On Lake Onega, tests of the experimental ekranoplan "Orion-25" began

In Petrozavodsk, tests of the experimental ekranoplan "Orion-25", built at the local shipbuilding enterprise "Avangard", began. This was announced on his page in the social network "VKontakte" by the head of the city Vladimir Lyubarsky.

The new ekranoplan still exists in a single copy, it was designed by the Moscow company EO "Orion", built by Petrozavodsk shipbuilders. Declared characteristics: speed - up to 500 km / h, flight range - up to 3600 km, duration - up to 11 hours. Fuel consumption is more economical due to the screen effect. "Orion-25" is able to glide at low altitude over any surface.

The developers suggest that the border guards and the Ministry of Emergency Situations, as well as the military, will be interested in the ekranoplan. Representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Emergency Situations have been invited to the tests, which will be held on Lake Onega in the Gulf of Petrozavodsk.

Such devices can be used to protect the border and eliminate natural disasters, on scientific expeditions or when delivering shift workers to hard-to-reach places.

- said the mayor of Petrozavodsk.

It should be noted that "Orion-25" is not the first ekranoplan, the tests of which began in Petrozavodsk. In 2012, the Orion-20 was developed, which was also tested on Lake Onega, but in 2015 they were curtailed after a serious accident. They resumed only in 2017, the further fate of Orion-20 is not clear, although it was developed under a contract with the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Plans to resume the production of ekranoplanes, including military ones, were announced at the beginning of 2012, but today these plans continue to be plans.

Comments

[Murmur 55]

A useful aircraft, but it is unlikely that they will order in large quantities, if they order at all.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Murmur 55

A useful aircraft, but it is unlikely that they will order in large quantities, if they order at all.

Well, there was where to put the old An-24/26. If you look closely, then the fuselage, a little cut down, and the engines are taken from there. Moreover, the placement of the engines raises a question for the developers - And they probably didn’t even think about the view from the cockpit. The maximum that can be seen is strictly in front, and 90 degrees to the side. I generally keep quiet about soundproofing in the cockpit ...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Fitter65

Moreover, the placement of the engines raises a question for the developers - And they probably didn’t even think about the view from the cockpit. The maximum that can be seen is strictly in front, and 90 degrees to the side. I generally keep quiet about soundproofing in the cockpit ...

If, at least, you read a little about ekranoplanes, then there will be no questions. Take a look at the photo, which is a little lower along the branch, at the Lun, in which some of the engines are also placed far forward. This is the best place for them to create a pillow under the wing.

[Egeny]

I wouldn't say that, it's just that the fuselage can't be used...

[Fitter65]

Quote from Egeni

I wouldn't say that, it's just that the fuselage can't be used...

And don't speak. The fuselage is taken and remade, especially since it is not calculated for loads similar to an airplane.

[Arifon]

"Once Father Onufry, bypassing Lake Onega, discovered "Orion-20"..."

[Alex DHG]

"Orion Eleven" then.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from Arifon

"Once Father Onufry, bypassing Lake Onega, discovered "Orion-20"..."

20th slightly, fell (3 years early) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuEsR8DFjHI But on the 25th there are more powerful engines, let's hope that his fate will be more successful.

[tlauicol]

More powerful engines will lift it even higher before the crash. How will this help?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Tlauicol

More powerful engines will lift it even higher before the crash. How will this help?

On the 20th there were 3 engines, on the 25th - instead of 3, they put 2 more powerful ones.

[tlauicol]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: Tlauicol

More powerful engines will lift it even higher before the crash. How will this help?

On the 20th there were 3 engines, on the 25th - instead of 3, they put 2 more powerful ones.

Great! And how does this help with tearing off the screen? Will he fly higher and slam louder?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

More powerful engines will lift it even higher before the crash. How will this help?

Specifically, this accident did not occur on the screen mode, but in an aviation flight, obviously. Clear pilot error.

[tlauicol]

Thank you, straight from the heart. Error, but there is no headroom. That would be more powerful engines .. It would be the same

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Thank you, straight from the heart. Error, but there is no headroom. That would be more powerful engines .. It would be the same

The fact that SERIES planes fight both during takeoff and landing will somehow help your heart, or is it something else?

[tlauicol]

EP in takeoff-landing mode conducts the entire flight

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

EP in takeoff-landing mode conducts the entire flight

No need, flying on the screen is an established mode!

[tlauicol]

Yes, yes, an established regime at the very surface

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Yes, yes, an established regime at the very surface

And what is it, there is no change in altitude, there is no big change in speed, going down is hampered by the properties of a dynamic air cushion, a gust of wind is compensated by the mass of the EP, but a sharp go up with an excess of the angle of attack and stall is a common piloting error for taking off and landing off the screen, which is clear from the video.

[tlauicol]

The ekranoplan is not born on the screen. You need to enter the screen, then exit. Wind gusts and subsurface irregularities affect the pressure difference. On the screen, you need to maneuver: either with a roll and pressure drop, or without a roll with an even larger radius, or breaking away from the screen. Going down can be with a roll on the nose, tail. Yes plus pilot error

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

The ekranoplan is not born on the screen. You need to enter the screen, then exit.

So you write, as if they are coming out of a steep dive on the screen ... The take-off speed is reached and that's it, the properties of the wide wing continue to work, you don’t even need to use the elevator, unlike climbing an airplane, where both engines are critical and the angle of attack ...

Quote: Tlauicol

On the screen, you need to maneuver: either with a roll and pressure drop, or without a roll with an even larger radius, or breaking away from the screen. Going down can be with a roll on the nose, tail. Yes plus pilot error

That is precisely why average EFs are viable on large rivers, in the tundra and the coastal zone.

[voice of reason]

Interestingly, I remember for a long time in the nineties they recalled the ekranoplan Lun, abandoned due to lack of funding and the collapse of the Union, the so-called "Caspian monster" ekranoplan project. And then the idea was resurrected...

