Military Review

The foggy future of the Russian "Altair"

64

Be-200 masters the sky and water


Flight readiness of the first instance of the amphibian Be-200 reached only by the fall of the 1998 year, two years after assembly. In many ways, this delay was due to financial problems both at the enterprise-developer in Taganrog, and at the Irkutsk IAPO. Nevertheless, the crew of test-pilot Konstantin Valerievich Babich lifted for the first time into the air the jet flying boat 24 in September 1998 of the year. It happened at the airport IAPO in 16.50 local time with the observance of all precautions. The fact is that a year earlier there was a terrible catastrophe of An-124, which on takeoff fell on residential buildings in Irkutsk. For this reason, it has been forbidden to take off from the factory airfield towards residential areas. The first flight of the Altair took place within 27 minutes and was accompanied by the related Be-12P, from which the photo and video was taken. Turboprop amphibious drove for the sake of such a solemn occasion in Irkutsk from his native Taganrog.






It must be said that for the Irkutsk aircraft factory the production of such a specific machine as a jet flying boat was in its own way a unique project. Many of the Be-200 assembly and design techniques were borrowed from the shipbuilding industry. The problems that arose had to be solved jointly with specialists from Taganrog, sometimes working in three shifts. Therefore, waiting for the unusual machine was waiting with impatience - a huge number of people gathered at the airport.

“The first flight is the“ birth ”of a new aircraft, an amphibious aircraft, a unique aircraft. The experiences were great - we all prayed that everything would be fine. And everything went well. It was a delight when the plane landed at the airfield in Irkutsk: people on the roofs of houses applauded, tens of thousands of people around applauded ”,

- recalls in an interview with General Designer Be-200 Gennady Panatov, which was discussed in previous part of the material.









Before 17, October, several flights were made, a couple of which were only a demonstration of opportunities for guests and journalists at the official presentation of the aircraft. And at the end of April 1999, the first assembled amphibian under the registration number RA-21511 gathered on a long journey - across the whole of Russia to Taganrog. It is noteworthy that until the summer, the Be-200 was not tested for "seaworthiness", but 9 June was sent to 99 at Le Bourget, where he surprised the guests of the air show by dumping tons of water over an imaginary fire on 6.

For the first time I felt the water outside the fuselage of the Altair 7 July, and this experience was unsuccessful. The plane clearly lurched on the water surface, and also vigorously collected water through the gaps in the casing: in Irkutsk, it was not possible to comply with the requirements for tightness during assembly. The first problem was solved by installing larger floats on the edges of the wing from the old Be-12, and the fuselage was “caulked” by improvised means. All summer 1999, the plane only made test "heats" at high speeds in the waters of the Taganrog Bay - the design headquarters was in no hurry to test the takeoff from the water. And only 10 September machine performed its crown trick - soared and splashed down. By that time, it had already been decided to establish a center for the training of specialists in hydro-aviation for the needs of the Emergencies Ministry in Taganrog. The modification for extinguishing fires and service in the ministry was given the name Be-200ЧС - it will become the most massive in the future.

The general public took off and landing "Altair" showed at the September Third International Exhibition "Gidroaviasalon - 2000" in Taganrog. At the same time, the Be-200 distinguished 24, world records in the classes of seaplanes and amphibians in the time of climb 3000, 6000 and 9000 meters without cargo and with ballast in 1, 2 and 5 tons. In total, by the 2009, the Taganrog rocket amphibian broke the 42 world record.











Machine for MES


A full-fledged window into the sky for the Be-200 opened in August 2001, when Gennady Panatov was solemnly presented with a certificate of the limited category type. For this, the car had to make an 223 flight with a touch of 213 hours. Determined with the customer. General Designer of the OKB Beriev recalled negotiations with the head of the Emergencies Ministry Sergey Shoigu:
“I called him, said that there is such a plane that is perfectly suited to perform the tasks assigned to the Emergencies Ministry. He flew to Taganrog, examined the aircraft, said that the Emergencies Ministry would take all measures to launch the aircraft into the series. He achieved the Russian government to allocate money for the construction of the first five production aircraft Be-200. That's how life began Be-200 aircraft. "


At the start of the 2000, the year the Be-200 traveled extensively around the world. The amphibious aircraft traveled to Malaysia, South Korea, India, the United Arab Emirates, Turkmenistan, France, Greece and Germany. The car invariably attracted attention with a spectacular water abstraction in gliding from an open pond and discharge in front of the audience of the show. Extreme testing for the Taganrog machine became tests in 2002 in Armenia, when they evaluated the capabilities of the aircraft to operate in the highlands. Gyumri airfield and Lake Sevan, towering above sea level by more than 1500 meters, became the grounds.






Option passenger performance Be-200


The second flight copy of the amphibian was the Be-200ES in the specification for the Ministry of Emergency Situations and under the number 7682000003, which rose into the sky of Irkutsk 27 in August 2002 of the year. Outwardly, there was no particular difference between the aircraft and the “number one” - only an elegant livery and two blisters. Inside, an upgraded ARIA-200М onboard flight-navigation system, new EDSU and SPU-200 ЧС systems, external sound notification system SGU-600 and searchlight SX-5 appeared. Two observers were added to the crew, whose jobs were located near those blisters. Undoubtedly, the onboard surveillance system AOS (Airborne Observation System), an electronic-optical thermal imaging system operating in real time, allowing monitoring of the underlying surface (earth and water) at any time of day and in all weather conditions, became the highlight of the Be-200 for the MES. . Most of the equipment for the Be-200ChS was produced abroad: in the USA, Great Britain, Israel, Germany and Switzerland. The D-436TP engines, we recall, were produced at Motor Sich in Zaporozhye. Obviously there is nothing to replace them in Russia now, so before the 2021, the plans are to install SaM146 from the domestic SSJ-100. Naturally, adapted to the seas. Only here in Russia such an engine is not fully assembled - the hottest and most problematic part is manufactured by the French company Snecma.








