Read the forum code of contact
By: - 19th June 2004 at 09:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not-Invented-Here Syndrome.
By: - 19th June 2004 at 09:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The third would be of great use! a 500 Kph super heavy weight missile boat!
By: - 19th June 2004 at 10:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why isn't this beauty in service some where provideing transport of 20 Tons
at 500 Kph ? In places like the great lakes, mediterranean or caribbean it
would be ideal.
I'm sure you know that the 'Caspian Sea Monster' is just a single machine?
The Korab'le Maket (KM - Mock-up Ship)) in your first two illustrations was nicknamed CSM by the US - so the Soviets 'borrowed' the flattering description - and 'modified' the designation KM to mean Kaspiiski Monstr !!!
The third ilustration is a totally different machine - the Lun (Hen Harrier).
A great site on all things WIG or Ekranoplan is at :-http://www.se-technology.com/wig/index.php
Click on 'Overview of WIG Craft', then 'All listed WIG's'.............
Then letter K - for KM, O for A-90 Orlyonok, L for Lun, S for Spasatel etc
Ken
By: - 19th June 2004 at 17:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But don't buy the Red Star series book on Ekranoplanes, not worth it. (IMHO).
KM Chrashed, due to pilot error.
Hun is somewhere rusting away.
Anyway, the Not Invented Here syndrome is not the only factor that is compromising its development. The Navy doesn't catogorises it as aircraft and the Air Force says its a boat. This there is lots and lots of political fighting on whos budget the crafts should be build. In the end of it all the Navy preferred large missle cruisers and that aircraft carrier to be the future of the Soviet Navy. The Airforce never wanted them in the first place.
By: - 19th June 2004 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Haven't we covered this many times before? I can just see Art rolling his eyes yet again!
By: - 19th June 2004 at 18:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Information on the really materialized Ekranoplanes is really poor, at least, in my humble opinion. I mean, most of the book is filled with could have beens but never will be build vessels. While the actual vessels that have flown are covered with much less extent then could have been. Too much info on proposed vessel that have only appeared in model form.
For example the later SM vessels like the SM-8 and SM-6 I find extremly intresting but it doesn't even state what engines they use. The pieces of information about the KM, Orlyonok and Hun are almost the same and as in-depth as articles which appeared in AirInternational or a different british magazine. Why isn't there additional info on the KM modifications and effect on them on its operations
I just wasn't that charmed with the book I guess.
By: - 19th June 2004 at 20:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Information on the really materialized Ekranoplanes is really poor, at least, in my humble opinion. I mean, most of the book is filled with could have beens but never will be build vessels. While the actual vessels that have flown are covered with much less extent then could have been. Too much info on proposed vessel that have only appeared in model form.For example the later SM vessels like the SM-8 and SM-6 I find extremly intresting but it doesn't even state what engines they use. The pieces of information about the KM, Orlyonok and Hun are almost the same and as in-depth as articles which appeared in AirInternational or a different british magazine. Why isn't there additional info on the KM modifications and effect on them on its operations
I just wasn't that charmed with the book I guess.
I have all of Yefim Gordon's 'Red Star' books - and I agree that they are rather lightweight on detail - but then, they are meant to be.
They are a series of 'tasters' - coffee-table type books designed to give an overview of the subject for the average punter.
If read in that light, they are very good for what they do.
If they lead to the reader getting interested in the subject of 'Red Stars' and whet his appetite for something more in-depth, then I, for one, think they are a very welcome addition to the bookshelf.
Being interested in all things Russian aviation, I already know most of what they contain - but having bought the first few, I am now hooked into getting each new release - just to keep up my collection.
And I have picked up a few new facts from them....... for instance,
That the Soviets were OBLIGED to intern the US B-29's from which they reverse-engineered the Tu-4.
That the Antonov An-32 was designed to meet an Indian AF, not Soviet requirement.
There are others - but I can't recall them just now.......
Ken
By: - 20th June 2004 at 06:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Imagine, how much fuel it needs to drink...
By: - 20th June 2004 at 14:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
THat the funny part,
fuel economics during cruise flight are way lower then for the avarge aircraft of its size, and do keep in mind that the KM was the largest and heaviest thing that ever flew of its time, with a MTOW of around 540 tonnes. It was kept flying with only two engines, while the 8 engines up front where only used as take off boosters
By: - 21st June 2004 at 02:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good and bad...same issue as the V22...is it an airplane or a helicopter? Is it a ship or a plane?
By: - 21st June 2004 at 07:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Except the Ekranoplan works and has killed far fewer people than the V-22 which has problems being a real helicopter.The Ekranoplan carries a very light load for a ship but is much faster, as a plane it is relatively slow but carries a high payload for its size.
yes yes, and if the Soviets were serious with it and had it carry troops like some versions they suggested, and then the crash....that leads us to the V22 situation. By all accounts, the V22 is closer to operational status than the that. But, who knows, it may still be cancelled. And V22 doesn't work? It has consistently hovered as designed. And it flies around too. The V22 has problems becoming a real helicopter and you've forgot to mention that it also have problems to become a real aircraft.....guess you further forgot that it's neither. The Ekranoplan is a real aircraft? is it a real ship?