[bars042]

Yes, she was not "reborn", she was Alive, well, "smoldered" little by little, "cleared" from the sticky handles of the perestroika 90s.

[faiver]

, an ekranoplan project, the so-called "Caspian monster" ekranoplan "Lun"

- Caspian monster and Lun, these are different ekranoplans ....

[Archivist Vasya]

Only the ekranoplan "Lun" had no problems with visibility due to the location of the engines in front.

[Egeny]

Voice, hello, we already talked about this topic.
It seems that the time has come ... and the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov is already ours.)

[tlauicol]

The Sea of ​​\u10b\u40bAzov was ours even under the USSR. The time came for ekranoplanes a hundred years ago. Where is the profit? The plane flew over the Atlantic in XNUMX years. Over XNUMX overcame the sound

[voice of reason]

hello, and now Azovskoye has also become internal ...

[dmi.pris1]

The Soviet "Lun" was more beautiful .. But this is my opinion. Of course, the car is needed.

[Mikhail Ivanov]

It's more like an aerosleigh. He glides through the snow, and does not fly due to the screen effect. Why show such tests? Lun and Eaglet had the declared characteristics, but they had missile weapons and could transport personnel and cargo. And this is an expensive analogue of the AN-12

[Murmur 55]

Mikhail - Ivanov , the problem is that they still cannot finish the CHEAP analogue of the old man KUKURUZNIK, except for pathos speeches and an indistinct result of nothing (if I didn’t miss it). Yes, and with our open spaces, we need airplanes, ekranoplanes, helicopters, of all varieties and weight categories.

[Dmitry Donskoy]

Colleague, find information about Baikal, and you will be in the know.

[Murmur 55]

Dmitry Donskoy , the first thing that came across the Baikal-aircraft, which will be assembled from domestic components and ATTENTION, the contract for the supply of an EXPERIMENTAL batch has been signed and the PARTY will be as many as 10 pcs. and must be collected by 2025.

[bars042]

Well, you pancake compared the project with state support and private traders.

[faiver]

[quoteHe glides through the snow, but does not fly] [/ quote] - he glides at low speed, he flies at cruising ...

[Alien From]

Somehow world practice does not really perceive ekranoplans

[Murmur 55]

Alien From , for now, yes, but, remember, quadrocopters were also initially perceived as a toy.

[Bingo]

Where do they crawl? The Americans never mastered Alaska, Canada is not populated - along the tundra. where there are no trees. no one crawls except us. Again, I don’t remember the analogues of the Azov and Caspian Seas, where they are the most ...
Our hovercraft also need to be restored - in general, nothing can be better for the Far North in principle
This is dragging Alaska - but see for yourself how to get around here? On a swamp?

[Sergey Valov]

The air cushion effect creates a huge cloud of dust around the device, which does not benefit any engine.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Sergey Valov

The air cushion effect creates a huge cloud of dust around the device, which does not benefit any engine.

So this is if you hang out on the spot, and even in some kind of desert. But why hang around then?

[tlauicol]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Sergey Valov

The air cushion effect creates a huge cloud of dust around the device, which does not benefit any engine.

So this is if you hang out on the spot, and even in some kind of desert. But why hang around then?

You may or may not get hung up. The ekranoplan will find dust and sand everywhere during the flight. Or rather, I would find it - it remains to find a flat billiard table for thousands of kilometers

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

You may or may not get hung up. The ekranoplan will find dust and sand everywhere during the flight. Or rather, I would find it - it remains to find a flat billiard table for thousands of kilometers

EP over land is not needed, its most flight minimum is large rivers or explored routes over the tundra. This applies to medium EPs of the type presented, for large ones only the sea. And small ones are so pampering.

[tlauicol]

And the explored routes will be direct? Or will we transfer the gas fields and settlements for the convenience of ep? Shall we straighten the rivers, smooth out the tundra?
And where will the marine EPs be based?
Utopia

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

And the explored routes will be direct? Or will we transfer the gas fields and settlements for the convenience of ep? Shall we straighten the rivers, smooth out the tundra?

In the tundra (do you know what the tundra is?) it is enough to fly around especially large (there are few of them) soil irregularities. And the northern rivers are pretty straight.

Quote: Tlauicol

And where will the marine EPs be based?

In the same place as small all-aluminum hydrofoils (there are such, imagine), in bays, harbors, at piers. Just don’t repeat the dumbest thesis that every EP spent the night on the dock deck, don’t disgrace yourself.

[tlauicol]

Well, of course not everyone. For the Eaglets, slips and playgrounds were built. And KM was based in the same dock as Lun after him.
About straight rivers and tundra is not funny.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Well, of course not everyone. For the Eaglets, slips and playgrounds were built. And KM was based in the same dock as Lun after him.

Dada, the project 18530 floating dock was built in 1985, KM flyers gouged in 1980, and for some reason they didn’t build a dock for the second Lun, strange, don’t you think? Lun and KM, as well as sea-going hydrofoils, are designed to be based at the pier.

Quote: Tlauicol

About straight rivers and tundra is not funny.

This is because you are not interested in looking at the maps of the northern rivers, nor at the description of the polar tundra.

[tlauicol]

For which second moon?
Yes, yes, only on archival videos of KM in the dock (and maybe the docks) is present. What is it, one dock per major ep, including the unfinished one?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

For which second moon?

Are you so versed in the topic that you don’t know about the “Rescuer”?

Quote: Tlauicol

Yes, yes, only on archival videos of KM in the dock (and maybe the docks) is present.

And let me not even believe about the special dock for KM, but just about the video with the dock. But about marine all-aluminum ships at the pier, and more than video and photos, but it’s not interesting, right?
Well, about the rivers and the tundra is not interesting, as expected.