"Altair" with older brothers Be-12 and A-40


Since then, the Be-200 ЧЧС has managed to work in many hot spots of the planet, dumping hundreds of tons of water on forest fires. The latest copy of the Taganrog amphibian for the Ministry of Emergency Situations has received 7 September 2018, and now the total staff of the department has 9 winged machines. It seems that the ministry is satisfied with the machine: the head of the Southern Regional Center of the Russian Emergencies Ministry, Igor Oder, put it on the amphibian:
“In the opinion of pilots, these are unique, good, modern, reliable and powerful machines that help put out fires. The geography of their use is very wide. ”


One Be-200ČS was purchased by Azerbaijan, and five more countries are now in the process of ordering. Is the machine successful and efficient? Not so simple.

Criticism of fire extinguishing aircraft


In addition to the obvious problem with Ukrainian engines, which, for obvious reasons, will someday end, in the professional scientific community in the last decade the idea has been expressed about the unacceptability of using Be-200 aircraft to extinguish forest fires. And this applies not only to the Taganrog machine - the problem is common to all such machines. The main reason is the insufficient density of the water flow that aircraft such as the Be-200, CL-412, IL-76 or even the American giant Boeing-747 bring down on a burning forest. The coefficient of beneficial use of water in cases of "carpet" extinguishing does not exceed 1-2%, and financial costs are huge. Actually, always in the reports on the fire aviation we read about the localization of forest fires, not about extinguishing. The plane simply “spreads” precious water in a narrow strip, only nailing fire for a while.

Calculations show that small-area forest fires in 500-600 m2 It requires 5-6 airplanes to extinguish (and not localize) immediately, and only 10 minutes later. Nowhere and never will such efficiency and mass character be realized. In Russia, with the existing pattern of dislocation of airfields and water bodies suitable for refueling seaplanes and amphibians in the gliding mode, the approach time to the outbreaks is measured in hours. Extinguishing with the Be-200 is very expensive - a 1-liter of water costs 5-10 times more expensive than in a fire-fighting helicopter. At the same time, the cost of the Taganrog amphibian is about 47 million dollars against 4-6 million for Mi-17 or Ka-32. And the helicopter also uses water more efficiently - up to 6% directly extinguish the fire (for the Be-200 1-2%). And in specific modes of hovering with the use of fire assault troops, proposed by Dr. Abduragimov Iosif Mikaelevich, a specialist in the field of combustion physics, the water utilization rate of a fire extinguishing helicopter can rise to 50%! It is easy to calculate how much fire helicopters can be bought instead of the Be-200ES fleet from 9 machines that the Emergencies Ministry currently has. And before 2024, 24 amphibians, which are already assembled in Taganrog, were ordered. One has only to imagine what will happen to the Be-200 if the scientists succeed in overcoming the conservatism of Avialesuhrana and the Ministry of Emergency Situations in the method of forest extinguishing! Although this does not negate the fact that the amphibian from Taganrog is the best car in the world in its class. It remains only to find her worthy use.

Based on materials
Tass.ru
Yakubovich N. All aircraft G.M. Beriev.
Valuev N. Track in the sky. History Irkutsk Aviation Plant from Antonov to Yakovlev.
Zabolotsky A.N., Salnikov A.I. 75 years TANTK them. G. M. Beriev.
Abduragimov I.M. The purchase of a new batch of Be-200 is another mistake of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Russian Federation. Magazine "Fire and explosion safety", 2012 year.
Author:
Photos used:
skyships.ru, liveinternet.ru, beriev.com, tass.ru
Articles from this series:
Be-200: flying boat from Taganrog
64 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. karabass
    karabass 2 July 2019 18: 12
    0
    how sad - the tsar bell that doesn’t ring, the tsar cannon that doesn’t fire, the fire plane that doesn’t extinguish the fire. But people tried to make this amphibian, and no one thought it would have to be sold. It turns out that they tried in vain?
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 2 July 2019 18: 32
      +2
      Well, what to expect from a blind runner in the forest? Or get lost or Bosko break ... We have it in fashion today, and not only here ....
    2. Oden280
      Oden280 2 July 2019 18: 46
      +3
      I do not know. what they came up with for the coefficients, but in practice it extinguishes very effectively.
      1. Normal ok
        Normal ok 3 July 2019 11: 40
        0
        Quote: Oden280
        I do not know. what they came up with for the coefficients, but in practice it extinguishes very effectively.

        Do you personally have experience extinguishing fires using Be-200?
        1. Oden280
          Oden280 3 July 2019 14: 03
          +2
          At the same time, I personally was on the ground. The fire was extinguished.
          1. Antares
            Antares 4 July 2019 07: 41
            +1
            Quote: Oden280
            The fire was extinguished.

            The best fire protection is a regularly controlled fire.
            And quenching is already a fight against symptoms.
            1. Oden280
              Oden280 4 July 2019 09: 01
              +2
              This is how to conduct a controlled fire in the taiga? The main cause of forest fires is people. And most of the time intentionally.
      2. neri73-r
        neri73-r 3 July 2019 12: 44
        0
        Quote: Oden280
        but in practice it stews very effectively.