The Ekranoplan (V22) carries a very light load for a ship (helicopter) but is much faster, as a plane it is relatively slow but carries a high payload for its size..... :rolleyes: why are you so hard headed Garry?
By: - 21st June 2004 at 16:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The US is researching something similar. At leastis uses the same principle for lift--it flies close to the ocean, and the pressure generated beklow the wing causes the lift to be tremendous--even more efficient than high altitude flight. The US plan is for a massive air-lift machine, something that could transport heavy armor long distances.
there was a pop-sci article on it. They said the current nickname for it is the pelican, and they propose it could carry 12 or more M1 Abrams...
I think it's supposed to fly a bit higher and slower than the caspian sea monster...
By: - 22nd June 2004 at 09:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As a plane the V22s payload is quite poor for its size.
Sorry to digress from a thread on what's probably my favourite sort of vehicle, but the V-22 has got a poor payload for it's size both as a plane AND as a helicopter. The Osprey puts CH-46 payload in a CH-53-sized airframe.
What i think is most sad about those Ekranoplans, is that appearantly none of the single production vehicles survive. The A90 Orlyonok saw a limited production run (about five or so were built), but after one crash and one which struck something in the water and sunk, the remainders were unfortunately scrapped at their base at Kaspiisk.
One thing is funny though - all Ekranoplan trials were appearantly done in the Caspian Sea (duh!) from the base at Kaspiisk (not really imaginative, i know). But at least the Lun (with the missiles on top) and the Spasatel were built in Nizhnyi Novgorod/Gorkii, in 1994 a 'very large T-tail' was seen moored in the sea near Saki on the Crimea by two spotters i have high confidence in, and the pieces of wreckage on the dump at Beriev-Taganrog also looked quite a bit bigger than just small trials-Ekranoplans... Yet nobody has ever mentioned actual large Ekranoplans operating from the Black Sea, nor even the 2000km trip from Gorkii to the Caspian.
Sure the Lun wouldn't have navigated across the Volga river on it's trip south? There are so many hotels, cities and river cruise boats along the way...
Here's the Lun with a guy on top, for a nice measure of scale. Spasatel' is a a rescue version of the same airframe/hull, obviously without the missile launchers and radars. Spasatel should still be lingering in it's factory, waiting for funds to be completed. Anyone here who's rich?
By: - 22nd June 2004 at 10:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those wreckage pieces at Taganrog could have something to do with the Beriev Ekranoplans, Be-1 and VVA-14.
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/bartini/vva/vva_e.htm
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/be-1.html
http://www.se-technology.com/wig/html/main.php?open=showcraft&code=0&craft=11
By: - 22nd June 2004 at 10:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Arthur]Sorry to digress from a thread on what's probably my favourite sort of vehicle, but the V-22 has got a poor payload for it's size both as a plane AND as a helicopter. The Osprey puts CH-46 payload in a CH-53-sized airframe.
QUOTE]
Arthur, what's the size of the V22? What's the size of the nearest military cargo plane in size, wingspan and fuselage length. What's the payload capacity of the V22? You'll be quite surprised for saying the above.
By: - 22nd June 2004 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
snip......
What i think is most sad about those Ekranoplans, is that appearantly none of the single production vehicles survive. The A90 Orlyonok saw a limited production run (about five or so were built), but after one crash and one which struck something in the water and sunk, the remainders were unfortunately scrapped at their base at Kaspiisk.
Art, I thought there was still at least one at Kaspiisk - and that they occasionally started it up to keep it alive ???
snip....
and the pieces of wreckage on the dump at Beriev-Taganrog also looked quite a bit bigger than just small trials-Ekranoplans...
There is some wreckage of one of the VVA-14's at Taganrog - as well as the other at Monino.
Ken
By: - 22nd June 2004 at 13:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Vortex]
Sorry to digress from a thread on what's probably my favourite sort of vehicle, but the V-22 has got a poor payload for it's size both as a plane AND as a helicopter. The Osprey puts CH-46 payload in a CH-53-sized airframe.
QUOTE]Arthur, what's the size of the V22? What's the size of the nearest military cargo plane in size, wingspan and fuselage length. What's the payload capacity of the V22? You'll be quite surprised for saying the above.
The point is that there isn't ANYTHING like it. It does not matter if the payload is small, it can do things others cannot.
The Marines and special ops want the osprey not to replace the blackhark and chinook, but to replace them in certain missions where speed is important.
Fast action forces, or emergency operations, or long range actions are not suitable for a helicopter.
But the Osprey is perfect for it.
They just need to get things ironed out...
Posts: 386
By: alexz33 - 19th June 2004 at 05:09
Why isn't this beauty in service some where provideing transport of 20 Tons
at 500 Kph ? In places like the great lakes, mediterranean or caribbean it
would be ideal.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=1306&P=1