050kg) : 0.670866
Max weight (Empty + 15450kg) : 0.370435

Ar-234C-3 TWR (thrust being 4x 7.84532 kN = 31.38128 kN)
Empty weight (6880 kg) : 0.456123
Max weight (Empty + 1600kg) : 0.370062

So AN-72P does push fairly better than Strikemaster in every situation.
this without considering that the thrust is directly given over the wings, accelerating the airspeed over the wing on low/stall speeds of the aircraft, thus generating lift at speeds far under the Strikemaster Mk88 Stall speed. (it’s called “Coandă effect”)

also, the An-72P is a much modern aircraft, means it recieved a lot of handling enhancement than most 6.7/7.3 BR aircraft today

i’ve put the Ar234C-3 TWR, because it’s one of the reason why i took the Ar-234C as exemple before:
It’s the closest comparable aircraft:

  • in size (even if it’s 2 times smaller),
  • weaponnary (2x 20mm guns with low amount rounds per guns),
  • flight performances (Ar234C-3 max speed is higher, rollrate would be similar, TWR are slightly under, better turn radius)
    and it got pretty results at introduction (often used as a secondary fighter by players of the time, it was a real pain in the ass before the balance BR decision)

my previous reasonning with Ar-234C3 as counterpart:

the AN-72P cannot be compared to the strikemaster mk88