        You, apparently, mixed up the word effectively with the word effectively! hi
    3. evgic
      evgic 2 July 2019 20: 11
      +7
      Apparently it depends on the situation and the height of the discharge, but the Greeks were very offended when such a bird flew in and extinguished the fire, simultaneously washing off the olive grove from the slope, and they were shaking above the olive, as if above gold. They told me this themselves.
      1. E.S.
        E.S. 2 July 2019 23: 04
        +3
        Yeah, the plane washed away the whole grove with five tons of water.
        This was said by the Greeks and demanded compensation for the grove.
        I recommend to all who believe to look at the irrigation machine and see how much water is in it
    4. Normal ok
      Normal ok 3 July 2019 11: 41
      -4
      Quote: karabass
      how sad - the tsar bell that doesn’t ring, the tsar cannon that doesn’t fire, the fire plane that doesn’t extinguish the fire. But people tried to make this amphibian, and no one thought it would have to be sold. It turns out that they tried in vain?

      And yet lacking in analogs, flea shoeing technology. True, then they jump worse wassat
  2. yehat
    yehat 2 July 2019 18: 15
    +1
    In Sochi, I saw Be200 refuel to extinguish a fire and put out
    very unusual sight. it was especially interesting to watch him drag water.
    1. soul
      soul 2 July 2019 19: 32
      +2
      And I saw him in the 2000s - there were fires in the industrial zone of Dzerzhinsk at that time ... He, apparently, was taking water on the Oka, extinguishing in the "Oxide of ethylene" area. Probably one of the first boards. I didn't even know what it was called then.
  3. Thrifty
    Thrifty 2 July 2019 18: 24
    0
    Actually, the plane in flight is really mesmerizing, but when it drops water in flight, it is an unforgettable sight! (The first time I came under this water, which was dumped near Taganrog, in the bay, and the wind was strong towards the shore!!)
    1. neri73-r
      neri73-r 3 July 2019 12: 45
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      this is an unforgettable sight!

      Yes, I saw it at MAX.
  4. svp67
    svp67 2 July 2019 18: 24
    +6
    While this aircraft does not have our engines, its future is more than vague, although it is very necessary
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 2 July 2019 18: 34
      +9
      Engines will be from SuperJet. Not soon - but they will.

      Hazy - it is anyway. Canadian is cheaper, cheaper to operate, and in terms of efficiency, how to count. In any case, there is no phenomenal gap.

      The result at Le Bourget - Indonesia, which has been "buying" 7 Be-4s for 200 years = bought 10 new CL-515s.

      Real customers, except for native departments:
      - Private American company Seaplane Global Air Services. But so far it is not solid. It will be solid in September. If not blocked. They want to create a Be-200 hub - where the 2-3 aircraft will be in constant readiness + to train crews. As soon as some California thread burns again - they conclude an agreement with the State, receive money and send Be-200 - by necessity raising the entire fleet from the state of light canned food. So they hope to maintain economic efficiency (minimizing the cost of servicing the entire fleet) and block the needs during the peak months when a bunch of states are on fire.

      - Chile, but there, too, it seems not yet solid.
      1. svp67
        svp67 2 July 2019 18: 45
        +2
        Quote: donavi49
        Engines will be from SuperJet. Not soon - but they will.

        With all due respect, but he is not ours. Well, it would be better if they started to release a copy of D-436, especially since we can do it.
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 2 July 2019 20: 16
          0
          To produce even an analogue of what was on Motor Sich was not a problem at all.
          The whole question is one in value. In the same Motor Sich released not because they are great craftsmen, but somewhere small. And because at their production it could be brought to the market. I don’t know - the lines were suitable, spare parts were established and so on. Re-launching is a big expense that will not pay off if the engines are a small series or suddenly there is no customer at all.
          Ideally, use engines that are already used on some sort of aircraft.
          1. Antares
            Antares 4 July 2019 07: 43
            +1
            Quote: Red_Baron
            . In the same Motor Sich released not because they are great craftsmen, but somewhere small. And because at their production it could be brought to the market. I don’t know - the lines were suitable, spare parts were established and so on.

            debugged and ready simply. This is the price / time.
            For a certain time at a fairly low price. Analogs will cost more and will take more time.
            In general, there was a whole business on motor engines (when delivered directly).
        2. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 2 July 2019 22: 00
          +2
          We always had a big problem with engines in the Russian Empire, and in the USSR and in Russia. In all directions, both for aircraft and marine engines. Bolle or mene on tractor and tank. Is it really impossible to overcome this congestion?
          1. Red_Baron
            Red_Baron 2 July 2019 23: 40
            -1
            Great question. I would very much like to overcome, but you can’t be able to do everything. Even the Germans could not make engines like the British. And, as I recently read, some American tanks were multi-engine, as they lacked powerful enough.
            And about helicopter and aircraft engines, you are in vain. We have excellent engines for the same fighters, for helicopters. I don’t know about the rest.
          2. Alex_59
            Alex_59 3 July 2019 07: 46
            0
            Quote: tihonmarine
            We always had a big problem with engines in the Russian Empire, and in the USSR and in Russia.
            The Russian Empire had no problems with aircraft engines. Due to the lack of a source of possible problems. But in the USSR there were problems with engines. At first with their small quantity, then with profitability. But we can say that by the end of the 70's they reached the global level. True, not for long. The Union collapsed and all this became necessary to nobody.
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 3 July 2019 09: 23
              0
              True, not for long. The Union collapsed and it all became necessary to no one
              .