[opuonmed]

well, well, let them make 140 cars, you need 10 a year

[Normann]

It is necessary to produce the machines that are needed at the moment, and not the next wunderwaffe (

[antivirus]

The principality of Finland and Canada will be under attack.
Will we take Australia with such eagles?

[Normann]

If we build three things, then the states with their handles raised will go to drown themselves

[Revolver]

Quote: antivirus

The principality of Finland and Canada will be under attack.
Will we take Australia with such eagles?

Is it for you? First master Siberia and the Far East. And then the Chinese have already climbed to master, a little more and there will be, in fact, China, both in terms of demographics, and in terms of who and what the economy is tied to. And then China will announce that these are ancestral Chinese lands, and the majority of the population there is Chinese, and what should they answer? But the West will support them, not out of great love for China, but purely out of Russophobia, these shit-globalizers have Russia in their throats, and any piece of it will be a joy to tear off, even if it strengthens China.

[Volunteer Marek]

The key idea is that the previous development was expected to be screwed up. It will be the same with this one. While it will be profitable to cut the budget. As long as it's safe to rob us.

[shikin]

He would still have a hovercraft chassis. At one time, they experimented a lot with this, including on the An-14.
By the way, here it is possible to use the so-called. air lubrication - blowing under the cylinders.

[Aviator_]

He would still have a hovercraft chassis. At one time, they experimented a lot with this,

The experiments began even before the Second World War, continued after, but did not end with anything positive.

[shikin]

Negative too. Planes flew, the scheme worked. What problems prevented bringing to the series - I do not know. And the work on this topic is not finished, they are still ongoing.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from shikin

He would still have a hovercraft chassis. At one time, they experimented a lot with this, including on the An-14.

What for? Passenger-and-freight EPs are promoted as an economical alternative to aircraft, as this chassis will simply gobble up all the economy.

[tlauicol]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote from shikin

He would still have a hovercraft chassis. At one time, they experimented a lot with this, including on the An-14.

What for? Passenger-and-freight EPs are promoted as an economical alternative to aircraft, as this chassis will simply gobble up all the economy.

Does it even exist, economy? Deliver such cargo from Barnaul to Novosibirsk, or Irkutsk-Ulan-Ude by water. Save a lot?

[shikin]

In fact, the second quality of ekranoplans is amphibiousness. The ability to take off and land on any relatively flat ground, regardless of the surface. With an air cushion, this possibility is expanded. And a well-designed pad design will give slightly more resistance compared to the same floats.
And efficiency - well, let's compare, for example, hovercraft with water transport or with a car. The only question is why? Different means of transport for different conditions.
And the task of such funds is the delivery of goods not from airport to airport, but to places unsuitable for other transport.

[tlauicol]

Yeah. Only in addition to excess resistance and mass, the pillow will also take power. And these are engines, fuel and mass. Very effective
And what will he bring? Coal, building materials, pipes, tractors..? Do not make me laugh. This will be done by the railway and the ship. And people will be delivered faster and in a straight line. Moreover, regardless of the terrain

[shikin]

You probably have a bad idea of ​​what the same Siberia is. I worked for ten years on drilling rigs in Western Siberia. There can be a thousand kilometers to the railway road, and more than one to the airport. The main transport is by road, on bad roads, for hours, sometimes for days. In winter, winter roads roll in, in summer there are fewer roads, there is nothing to say about spring at all - continuous floods and lakes. Operational transport - Mi-8, speed - 200 km / h, radius - 200 km, payload - 2 tons, that is, availability is very limited. Everything is delivered to remote sites only in winter, there are no roads in summer. There was an urgent problem, so the drilling equipment dragged the Mi-8 on an external sling. In such conditions and places, hovercraft and ekranoplanes can be the only operational transport. And there are many such places in Russia.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Does it even exist, economy? Deliver such cargo from Barnaul to Novosibirsk, or Irkutsk-Ulan-Ude by water. Save a lot?

Can you still make delivery in Moscow? There are railways, roads, airfields, and finally, not just one. But for settlements along large northern rivers, this particular EP is already a good option for both winter and summer. Payload by eye like the Mi-8 or more, efficiency, radius and speed are much greater. And unlike an airplane, even an An-2, not to mention something heavier, an airfield is not needed.

[tlauicol]

Rivers are not straight. The helicopter plane flies along the shortest route without interfering with navigation. Do not give in to bridges, crossings, power lines, steep bends, ice drift.
And about the carrying capacity, efficiency "by eye" is not serious. What are you comparing to what?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Rivers are not straight. The helicopter plane flies along the shortest route without interfering with navigation. Do not give in to bridges, crossings, power lines, steep bends, ice drift.

Are there many bridges and rivers on the large northern rivers (closer to the North)? There are not really ships there either ... And yes, a helicopter flies, but not far, not very lifting capacity and very expensive.

Quote: Tlauicol

And about the carrying capacity, efficiency "by eye" is not serious. What are you comparing to what?

This is normal, the dimensions of the fuselage, the number and power of engines, as it were, allow. And I compare it with the An-24, and so by eye the EP is 2/3 from the An-24, and this is 4 tons of cargo for the EP and about 30 passengers.

[tlauicol]

An24 will fly from Krasnoyarsk to Nizhneangarsk and 50 people will be enough for Ulan-Ude. And these pilshiki have been promising 20 km / h for 500 years, and so on. Hahah!
Even if everything that you wrote in the last paragraph became true, then where is the benefit, the benefits? An24 is already 60 years old.
About straight rivers and shipping is not funny

[tlauicol]

Well, let's compare it with a helicopter or an airplane with a 4 ton gp. Although, it is very difficult to compare paper data, which they cannot confirm for decades.
Do you want to compare what was or is?
Eaglet 27t gp. Compare with a helicopter with the same gp? Even with a seaplane from the 40s?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Well, let's compare it with a helicopter or an airplane with a 4 ton gp. Although, it is very difficult to compare paper data, which they cannot confirm for decades.

