Read the forum code of contact
By: - 8th October 2006 at 14:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Two words....
Yeah right :cool:
By: - 8th October 2006 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perm PS90?
By: - 8th October 2006 at 18:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So something new then.
Frankly there would be better things for Beriev to invest their money, I don't think they would find the market to justify the investment.
By: - 8th October 2006 at 19:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The model on display at Gelendzhik in September (and presumably the latest iteration of the design) had six Kuznetsov NK-116 engines - each rated at 105,000Kn
I took these photos on the Beriev stand........
Ken
By: - 8th October 2006 at 19:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another interesting design - although only in model form - was this Be-112.
Twin turboprops - with a clamshell cargo hatch between the fins.
Whether it is a serious project or just a design study, I have no idea.
The model flew on the last day of the show.....
Ken
By: - 9th October 2006 at 07:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you mean 1050kN (1kgf corresponds to 10N, so 1tf = 1000kgf = 10kN), which would still make them the most powerful jet engines ever built, by a considerable margin. It is interesting that they're Kuznetsov engines, would make sense for them to be based on the NK-93 propfan then.I still fail to see a market though.
Actually, we're both wrong - I had three too many zeros - you have one too many :rolleyes:
The NK-116 is rated at 105Kn - 23,000lbf - at least according to this site :- http://www.answers.com/topic/beriev-be-2500
Ken
By: - 9th October 2006 at 08:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So something new then.Frankly there would be better things for Beriev to invest their money, I don't think they would find the market to justify the investment.
The market is supposed to be the Russian Navy.
1000 tons of payload over 10 000 km at 500 km/h or more would compare well with conventional ships (less than 50 km/h). And unlike conventional landplanes like Il-76 or An-124 which require runways, Be-2500 as an amphibian could be unloaded where no airports of adequate size have been built or where such runways are denied by enemy action... It would help projecting force.
By: - 9th October 2006 at 19:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Personally I'm not really doubting the presence of a market - aid agencies, foreign (i.e. western) governments and armed forces all have a need to transport very large payloads quickly across the globe. Should the Be-2500 be available tomorrow it would doubtless find customers just as the An-225 is kept relatively busy. It would also probably be cheaper per ton of payload to operate than a heavy conventional transporter. The problem is finding funding to get this immensely complex and expensive project off the ground/water. I simply doubt that anyone is willing to front the billions of dollars required and to take on the risk involved.
By: - 9th October 2006 at 22:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cruising speed at altitude is 770 kilometers per hour, and in ground effect is 450 kilometers per hour.
Has anyone actually considered the safety issues of operating an aircraft at these speeds at what is practically ground level altitude? Just how high above the waves do these aircraft fly at and what happens to everyone and everything that should happen to lie under the flight path of one of these “monsters”
There is something to be said for flying at the usual 30,000ft if you have to travel at such speeds – you’re not likely to run into bulk carriers, aircraft carriers, or other ships, trawlers, tugboats, yachts’ masts, fishermen’s’ dinghies, frolicking dolphins practicing somersaults, whales and submarines which suddenly decide to surface - and most crucially, flocks and flocks of seabirds.
Will there be some sort of hands-off, automated collision avoidance radar fitted as standard - and special restricted sea corridors for such unprecedented high-speed operations.
Bearing in mind that the likelihood of an accident occurring increases for a normal aircraft as it gets closer to the earth – most aviation accidents occur during landing and take-off, I really can’t see the wisdom of flying at such high speeds at such low heights for prolonged periods of time.
By: - 1st November 2006 at 10:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Found this photo of the Caspian Sea Monster on the web recently... well I've never seen it before!!
By: - 1st November 2006 at 11:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps the Ruskis are doing some long term planning and taking into account global warming.
I mean when the world's airports are underwater giant ekranoplans will make a lot of sense.
I like the thing. It harkens back to the old days when aviation was about pushing limits and trying out new things.
Modern aviation is boring - the F-22 and A380 are for all intents and purposes very conventional.
By: - 4th October 2007 at 13:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
funny smell
This just reeks of the Saunders-Roe P. 70, the never built 56 deck, 24 jet engined, 1000 passenger flying boat meant to fly between England and Australia. But I hope they build it none the less.
By: - 4th October 2007 at 13:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whoops
Sorry that should be 5 decks, not 56. My hand slipped. Sorry.
By: - 4th October 2007 at 14:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
FWIW, the small :eek: (well compared to the KM & Lun that is!) A-90 'Orlyonok' assault ekranoplan has been floated up the Volga and Moscow rivers from Kaspiisk - and is now being prepared for display as part of a naval exhibition in Moscow......
Ken
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 8th October 2006 at 11:44
See
http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_sep4.html#28sep
Although I have seen different numbers for Be-2500 wingspan, namely 156 m.
The Caspian Sea Monster is different.
The biggest Caspian Sea Monster had 106 m fuselage length, 540 ton MTOW - and only 44 m wingspan.
Whereas Be-2500 has pretty conventionally shaped wing - 156 m span and 3400 square metres wing reference area compared to 79,8 m span and 845 square metres area of Airbus 380 show Be-2500 has about twice the span, 4 times the area and roughly the same aspect ratio as the Airbus 380 wing. The wing loading is also similar. Be-2500 is perfectly capable of flying as a conventional, free-air plane.