              Yes, I would not say that the situation has improved. After the collapse of the USSR, one of the oldest aircraft engine factories in Aleksandrovsk (Zaporozhye), also the oldest ship turbine plant in Nikolaev (Zarya), went to Ukraine, and it is very difficult to create such capacities in a short time. Yes, even in the times of the USSR there was a problem with marine diesel engines, before the collapse in Kostomuksha they began to produce diesel engines "Vyartsilya diesel", but in what state I don't know now. The engine is a movement, there are no engines in the country collapse.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 3 July 2019 10: 04
                0
                Quote: tihonmarine
                Yes, I would not say that the situation has improved.

                I kind of said this :-) By the end of the USSR, things became normal with aircraft engines. Al-31 or PS-90 went well with the times. Yes, and Zaporizhzhya D-36 / 436, too.
                But everything fell apart ...
                On ship engines - I do not rummage.
    2. U-58
      U-58 2 July 2019 20: 32
      0
      Well, with this, everything is not so hopeless ....
      Ideas Already Have
  5. Strashila
    Strashila 2 July 2019 19: 39
    -2
    The question is being raised about replacing the AN-24 and AN-26, if we consider the BE-200 as a purely land one, and the BE-300 project supposedly exists, we will get a series of unified machines for both military and civil aviation.
  6. knn54
    knn54 2 July 2019 20: 26
    +3
    Something like everything is focused on fire fighting. And search and rescue operations, the protection of water surfaces. In the end, cargo-passenger transportation. The plane can take off and land on water at a wave height of up to 1,2 meters.
    1. Lad
      Lad 2 July 2019 21: 52
      +2
      Surface protection is an observation. Watch more efficiently with small planes. For the same price, instead of one, ten observers can be sent. These are not strike aircraft. If the observer identifies the intruder then reinforcements can be called. Well, passenger aircraft boats were in demand on the open spaces of the ocean during the middle of the last century. Since then, airfields have been built where necessary. And the boats became massively unnecessary.
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 2 July 2019 23: 09
        0
        Cool, why are such planes being built, recently there was an article about Canadian. Probably also do not understand what they are building? And they use fire fighting planes in the same USA and not only they don’t know what they are doing. Alone around?
        Watch more efficiently with drones
        By the way, they correctly wrote to you about search and rescue operations, look for the sake of interest, the density of airfields in the vastness of our homeland. And the presence of water. The question is whether to use the Be-200 for this.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 July 2019 10: 28
          0
          Quote: Red_Baron
          Cool, why are such planes being built, recently there was an article about Canadian. Probably also do not understand what they are building?