Did they post them at all? Only appraisal, and with self-financing at all stages ...

Quote: Tlauicol

Do you want to compare what was or is?
Eaglet 27t gp. Compare with a helicopter with the same gp? Even with a seaplane from the 40s?

At least one GS could land 2 armored personnel carriers on the beach? Yes, at least one? But can at least one helicopter transfer these armored personnel carriers for 1500 km? The calculation is over.
But by the way, I’m pleasantly surprised that you write about 27 tons for Eaglet, Oleg wrote in a blue eye about 20 tons compared to An-12.

[tlauicol]

That is, you took the numbers from the ceiling?
Yes, I gave Orlenok a head start of seven tons. Such figures appear. I probably remembered the seaplanes of the 40s. To which he does not reach.
And what, some ep transferred 2 armored personnel carriers to 1500 km?

[tlauicol]

In the 50s, landing 2000 jeeps, 6 trucks or light tanks, tractors with six-inch howitzers from a seaplane over 2 km was no longer a miracle. And it was considered unpromising nonsense

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

That is, you took the numbers from the ceiling?

As I write, the estimated figures are based on the dimensions of the fuselage, and the dimensions of the fuselage are estimated on the basis of the cockpit glazing and the dimensions of the doors, so you estimated that

Quote: Tlauicol

So economical and cheap that two engines were needed for the fuselage like the AN 2.

and nothing, although this is an outright blunder, i.e. from the bulldozer.

Quote: Tlauicol

Yes, I gave Orlenok a head start of seven tons. Such figures appear. I probably remembered the seaplanes of the 40s.

Why, what a handicap? It is the figure of 28 tons gp. And not 20, like Kaptsov.

Quote: Tlauicol

And what, some ep transferred 2 armored personnel carriers to 1500 km?

And what, is it not interesting to ask about a helicopter? But "Eaglet" had a range of 1500 km with a full load, so there with a helicopter.

Quote: Tlauicol

In the 50s, landing 2000 jeeps, 6 trucks or light tanks, tractors with six-inch howitzers from a seaplane over 2 km was no longer a miracle.

And what is this "not a miracle" with two light tanks?

[tlauicol]

Well, where and when did the Eaglet throw 2 armored personnel carriers for 1500 km?
With a helicopter it is possible by weight return. She is vastly different. Not for ep.
Not a miracle was considered unpromising nonsense. Therefore, such garbage almost immediately ceased to be engaged. The most interesting thing is that the screeners did not understand this even after 70 years. And they demand to build devices that approached the aircraft of the 40-50s in terms of performance characteristics (not counting the ability to fly anywhere, of course).
And the ancient Convair could land a couple of LTs

[tlauicol]

Oleg's number 20 is also not from the bulldozer. It appears in many sources in the TTX table.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Well, where and when did the Eaglet throw 2 armored personnel carriers for 1500 km?

In terms of? He could do this in terms of carrying capacity, dimensions of the cargo compartment and PRACTICAL range.

Quote: Tlauicol

With a helicopter it is possible by weight return. She is vastly different. Not for ep.

Can what? Throw 1500 armored personnel carriers of 2 tons and 11 m each for 7,5 km? What kind of empty words about the weight return, so what is the return? Mi-26 has a range of 800 km with full refueling and g.p. in 20 tons. Only together it does not work, by max. vzl. weight...

Quote: Tlauicol

Therefore, such garbage almost immediately ceased to be engaged.

Because they focused on a lot of bases around the world, and delivery by ships, and then by planes, to these well-equipped bases.

Quote: Tlauicol

And they demand to build devices that approached the aircraft of the 40-50s in terms of performance characteristics (not counting the ability to fly anywhere, of course)

EPs are not demanding on airfields and are much simpler than aircraft. And if you do not require seaworthiness, then it is more carrying capacity at a comparable speed. And several cheap engines for EP, and even turned off on the screen, instead of a couple of four more powerful and expensive ones for aircraft of equal weight, this is efficiency.

Quote: Tlauicol

And the ancient Convair could land a couple of LTs

There are a lot of "mistakes" from you, because no tanks and even armored personnel carriers could not fit into the pressurized cabin of the R3Y-2, 26,8 m long and 2,7 wide. And most likely, according to the maximum weight of a piece of equipment for the floor, they would not even stuff it. By the way, 20 tons for Eaglet is just such a figure - the maximum weight of ONE piece of equipment.

Quote: Tlauicol

Oleg's number 20 is also not from the bulldozer. It appears in many sources in the TTX table.

Of course, not from the bulldozer, because he places what is beneficial to him. Otherwise, 2 armored personnel carriers or even infantry fighting vehicles also appear, but he did not write about them and their total mass.

[tlauicol]

Offhand: LT Locust. BA Wolfhound. BTR Scout. Dimensions mass creation time...
Okay, I'll ask differently: have these figures (2 armored personnel carriers 1500 km) been confirmed? They drove for 300 km, I know. One btr.
And then the Eagles are developing 500 km / h only on paper.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Offhand: LT Locust. BA Wolfhound. BTR Scout. Dimensions mass creation time...

Those. To you "offhand" "by eye" from the bulldozer is shorter, it's normal, I'm nini, right? So, and the time from the bulldozer - the middle of the 40s, against the middle of the 50s, and the dimensions, except for the Scout, and even then in tightness. Because 15-20 cm from the walls of the compartment to the sides of the equipment, this is the impossibility of either driving or unloading.

Quote: Tlauicol

Okay, I'll ask differently: have these figures (2 armored personnel carriers 1500 km) been confirmed? They drove for 300 km, I know. One btr.

So you didn’t know a lot of things, such as the possibility of basing an EP at piers or on slipways. This is where you show your ignorance.
Just answer first, which helicopter will transport at least one armored personnel carrier for 1500 km. And demonstrate, by the way, a photo of at least unloading at least something armored from the ancient Conveyor.

