Antonov An-72P Technical Data and Discussion


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.



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 Defence against 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. It’s 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

  • 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

Il-2KR Reconnaissance aircraft

Technical characteristics

https://www.generalequipment.info/AN-72P-100.htm


Other media:

image

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

image


7 Likes

Suggestions section

?

This is a full sentence

Suggesting an aircraft that’s not in game already should go into the suggestions section

Oh, yes, I know, this is a translation of the post that I made for the suggestion section, in the case it didn’t get accepted (cough cough, it’s already been declined)

1 Like

You just gotta wait, sometimes it takes a while, also I’ve seen people get muted for a little on the forums bc it’s technically a rule break.

If it got declined than just alter it to what they want and resubmit it

That’s why I asked a suggestion mod why it didn’t get accepted. I wasn’t joking when I said it was already declined btw.

Yeah just wait for that rather than trying to sneak one in at the wrong section

I get that, but I don’t wanna have to recreate the entire suggestion if it’s just a few things that need to be fixed, similar to what I did with this other post:

Oh cmon man it’s really not that bad

Just copy it before you submit and put it to it your notes app/folder incase it gets declined

Trust me when I say this being in the timeout corner on the forums isn’t fun.

Why would I get in trouble for posting this in the machinery of war section though? I also want feedback from other players and users, which is why I move it here while I wait for responses.

Also, got 3 posts about weapons systems that were took down last night, don’t know what that was all about. They were removed for being “inappropriate”

But if this isn’t were it belongs please tell me where or what to do with it.

1 Like

If you want to keep this post up, I recommend removing the Poll and In Game sections, as well as adding some more history/pictures. After that rename it to AN-72P Technical Data and Discussion. It should be all good after that.

Okay

1 Like

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.

While I agree, I feel like it’s too large of a target around this area, but if it was to ever get added, we’d just have to see.

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

1 Like

Ar-234 isn’t really large…
For a bomber its kind of small (It’s comparable in size to P-47)

An-72 meanwhile was originally a transport plane and I assume it’d have roll rate (turn rate maybe as well) comparable to that of a barn

Depends, it’s got a slim wing like on the BV 155, and a low pressure zone effect from the engines to increase lift.

Fair
But still keep in mind that it is based on a cargo plane
BV-155 was designed as an interceptor

Only thing over wing engines might be beneficial for is takeoff run

Video might show some maneuvering, can’t remember though.