          The Canadian is smaller - and due to this more efficiently. Firstly, it has a much wider choice of water intake sites - and due to this, the turnover is higher. Secondly, due to its smaller size and greater maneuverability, it can work aiming in those places where large cars have been ordered to enter.
          1. Red_Baron
            Red_Baron 3 July 2019 11: 35
            -1
            That's why I wrote - that the question is not whether to use airplanes to fight fires, but whether to use the BE-200. Is it more effective.
            Here, it seems to me, everything is not so simple. What is more important - turnover or more volume at once. As for working in "narrow" places, their sizes are not so different.
            In general, I was hoping that in an article about it just that would be. Jet aircraft and its advantages in all situations and a propeller engine. Volumes, various uses and so on.
            For example, I’m not a specialist not only in firefighting aircraft, but in general in airplanes and I can’t form my own opinion, although I would like to. :)
    2. U-58
      U-58 3 July 2019 10: 26
      0
      Salvation at sea is very relevant
  7. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 2 July 2019 20: 33
    +1
    I don’t understand anything, the author says that the efficiency of water use is 1-2%, not only does he indicate that he does not extinguish, but localizes it.
    Fine. Then why use it at all? And use the same. Well, if the author can just say to us - well, you understand that we are all stupid. He probably won’t dare to dare the Americans. Although they also use. Perhaps this effectiveness is considered based on some factors?
    How is such an efficiency for example. What without a similar technique can not put out a fire in an acceptable time frame or the damage from a burned out will be many times greater than any efficiency?
    These are just examples; I don’t understand fire fighting in general. But it seems to me if you declare a similar position about low efficiency, but the efficiency from a helicopter is much greater, then there should be a real analysis where all factors, operation and so on are taken into account. And then a conclusion is made about the appropriateness. And then it comes out interesting first
    "Since then, the Be-200ES has managed to work in many" hot "spots on the planet, dumping hundreds of tons of water on forest fires."
    And then that he is essentially not needed? Oh well.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 2 July 2019 21: 31
      0
      If interested, see the article at https://cyberleninka.ru/article/v/problema-tusheniya-krupnyh-lesnyh-pozharov-i-krupnomasshtabnyh-pozharov-tverdyh-goryuchih-materialov-v-zdaniyah.
      The author of the article is a professional. In great detail, with formulas and a description of the combustion and extinguishing processes, the futility of extinguishing forest fires by air is proved.
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 2 July 2019 22: 40
        +5
        I read the article is very interesting, a big fact that it was not written by a fireman. It does not consider a single fire event. And accordingly, the effect of water discharge on it.
        Not only is the increase in humidity written as a favorable factor for extinguishing the fire, but does not this give off water? Naturally, it does not prove the futility of extinguishing forest fires with airplanes. But in general. Low water utilization rate calculated for ALL EXTINGUISHING MEDIA. Generally ALL. To pull by ears only to planes it is certainly strong. In helicopters, the water utilization coefficient is only slightly higher and then under special conditions and high risk, which is also described in the article. The article does not examine the spread of fire, its types, the effect of spills on them. Nothing has been written about this influence at all.
        And here generally airplanes, if in buildings without any airplanes the efficiency of water use is about the same.
        However, buildings somehow extinguish, forest fires, cut off, localize, and some extinguish.
        So all the conclusions that are not presented there, but are in this article, are the conclusions not of Professor Abdurahimov, but of the author.
  8. Dmitry Leontiev
    Dmitry Leontiev 2 July 2019 20: 53
    +4
    "It is very expensive to extinguish with the Be-200 - 1 liter of water costs 5-10 times more than in a fire-fighting helicopter."
    How is it that the same cargo on an airplane costs more than on a helicopter - and even so many times? Usually, everything is exactly the opposite: transporting cargo by helicopter is much more expensive than by plane. So the article guesses a frank order from the "friends" of the Russian aircraft industry.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 2 July 2019 22: 46
      0
      You are partly right. That in the article the conclusions are far from the organizers of extinguishing fires. And partly far-fetched. And perhaps in the spirit - but everything is very bad with us.
      And about the cost of delivering a liter of water in an airplane and a helicopter, perhaps the role is played by the cost of operating aircraft. Although what the author found there is incomprehensible. It is impossible to understand without an exact description of the formula and where it came from. For example, you can take it like this. The average remoteness of the source of water intake for an airplane is such as 100 kilometers, for a helicopter with its sampling volume of 5 kilometers, the possible remoteness of the location of the unit with helicopters is this, the planes are this. So let's calculate the time for approach, fuel and so on. As a result, it is quite possible that the actions attributed to the aircraft are in several ways more than those of a helicopter - this is compared, among other things.
      1. Dmitry Leontiev
        Dmitry Leontiev 4 July 2019 05: 37
        0
        In most cases, for a seaplane there is a place where to draw water - the sea, river, lake. So he just does not need to fly far for water, just like a helicopter. And an hour of flight of an airplane, even much larger in weight than a helicopter, always costs less - with a much higher flight speed. So consider it.
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 5 July 2019 19: 51
          0
          I don’t have enough data to calculate. I just described where such calculations came from.
          look at another resource it is written like this, the same without any calculations.
          "The use of helicopters for extinguishing fires continues to be very relevant. We can say that there is a lot of progress in this area, designers are developing new solutions, modern modifications appear. It was calculated that the delivery of a ton of water by a firefighting helicopter is 5 times cheaper than by plane."
          1. Dmitry Leontiev
            Dmitry Leontiev 6 July 2019 23: 25
            0
            Probably, it was considered on the basis of the fact that there is not a lot of water everywhere, but everywhere there is an opportunity to refuel, if desired, a helicopter with water. So to say, they took it as an average that an airplane would definitely have to fly far for water, and a helicopter would have to fly close. But the plane flies faster and can take away three or four times more at a time. If the place of water intake is ten kilometers from the fire, at one gas station the BE-200 can dump 300 tons of water into the fire. With a helicopter, the numbers are in no way comparable. To find somewhere nearby a 200-kilometer strip of water for planting or taking water can be almost everywhere. Yes, and at the airport you can refuel with water too. And this plane can get much farther than a helicopter. The reach area of ​​the BE-50 is unlikely to be covered by XNUMX helicopters evenly spaced over this area.
  9. Lad
    Lad 2 July 2019 21: 42
    -2
    Comrades, why are you all listening to your emotions? Have you checked the presence of "friends" under your bed yet? Well, you must also read the article.

    The author writes about low economic efficiency, and he is opposed that the plane looks cool when it takes water. )))
    The author writes that there are no engines, but he is opposed that there would be money, and building engines is not a problem. They will simply be too expensive and economically inefficient. )))
    But who cares how beautifully he takes water and what can be built? With the help of money, a lot of things can be built. Interested in cost-effectiveness. Economics decides EVERYTHING! Tell me, how many nuclear strikes, planes, ships, tanks and cannon shots were needed for the USSR to fall apart? Not even a single pistol shot was required. EVERYTHING was decided by the economy. The rest fell after her like a house of cards. How much does one need to step on the same rake in order to understand at least the most important thing? (I'm not talking about everything else.)