Quote: Tlauicol

Well, where and when did the Eaglet throw 2 armored personnel carriers for 1500 km?
With a helicopter it is possible by weight return. She is vastly different. Not for ep.

As it turned out, even according to theoretical figures, there is no such possibility, the Eaglet had it, the helicopters did not.

[tlauicol]

"Offhand" is offhand to remember what goes there in terms of mass and dimensions. The aircraft was developed for the technology of the 40s, because the technology of the 50s did not yet exist. What is not clear.
So you will show me Lun on the slipway? About the Conveyor, I immediately said that this task was no longer needed. It's outdated at the start. And it was possible to cram 2 lt. And gave some examples.
No helicopter will carry 2 armored personnel carriers for 1500 km. What ep? Practically, not on paper

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

"Offhand" is offhand to remember what goes there in terms of mass and dimensions. The aircraft was developed for the technology of the 40s, because the technology of the 50s did not yet exist. What is not clear.

What nonsense...
"Chaffee" Created in 1943-1944, mass production was started in April 1944 and continued until August 1945, a total of 4731 tanks of this type were produced[1]. .. ... After the end of the war, the M24 remained in US service until the early 1950s.
Otherwise, you can also remember about the BTR-40 for "Eaglet"

Quote: Tlauicol

So you will show me Lun on the slipway?

Those. "Rescuer" on rails and trolleys (and this is a slipway), and "Lun" on an unequipped beach, (photo above) Don't they tell you anything?! Sorry, but this either means "gouge in the eye", or do not understand anything at all in the question. Choose: either - or.

Quote: Tlauicol

It's outdated at the start. And it was possible to cram 2 lt. And gave some examples.

Chaffee!! And your examples do not fit in size. You can't even do it offhand.

Quote: Tlauicol

No helicopter will carry 2 armored personnel carriers for 1500 km. What ep? Practically, not on paper

What a miserable verbiage. So most of the opponents of the EP are like that ... No helicopter can transport even 1500 (one) armored personnel carrier for 1 km. And 22 tons (2 BTR-60PB with landing) for "Eaglet" is a quarter lower than the max. mr. And this means that another 8 tons of fuel in the tanks, although to no purpose. Although after such words to whom I am writing this ...

Quote: Tlauicol

With a helicopter it is possible by weight return. She is vastly different. Not for ep.

Where is the photo with armor for Convair?

[tlauicol]

You would take it easy with expressions.
And what, Locust is no longer Lt? Verbiage is to declare the flight of eaglets to the Baltic or to poison Orion about 500 km / h.
Lifeguard on the rails proves that ep can spend the winter on the water or what do you mean by that? Harrier on an unequipped beach? Where? They even cleared the area for the eaglet.
Blah blah blah .. So he transported 2 armored personnel carriers for 1500 km or not. At least 300?
And, yes, Locust, etc., examples quite fit in size. You know how to verbiage, well done

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

And what, Locust is no longer Lt?

Not only was it outdated even by the end of the war, but in practice, in terms of dimensions, it could not be loaded into the cockpit. You are ignoring elementary digits, i.e. invent.

Quote: Tlauicol

Lifeguard on the rails proves that ep can spend the winter on the water or what do you mean by that?

A vessel on rails and a bogie is a vessel on a slipway. And your type of "bewilderment" is an attempt to gloss over your ignorance, but I will remind you of it:

Quote: Tlauicol

And where will the marine EPs be based?

Quote: Tlauicol

So you will show me Lun on the slipway?

And I did not write about the wintering of the EP on the water. So you are lying.

Quote: Tlauicol

Harrier on an unequipped beach? Where?

And you are offended by something there ... There is a photo!

Quote: Tlauicol

Where? They even cleared the area for the eaglet.

What, and during the landing? Facts (which you demand, but you yourself are not able to provide a single one) to the studio!

Quote: Tlauicol

Blah blah blah .. So he transported 2 armored personnel carriers for 1500 km or not. At least 300?

The eaglet had a carrying capacity of 28 tons and a PRACTICAL range of 1500 km. If you do not understand, or pretend (i.e. lie) that you do not know what PD is, then here -

The practical flight range is the distance that an aircraft can fly ... ... The practical flight range significantly depends on the mass of the Target load. The dependence "load - range" is one of the main characteristics of the aircraft. ... ...— takeoff weight limit

So Eaglet had such an opportunity with 22 tons of 2 armored personnel carriers. There was no need, but there was an opportunity. But the helicopter does not, although you are stupid to say otherwise:

Quote: Tlauicol

Well, where and when did the Eaglet throw 2 armored personnel carriers for 1500 km?
With a helicopter it is possible by weight return. She is vastly different. Not for ep.

Quote: Tlauicol

Verbiage is to declare the flight of eaglets to the Baltic or to poison Orion about 500 km / h.

Those. You attribute to me someone else, perhaps your words? Yes, you are a liar.
You are both a liar and an ignoramus, and due to the fact that you ignore elementary things and even photographic facts, you either pretend to be a fool, or you are one.

[Baloo]

Load capacity? Need one like this. Perhaps even more necessary for the Navy is a rescue ekranoplan with equipment for rescue operations in case of accidents on submarines, someday like the legendary Lun.

[Sergey Valov]

And what will he do with excitement of more than 2 - 3 points?

[Normann]

Like what? It will be in the form of a layout, and all those involved will think on which coast to build a house, what a question. ((

[Sergey Valov]

I am entirely for such experiments, but only if they are not paid from the budget.

[Demon_is_ada]

KM with a wave of 5 points could normally be operated. The larger the dimensions, the less problems with waves, this also applies to ships.

[Sergey Valov]

“The larger the dimensions, the less problems with waves” - this is theoretical, but in practice it will be necessary to strengthen the fuselage, and this is additional weight, which is very critical for an aircraft. And the second - one thing is a ship with a displacement of several thousand tons, another is a flying boat weighing 100 - 150 tons. The difference in their bumpiness will be enormous.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Sergey Valov

And secondly, a ship with a displacement of several thousand tons is one thing, a flying boat weighing 100 - 150 tons is another.

TTX ekranoplan KM:
Length - 92 m
Wingspan - 37.6 m
Plumage span - 37 m
Height - 21.8 m
Wing area - 662.5 m2
Maximum take-off weight - kg 544000
Empty weight - 240000 kg
Maximum speed - 500 km / h
Cruising speed - 430 km / h
Flight range - 1500 km
Flight height on the screen - 4-14 m
Seaworthiness - 3 points

The "Caspian Monster" was replaced by the world's first and only combat ekranoplane armed with six missiles - "Lun", also known as "Project 903". It was designed in the same place as KM - in Nizhny Novgorod - and launched in 1986. In size inferior to the older brother,
but had a larger wingspan - 45 meters, which gave the device high stability.
The length of the "Lun" is 73 meters,
height - 20 meters,
and the wingspan is 45 meters.
Weight - about 400 tons.
"Lun" could rise "on the screen" to a height of up to 5 meters.
Up to 10 people were on board at the same time. Unlike other models, the Lun was more seaworthy.
- could withstand a storm up to 5-6 points.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Sergey Valov

And what will he do with excitement of more than 2 - 3 points?

"Lun" had a take-off limit of 5 points, landing of 6, and most likely because of the radar and weapons, because the same "Rescuer" had no landing restrictions, theoretically of course. But Soviet engineers "in theory" were quite able.

[tlauicol]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Sergey Valov

And what will he do with excitement of more than 2 - 3 points?

"Lun" had a take-off limit of 5 points, landing of 6, and most likely because of the radar and weapons, because the same "Rescuer" had no landing restrictions, theoretically of course. But Soviet engineers "in theory" were quite able.

They knew how, they knew how .. Just explain: how to drag Lun at 5 points in the dock into the sea, and take it out of the dock? And then in 6 points to get?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

They knew how, they knew how .. Just explain: how to drag Lun at 5 points in the dock into the sea, and take it out of the dock? And then in 6 points to get?

Do not shame yourself by repeating Kaptsov's stupidity, the dock was needed by the planned detachment of ships in 10 units. for completion and repair, and possibly for delivery by river from the plant to the completion point, no more.

[tlauicol]

Yeah. Too bad Lun didn't know about it. Probably finished building
Oleg, unlike you, did not invent performance characteristics and did not evaluate "by eye"

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Yeah. Too bad Lun didn't know about it. Probably finished building
Oleg, unlike you, did not invent performance characteristics and did not evaluate "by eye"

The fact that EP Lun was in CONSERVATION, moreover, as a regime object for 20 years on the deck of a special dock, in the water area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXba foreign plant, does not mean that he had to stand there after each campaign. Well, THREE (including KM) heavy EP and one dock ...

Quote: Tlauicol

Oleg, unlike you, did not invent performance characteristics and did not evaluate "by eye"

What performance characteristics for "Lun" did I invent? And Kaptsov ignored some characteristics, inflated others, and even kept silent about facts that were inconvenient for his article. And "basing each ES on its own dock" is just stupidity.

[tlauicol]

Km + Lun is two. We stood in the dock in turn. Who is the third?
The seas and rivers freeze, including the Caspian Sea, storms. Plus corrosion and fouling. Any big ep needs a dock if it can't crawl out.
You took numbers from the ceiling when discussing the subject, Orion 25. They are not confirmed by anything. As the figures of their other projects have not been confirmed for two decades. With the same success, all these orionists aquaglide orioles write about 200-500 passengers, intercontinental flights ... I hope you will no longer operate with this garbage as facts

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Km + Lun is two. We stood in the dock in turn. Who is the third?

"Take turns" What nonsense is delicious

Quote: Tlauicol

The seas and rivers freeze, including the Caspian Sea, storms.

And during a storm, too, in turn, or did they throw a coin, who should stand warm and dry? Really funny. It’s also funny because what will you do with all sorts of missile and other boats and RTOs in bad weather? They also need a dock for everyone, right?
The third - "Rescuer" - 90 percent. readiness.

Quote: Tlauicol

Any big ep needs a dock if it can't crawl out.

You don’t understand the simplest things, although you yourself write about them ... Slip, a penny structure that allows you to put ships and ships up to 8000 (eight thousand) tons in water for repairs or wintering there. And a trimaran of 260 tons for the winter to put it all in one piece.
Well, why does it "need"? Since their skin thickness is several times greater than that of aircraft? (I'm talking about combat EPs)

Quote: Tlauicol

You took numbers from the ceiling when discussing the subject, Orion 25.

Those. Do you continue to consider the value judgment, which I just called, "evaluative", as figures for the reliability of which I vouch? But you expressed a deliberately and completely wrong opinion about the size of the Orion hull:

Quote: Tlauicol

So economical and cheap that two engines were needed for the fuselage like the AN 2.

So it means that it is you who operate with numbers taken from the ceiling, and obviously false.

[tlauicol]

You perfectly understood what it means in turn, do not explain. KM at the docks, see the video. Show Lun or KM on the slip?
The slip is simple. An24 of course, this was discussed in the first comments. Where is the savings?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

You perfectly understood what it means in turn, do not explain.

No, no, in one dock in turn during a storm, these are your words, so do not turn on the back.

Quote: Tlauicol

KM at the docks, see the video.

Well, formally, this photo is one, because the second is "Lun", but somewhere it was necessary to change the configuration of the engines, plus repairs, plus completion at the base. And the dock is not specialized, but just suitable, as can be seen from the size. The special document for "Lunya" is adjusted in size, for example.

Quote: Tlauicol

Show Lun or KM on the slip?