    Well, about the "low" economic efficiency of helicopters.
    Yes, when transporting a unit of cargo over long distances, an airplane is more cost-effective.
    But extinguishing a fire is not a transportation of goods. The author wrote about this. Such a large aircraft requires at least a large river or lake to draw water. With gentle shores. And Russia is very big. Therefore, before the fire, he may have to carry water for two to three hours of summer. A helicopter will pick up water in a nearby pond or stream. The price of water in a helicopter is already lower since there is less transportation distance.
    Plus, during the same time, the helicopter will make more walker.
    Plus a helicopter can slow down to zero and its accuracy is several times higher.
    Plus, the helicopter can throw from a slightly lower height.
    And all claims that the author did not give economic calculations of the cost of fire fighting an airplane and a helicopter are from the evil one. The article is not rubber. You still require an economic calculation of the cost of the devices themselves.
    It is enough that the author refers to the conclusions not of Vasya's plumbing, but of a person who is specially engaged in this.
    1. E.S.
      E.S. 2 July 2019 23: 25
      0
      The author does not understand whom he refers to with incomprehensible competencies.
      California burns almost every year, Spain and Portugal burn after a year, Greece and France burn every two to three years.
      The very same Santa Barbara, who was practically burned in American rubles,
      and we are all told how to extinguish fires from airplanes, which airplanes podzodyut for this and which not.
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 2 July 2019 23: 35
        +2
        The author refers quite clearly to whom and with understandable competencies. to Professor Abduragimov. You can read about it on the Internet. And it refers quite right, only he thinks out some conclusions himself or refers somewhere else without mentioning it.
        By the way, the professor says that forests are burning all over the world and there is no effective means for extinguishing.
    2. Flies
      Flies 3 July 2019 08: 47
      +1
      A helicopter will pick up water in a nearby pond or stream
      it depends on why ... If the "pear" is for the firemen's backpacks, then maybe he will take it. And then, if those motor pumps pump water into it. If the spillway is 5 cubic meters, then you need a reservoir with a depth of 2m without !!! debris in the form of floors and completely flooded bushes and trees. And such in the taiga, too, not at every step.
      Plus a helicopter can slow down to zero and its accuracy is several times higher.
      Plus, the helicopter can throw from a slightly lower height.
      To zero over the fire ??? Come on! Show me that hero. Here you fly along the edge of the grassroots and this is enough. Not to mention the mounted fire.
    3. Dmitry Leontiev
      Dmitry Leontiev 4 July 2019 06: 26
      +1
      Okay, you write idiocy.
      From a shallow stream, not a single helicopter will draw water - it needs enough deep water for this.
      And compare the speed and range of the aircraft and helicopter, and also take into account the fact that the BE-200 carries four times as much water.
      Reset accuracy is a bargain; it just requires sufficient pilot training. At the same time, the speed of aircraft using mechanization can reduce to a minimum; when dumping water, in any way, it again becomes sufficient to climb.
      At the same time, look at the radius of action of the aircraft and the helicopter, as well as how long they will take to overcome this radius. The plane is much more reliable and efficient, no matter how you look at it. For Russia, with its territory, to talk about helicopters as a preferred solution to the BE-200 for extinguishing forest fires is simply ridiculous. The range of the helicopter is about 400 km. The radius of the BE-200 is 3500 km. Now estimate how many helicopters you need to place to cover the area of ​​this circle (7000 km in diameter). More than 50 for sure. With a range of more than 450 km before the fire, the helicopter says "I pass." The plane will arrive and fire eight times farther - moreover, it will arrive three times faster and will be able to drop four times more water on a fire each time.
  10. Givi_49
    Givi_49 2 July 2019 22: 24
    0
    Poor "economic calculation". And the cost of reforestation was not included.
    At least once they tried to extinguish a fire with a Be-200 squadron, they would immediately understand everything. Only for the massive use of Be-200 aircraft!
  11. swan49
    swan49 2 July 2019 22: 51
    0
    Several years ago I was on "Irkut". The owners arranged an excursion on the Be-200. We began to praise the aircraft's fire-fighting capabilities. However, the owners cooled our ardor by declaring that the plane is ineffective for extinguishing forest fires - because of the high speed, a huge mass of water simply breaks trees. Therefore, the Bombardier turboprop, with its lower speed, is better suited for extinguishing forest fires. Still, the Be-200 was created as a smaller modification of the A-40 Albatross.
    1. E.S.
      E.S. 2 July 2019 23: 17
      +2
      And the water must be poured, and not dumped in barrels or ice floes :-)
      Or you don’t need to fantasize, it also helps.
      Water almost immediately loses its translational speed and can’t break anything, it has been tested many times
    2. Flies
      Flies 3 July 2019 09: 19
      +1
      Just the efficiency is less due to the large spray area. Say, the same Be-12P is more effective due to the different location of the water tank in the fuselage. In the 200th volume, water tanks are distributed under almost the entire floor of the cargo-passenger compartment. And in the fire Be-12P vertically. As a result, the water drop in the second is much steeper.
  12. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 2 July 2019 23: 06
    -1
    Quote: Lad
    Comrades, why are you all listening to your emotions? Have you checked the presence of "friends" under your bed yet? Well, you must also read the article.

    Read, your interpretation of her and our words is nonsense.
    Quote: Lad
    Tell me, how many nuclear strikes, planes, ships, tanks and cannon shots were needed for the USSR to fall apart? Not even a single pistol shot was required. EVERYTHING was decided by the economy. The rest fell after her like a house of cards. How much does one need to step on the same rake in order to understand at least the most important thing? (I'm not talking about everything else.)

    This is stupidity and lies. Economics is a consequence, not a cause.
    Quote: Lad
    With the help of money, a lot of things can be built. Interested in cost-effectiveness.

    The rarest nonsense. This is not about profit and not about something that brings it. What other economic efficiency? Tell us about the cost-effectiveness of saved villages or hectares of forest. Let’s calculate the cost-effectiveness of hospitals later and close them all ... The logic is the same, they also use operations, drugs and techniques that are far from cost-effective. Once again you want to measure life with money?
    Often, economic efficiency is not important, it is very difficult, and sometimes it is not possible to achieve it, but it is necessary to do the job.
    Quote: Lad
    And all claims that the author did not give economic calculations of the cost of fire fighting an airplane and a helicopter are from the evil one. The article is not rubber. You still require an economic calculation of the cost of the devices themselves.