Well, for starters, turn on the logic, how did these ships get into the water at all before they got to the dock deck?
And if logic does not help, then please.
EP Rescuer on trolleys and rail tracks, with floats for guiding along the river.

And here is the "Lun", which was generally dragged to the beach by tractors, without any slip, on ballonets:

Quote: Tlauicol

The slip is simple. An24 of course, this was discussed in the first comments. Where is the savings?

And this is not a mistake, do not get out. because the An-24 had TWO engines, and you have a clear claim to the quantity:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Tlauicol
So economical and cheap that two engines were needed for the fuselage like the AN 2.

[Elephant]

Very dubious prospects for such an ekranoplan

[kamakama]

I had a chance to look at Lun in Dagestan and immediately the question is - why such narrow wings? The screen effect occurs over an extended surface, but here it is the other way around. Here they will show how it breaks away from the surface at least a meter - then you can call it a test, otherwise ... Serious doubts that it will "take off" at all

[Aviator_]

I had a chance to look at Lun in Dagestan and immediately the question is - why such narrow wings?

In Lun, in fact, the screen effect is not fully realized, however, all questions about this are for Alekseev (the designer). The variant presented in the article has a so-called two-wing scheme, when the wing butt has a large chord and the consoles are thin. The screen effect occurs at altitudes of the order of the wing chord size, that is, the presented configuration is more efficient than the Lun configuration if its main mode is flight at a height of 3-4 m. However, these machines were made for different tasks.

[kamakama]

So I see that structurally it is more reminiscent of the Bartini ekranoplan, which is rusting in Monino than Alekseev. Wing-hull

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Aviator_

Lun, in fact, does not fully realize the screen effect, however, all questions are for Alekseev about this ... .... than Lun's configuration, if he has the main mode - flight at a height of 3-4 m (designer)

Why such a conclusion? The normal height of the screen for the "Lun" is up to 10 m. Because at least the wing width of the "Lun" is 12 m.

Quote: Aviator_

The variant presented in the article has a so-called two-wing scheme, when the wing butt has a large chord and the consoles are thin.

The two-wing scheme for the EP is, in aviation terms, a longitudinal biplane. Orion has a scheme - a monoplane with a composite wing and a variable chord.

[Aviator_]

The two-wing scheme for the EP is, in aviation terms, a longitudinal biplane.

Vladimir, the XXXIII Scientific and Technical Conference of TsAGI on aerodynamics was recently held here (December 15-16.12, 2022, Volodarsky settlement, Moscow Region), so the ekranoplan scheme (double-winged) was called there. I surprised myself.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: kamakama

structurally, it is more reminiscent of the Bartini ekranoplan

Bartini had a full-fledged aircraft, with vertical takeoff, with the ability to land on water. This is not an ekranoplan at all. https://youtu.be/xbOn6giCCoo?t=26

[tlauicol]

No. This copy of Bertini took off like an airplane. And flew like a pregnant chicken. Without cargo and without additional 8 engines.
The one that was supposed to take off vertically on a dozen engines did not take off at all.
This is a shooting, not a brilliant invention

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Tlauicol

No. This copy of Bertini took off like an airplane. And flew like a pregnant chicken. Without cargo and without additional 8 engines.
The one that was supposed to take off vertically on a dozen engines did not take off at all.
This is a shooting, not a brilliant invention

The design was created for one engine, but they gave it from what is - it's amazing that he flew at all on anyhow.

[tlauicol]

What? You look at what flew and flies on this "anyhow" for decades, and how it flies!

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Tlauicol

What? You look at what flew and flies on this "anyhow" for decades, and how it flies!

I wrote there

Quote: Bad_gr

The design was created for one engine, but they gave it from what is

What is not clear in the words "not the engines for which the aircraft was designed"?

[tlauicol]

Yes, everything is clear. His grenades are of the wrong system. Do you believe in it yourself? Or were EPs designed for a non-existent engine? Brilliant. Genius to shoot

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Aviator_

so there that was the name of the ekranoplan scheme (double-winged). I surprised myself.

If we are talking about this particular EP, or Alekseev’s, then it’s strange, but maybe we are talking about a two-wing scheme, then there is one, but in my opinion theoretical, maximum on models.

[Normann]

He doesn’t need to take off anywhere, isn’t it clear yet.)

[75 Sergey]

Engines in the front in this configuration - there is no review.
No, this is not an ekranolet, this is not some kind of plane.

[Sergey T19]

I think that Lun was 50 years ahead of his time. If he had been brought to mind at one time, then now the United States at sea would have had much more headaches.

[Aviator_]

I think that Lun was 50 years ahead of his time. If he had been brought to mind at one time

If Alekseev had not died, they would have brought to mind. But the country was already crawling into the insanity of stagnation, both the aviation industry and the shipbuilding industry were pushing away from the car.

[zwlad]

It looks ugly (IMHO), which means it should not fly. At least not in the series. As a lab, let them gain experience.
It is weakly visible to the designers to recreate what has been lost since the times of the USSR.

[low war]

“If the design looks beautiful, then it is calculated correctly”
Gustave Eiffel
I suspect that this 'freak' is an intermediate stage of testing certain subsystems for the prototype. I do not believe!

[shish]

A dangerous flying machine - low, in the evening or in a snowstorm in the steppe, a KAMAZ shift already 3m high - will blow away, Baikal, the Black Sea, the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov, the very thing, At least flew above the trees!

[usm5]

I don’t know how it will manifest itself at sea in stormy weather, but with a little roughness it is quite a striking low-speed high-speed vehicle, which, in my opinion, has good prospects in the Baltic, Caspian and Black seas.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from usm5

I don’t know how it will manifest itself at sea in stormy weather, but with a little roughness it is quite a striking low-speed high-speed vehicle, which, in my opinion, has good prospects in the Baltic, Caspian and Black seas.

"Lun" is an excellent apparatus for the near sea zone.
I can't finish my post about him.