    What nonsense is this? If the author has calculated something, then to bring the data embedded in the calculations it will take a couple of lines. Economic calculation of devices? So there are their purchases and declared value, why not bring them? figure will take many lines in the article? It’s funny.
    Quote: Lad
    It is enough that the author refers to the conclusions not of Vasya's plumbing, but of a person who is specially engaged in this.

    LIES! You did not even read this person to whom the author refers, but you ascribe to him some nonexistent regalia. Professor Abduragimov is not a fireman. He is a scientist who does not mention fire events at all in his article and calculations. And fire extinguishing counts just like a spill of water. But firefighters and others carry out a bunch of events of others for localization, protection against fire and so on. Have you ever seen firefighters walking after a fire and using manual pumps shed possible foci - is this also more efficient than an airplane?
    Quote: Lad
    Plus, during the same time, the helicopter will make more walker.
    Plus a helicopter can slow down to zero and its accuracy is several times higher.
    Plus, the helicopter can throw from a slightly lower height.

    And this is nonsense. What accuracy if the combustion front is several kilometers, do you even think that write.
    Professor Abduragimov himself writes that a helicopter cannot be accurately and from a lower height, since smoke can be drawn into the air intakes and the helicopter will crash autorotation into the burning center. I apologize for the harshness, but why are you so drawn to write, without even learning anything from what the author and people wrote in the commentary?
  13. E.S.
    E.S. 2 July 2019 23: 10
    +1
    Given:
    "The coefficient of effective use of water in cases of" carpet "extinguishing does not exceed 1-2%"
    What is numerically equal to efficiency?
    6 tons x 1 ... 2% = 60..120 kg
    An average of 8 buckets is obtained.
    Let the one who considers the efficiency of 8 buckets collect the horse flame from the pine. As soon as possible - I agree with his innocence
  14. Lad
    Lad 2 July 2019 23: 14
    -1
    What makes you think that I am against saving lives? I am in favor of saving more lives on the ruble spent. And more forest. Well, everything else ... people write reviews of the aircraft builders themselves. And in order to answer all your remarks you have to start a separate topic.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 2 July 2019 23: 24
      0
      Once again, I apologize for the harshness, but could not write otherwise. I just deliberately read not only the article, but also the article by Professor Abduragimov, which clearly describes what I quoted in the comments of your words.

      Regarding economic efficiency - it is not always achievable. And in this case, due to a huge number of factors. And for everyone there must be a definite decision. For example, the use of Be-200. His demand with us, his demand elsewhere, the possibility of orders, the need for some kind of nodes. That is, in general, what it should be - a cost-effective project - a temporary project, which will then be replaced by others, or in general the stage of filling a niche / maintaining it. Perhaps a not-so-cost-effective solution will be beneficial in other respects - development support, jobs, and so on. Well these are just common points.
      In general, I believe that only the customer can give information about the need in connection with the application experience.
  15. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 2 July 2019 23: 16
    0
    Quote: E.S.
    Let the one who considers the efficiency of 8 buckets collect the horse flame from the pine. As soon as possible - I agree with his innocence

    :) There was something else in mind. This refers to the combustion area with which water should interact during the quenching. Such a quantity of water must be used on it according to the formula that it is checked and calculated in laboratory conditions. But most of the water just drains while it should.
    According to the standards of firefighters given in the article by Professor Abduragimov, the strait time should be 60 seconds. And the water supplied from above does not wash the burning center for so long.
  16. kosovvskiy
    kosovvskiy 3 July 2019 01: 34
    0
    I read the article and conclusions several times, especially the phrase:
    "... echeloned water supply with regulation of its flow rate and supply from the nearest reservoirs ..."

    The idea is not fully disclosed, but apparently it is assumed that there will be an almost continuous chain of water supply by helicopters from the reservoirs to the burning center, while with centralized control, if not every liter, then every bucket for sure. And then it will turn out to increase the efficiency of water use up to 5-6%.

    It turns out to present such a swarm of helicopters with well-trained pilots in theory, and the feasibility in practice is very doubtful.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 3 July 2019 02: 49
      -1
      Professor Abduragimov even calculated - 30-35 Mi-17 or Ka-35 helicopters.
      But what is interesting, calculating this, he writes further that this is a matter of the future, the development of machines and the tactics of their application. Then what are the calculations based on? Well, I can understand about cars - you can just take the carrying capacity and the approximate weight of the container. calculate the volume of water. But I didn’t quite understand about the tactics, because the extinguishing success depends on it, according to the professor.
      Personally, I would like to see the calculated data - dump height, reset method, volume, flight speed, and so on.
      As I understand it, it is not the water supply chain that is important, but the drainage chain that the water washed the burning trees for a certain time - about 20-30 seconds. According to fire regulations 60 sec.
  17. storm
    storm 3 July 2019 03: 22
    +1
    If the Be-200 is of little use in the Ministry of Emergency Situations, then these maritime aircraft may be transferred for rescue operations at sea, supplying island territories without a runway, landing of marines, anti-submarine warfare ....
    For forest protection and the Ministry of Emergencies, helicopters are more likely to be more convenient to use because they allow you to extinguish fires and fire brigades to deliver and evacuate people in trouble ....
    10 Mi-17 at any is preferable to one Be-200 (at a comparable purchase price) both in terms of basing and operating from unprepared runways and the cost of training the flight and maintenance personnel.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 July 2019 10: 52
      +1
      Quote: assault
      If the Be-200 is of little use in the Ministry of Emergencies, then these aircraft of the naval aviation may be transferred for rescue operations at sea,

      The ambush is that rescue operations often need to be carried out in such weather conditions when the seaplane simply cannot be splashed.
      In the USSR, pomnitsa, a landing rescue boat with a carrier based on the An-12 was developed for "all-weather rescue".
      Quote: assault
      supply of island territories without a runway

      To do this, it is easier to use KFOR - its carrying capacity and dimensions are clearly larger.
      Quote: assault
      Marine Corps

      A landing with a rifleman and light group weapons will quickly roll out into a pancake.
      Quote: assault
      anti-submarine warfare ....