[Brother]

Mmmm yes. Practicality is of course good. You look ... at the "newly created! and it feels like the design of the 50s 70s ... or collected from what was lying under your feet.

[ivan2022]

Generals will only be interested in grandmas. As one Russian politician said: "grandmothers must be made!"

And here, on the contrary, grandmothers must be spent on a certain trough, the analogue of which was in the USSR, but we still had no sense from him or from the USSR itself.

Such is our mournful life: one and the wind in the back, others and their own developments and other historical achievements only interfere.

[tlauicol]

So economical and cheap that two engines were needed for the fuselage like the AN 2.
About 500 km / h is also not funny. When will they calm down?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Tlauicol

So economical and cheap that two engines were needed for the fuselage like the AN 2.
About 500 km / h is also not funny. When will they calm down?

Do you know that an ekranoplan needs a lot of engine power only for takeoff? For the same KM (dad "Lunya") out of 10 engines in flight, only 2 worked

And Orlyonok out of 3 engines only 1-in remained in operation

[tlauicol]

Imagine that you have 10 legs. Eight for running. And then you run two. It's great, right?
Imagine that you are being pushed into a car with four engines: three for acceleration, further on one. The rest are on the roof, in the cabin and in the trunk. Class! Profitability convenience low cost capacity load capacity stability simplicity of design and maintenance .. Yeah

[Bad_gr]

Aircraft engines were installed on these ekranoplans, which were already leaving their resource on aircraft (according to aircraft standards). A good niche for units that still work and work.

Quote: Tlauicol

Imagine that you have 10 legs. Eight for running. And then you run two. It's great, right?

Why would I pretend to be such a fool?
Ekranoplans existed and exist in iron, they do not go into oblivion, which means they have advantages over other modes of transport that cover their shortcomings.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Imagine that you have 10 legs. Eight for running. And then you run two. It's great, right?

And what do you say to the fact that almost ALL warships have full-speed engines or a power reserve the same as for cruising, and here they are, that engines, that reserve, are almost NEVER used, except for tests.

[tlauicol]

I will say that the ekranoplan has to burn the engines at full speed all the time, only the aircraft does not work out of it.
And name me a ship that needs 2-6 times more engines to get moving

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Tlauicol

I will say that the ekranoplan has to burn the engines all the time at full speed, ...

Give a link to the source of information from where you got it

Quote: Tlauicol

... only the plane does not work out of it .....

A person undertakes to discuss on a topic that he has not even read.
Read about the ekranoplan "Eaglet", which was adopted by us in 1979. Maximum weight 140 tons
flight altitude in Airplane mode - up to 3000 m (effective up to 2000 m).
That is, like an airplane, when necessary, some of them fly.

The flight mode on the screen they have "cruising", that is, the most economical. And not cruising - here, at the request of the customer.

[tlauicol]

Fly, fly.. just a little bit now

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

I will say that the ekranoplan has to burn the engines at full speed all the time, only the aircraft does not work out of it.

What, everything and at full capacity? But no, even at full speed at 500 km / h, Lun used HALF of the engines at maximum LONG (take an interest in how this differs from take-off) thrust.

Quote: Tlauicol

And name me a ship that needs 2-6 times more engines to get moving

Please - these are ALL ships if the command "Full speed" is given!
And 1-2 motors were enough to maneuver at low speed in the water area for all large EPs.
I'm afraid that you seem to know the subject only from Santa Fe opuses.

[tlauicol]

Ok, will we compare the cargo EP (aircraft) in terms of economic benefits with a ship? I'm ready, let's go?

Yeah, otherwise the ship won't move Will ep take off? Or will it save money at a slow pace?

Looking forward to your opus

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Ok, will we compare the cargo EP (aircraft) in terms of economic benefits with a ship? I'm ready, let's go?

Actually, I was talking about BATTLE ships.

Quote: Tlauicol

Imagine that you have 10 legs. Eight for running. And then you run two. It's great, right?

After all, this is pr KM and Lun, isn't it?
It's funny, but possible: Lun at 340 tons and 12 members. The crew carried 6 missiles of 4 tons each, and "Lightning" 4 of the same missiles with 460 tons and 40 crew members. With heavier carriers of "Mosquitoes" the ratio is even cooler.

Quote: Tlauicol

Yeah, otherwise the ship won't move yes Will ep take off? Or will it save money at a slow pace?

Did you even understand what you wrote? In general, I’m talking about the fact that warships carry meaningless and very expensive engines most of the time.
And the EP took off on the screen in 1,5-2 minutes maximum and then went on the economy mode, and alternating engines.

[tlauicol]

ANY eps carry extra weight most of the time.
Yep, it's good luck. Hours 6.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

ANY eps carry extra weight most of the time.

Specifically, Orion, if overweight, is not much more than a floatplane of equal gp, but now there are no such seaplanes. And flying boats are not suitable for operation on snow and ice.
But the combat EP of the "Lun" type is really heavier than aircraft similar in GP, ​​but it could hang out on the water for 5 days, in an arbitrary region of the sea, without any dock, moreover.

Quote: Tlauicol

Yep, it's good luck. Hours 6.

Is this a claim? I'll tell you more, "Lun" went at full speed for only 4 hours, though for 2000 km and with 24 tons of missiles and 4-5 tons of radars. But at 440 km / h, already yes, as much as 7 hours, but already at 3000 km. It’s bad to say, or whether it’s the Gadfly - these 2000 km could stretch as much as 59 hours, if I don’t confuse the range with economic and cruising.

[ISKANDER_61]

Everything is now new, well-forgotten Soviet old.

[Elephant]

It would be better if this shipbuilding enterprise with the loud name Vanguard focused on current military orders and developments. By the way, a new modern flagship is also needed by the Black Sea Fleet, instead of the sunken one

[Pavel57]

What engines? And according to what standards - aviation or shipbuilding?