      The weight return of the seaplane is less than that of a regular patrolman based on a passenger car. In addition, a seaplane for basing requires a base of one and a half, or even double cost - because in addition to a hydroaerodrome, he also needs a regular airfield on this base (storm, ice and other bad weather phenomena).
  18. gregor6549
    gregor6549 3 July 2019 04: 51
    +3
    The plane turned out to be really good (although it has enough analogues), but its use to extinguish fires is not always and not always effective.
    Firstly, for refueling (and the water should be, as far as I know, fresh), at its speed, he needs very large reservoirs that provide safe flooding, water collection when moving on water and take-off at full load. And such reservoirs are not everywhere and not always near the place of fire.
    Further. The greater the speed of such an aircraft, the higher should be the point of discharge of water to avoid collisions with the folds of the terrain, and the higher the point of discharge, the lower the accuracy of discharge.
    Well, and not the least factor is the efficiency / cost of a firefighter aircraft. And this is a very important factor, since Fire services in foreign countries, as a rule, have a very limited budget and try to make do with cheaper ones. In addition, compensation for losses from fire in these countries is usually provided by private insurance services and not from the budget. Of course, state regional services incur part of the costs of fire prevention and extinguishing, including the cost of acquiring fire-fighting equipment, but the purchase of this equipment is carried out mainly on the basis of tenders where the cost-effectiveness ratio plays a decisive role. And only in cases when fires become rampant, an emergency regime is declared in this region, funding from the state budget is used, and firefighting forces and equipment from neighboring regions or states are attracted. But there is one thing but. Fires of catastrophic proportions usually have energy that is sometimes comparable with the energy of nuclear explosions and can be extinguished only by using something equivalent.
    Naturally, no one will ever drop fire bombs on a fire, and even highly effective powder bombs developed by NPO Splav (Russia) are applicable only in deserted areas.
    Therefore, no one tries to extinguish such fires, and all the efforts of firefighters are reduced to localizing the fire (digging trenches, oncoming fire, etc.) and to the hope that a fire in the localization zone will destroy everything that can burn and calm down by itself or rain will happen and will flood the fire.
  19. Owl
    Owl 3 July 2019 10: 08
    0
    There is also another problem: while there was "easy money" from the sale of raw materials and equipment, none of the "leaders" considered it necessary to think about the localization of production in Russia (all components are produced in the country), so they received a "semi-Russian" Superjet, BE-200 - without Ukrainian engines, warships of the Russian Navy and MF, which remain without "running" due to the failure of Chinese engines (German license for engines for pleasure and fishing vessels). The logic of "Samoyed" - grab and snatch what is already and still is and do not think about what will happen tomorrow. So these "guarantors" with "friends oligarchs" and finish off the industry of Russia.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 3 July 2019 20: 04
      -2
      Quote: Eagle Owl
      There is still another problem: while there was "easy money" from the sale of raw materials and equipment, none of the "leaders" considered it necessary to think about the localization of production in Russia (all components are produced in the country)

      Well, in general, different people are in charge of "easy money" and the production of equipment. Localization of production? Look who makes at least some parts for Boeing. For some reason they have no localization, but efficiency.
      Quote: Eagle Owl
      BE-200 - without Ukrainian engines

      If you can make commercially efficient engines, you can use yours. This has nothing to do with "easy money" production of our aircraft was destroyed long before that. And the fact that there was cooperation with a neighbor is what is bad? You cannot produce everything in the world yourself, you simply cannot disperse efforts so much. Somewhere they will be narrower and more efficient. And to know in advance where to fall well, alas, is not given.
      Quote: Eagle Owl
      The logic of "Samoyed" - grab and snatch what is already and still is and do not think about what will happen tomorrow. So these "guarantors" with "friends oligarchs" and finish off the industry of Russia.

      Yes, yes, yes, these tears can be shed every day and thrown slogans at the level of development of students. That is, before the release of the aircraft did not finish the industry. As they released that, the guarantors finish off. You always have one excuse here - it’s not me who is to blame, but the guarantor, they told me on the Internet, and I always have nothing to do with it.
      And yesterday I didn’t piss at the entrance, all the guarantor. We believe, we believe ...
  20. yehat
    yehat 22 July 2019 14: 31
    0
    I do not believe that the effectiveness of 1-2%. it was possible to extinguish fires - this aircraft is able to extinguish a significant front of the spread of fire. Perhaps you should work on reset accuracy. A helicopter is no better in this regard.
    demagogy about the exact pipette into the furnace - this does not happen.
    And frankly, I do not believe the conclusions about the difference in the cost of delivered water
    the boat refuels quickly, flies quickly, leans on the wings, not on the propeller.
    the helicopter is far from the standard of profitability.
  21. Kaw
    Kaw 18 August 2019 13: 29
    0
    This car can be an operational marine lifeguard. To a ship in distress, she can apply for help faster than any other vehicle. Or, for example, to save the crews of sea aircraft catapulted over the water area.