What to replace the wig?




History knows a lot of fantastic projects, surprising with their courage and complete isolation from reality.
Submarine aircraft carriers (submarines with a seaplane - used by Japan for symbolic "bombardment" of Oregon forests).
Vertically taking off amphibious BBA-14. Amazing beauty car. True, it remained unclear why the amphibians had a vertical take-off, when around - an endless water surface, suitable as a runway.

Pocket Pistol for the B-36 strategic bomber. Mini fighter XF-85 "Goblin", suspended in the bomb bay and produced when the appearance of enemy aircraft. Crazy from start to finish the project, however, managed to grow to the stage of flight tests.

And, of course, WIG - another bold attempt to deceive the laws of nature. A unique design combining the “speed of the aircraft with the carrying capacity of traditional ships”, capable of “moving above water and a hard surface” and “having the broadest prospects in the field of passenger and maritime transport, saving people in distress at sea, as well as as a military vehicle for the transfer of troops or carrier of cruise missiles. " Unfortunately, all the above-mentioned advantages of WIG - false information, widely replicated on the Internet. The ekranoplan does not possess any of these properties.

Comparison of an ekranoplan with a ship is completely groundless - the largest of the built “monsters” are inferior in carrying capacity even to heavy transport aircraft, and against the background of ships they generally look like small graceful boats. The comparison of ekranoplanes with aviation - airplanes fly two to three times faster. The last argument - the ability to fly over a smooth hard surface (earth, snow, ice), can cause bewilderment for passengers of Tu-154 or Il-96 - the plane in principle is indifferent to the relief under the wing. Taiga, mountains, ocean ...

This is easily seen on concrete examples - during the past discussions of the “screen effect” we repeatedly observed curious scenes:

- The transport winged aircraft "Eaglet" and "The Caspian Monster" smashed to smithereens the An-12, An-22 and An-124 transport planes on the criteria: "speed, cost, distance of transportation", as well as on the spectrum of application and ensuring flight safety. The same applies to the unrealized American project "Pelican" - the victory of technology over common sense;

- Comparison of the combat ekranoplan "Lun" with the ships of the Navy fleet also did not go in favor of the “goose unicorn” - the newly made “killer of aircraft carriers” turned out to be completely defenseless machine with minimal strike potential. Under such conditions, a higher ekranoplan speed (at best - 600 km / h) no longer matters - for modern jet aircraft, the Lun and the destroyer are equally static objects. Only the latter can stand up for itself, but the military ekranoplan cannot - (if you install ship-mounted air defense systems on the "Lun", an overloaded monster simply cannot fly into the air).

- just as unsuccessfully, there was a comparison of the “Lun” ground-winged waggon with the supersonic Tu-22 and Tu-22M bomber — a huge low-speed vehicle with a tiny combat radius, looking like a flying embarrassment against the background of the Tupolev design bomber. In addition, “Lunya” had problems with target designation - flying near the surface of the water, he did not see anything further than his nose (20 km radio horizon). And finally, expensive, too expensive! - that only cost 8 jet engines NK-87, taken from the wide-body passenger airliner IL-86.

- for the same reasons, the idea of ​​a rescue ekranoplan was a utopia. “Guseedinor” is simply unable to detect the victims of a shipwreck due to its low altitude. In addition, the flight range is too short (2000 km) - contrary to all dreams, the Rescuer Wiggyback could not have been saved by the crew of the Komsomolets boat, which sank in the Norwegian Sea.
What to replace the wig?

"Caspian Monster"


The irrelevance of the construction of WIG-monsters became clear at the design stage. The main reasons for the failure of designer Rostislav Alekseev are fundamental natural prohibitions: too high air density in the lower atmosphere, as well as obvious difficulties to take off from the surface of the water - to overcome the monstrous resistance (ekranoplan sediment - a few meters!) And the force of "sticking" water to the body " Caspian Monsters "required power plants of incredible power (KM - 10 (ten!) RD-7 jet engines, taken from Tu-22 bomber. Take-off costs - 30 tons of kerosene!). Such indicators, of course, put an end to the further career of the “Goose-unicorns”.

The excuses associated with the lack of time and money for Alexeyev to improve their structures have no real basis: the first acquaintance of aviators with the screen effect (the appearance of a dynamic "airbag" under the wing when flying near a shielding surface) occurred as early as 20. last century. Rostislav Alekseev seriously dealt with this topic from the 50-s, the work went so successfully that already in 1966 an incredible 500 – ton “Caspian monster” took to the air. Such a construction cannot be recreated in artisanal conditions, the construction of the Monster demanded the enormous efforts of a whole research and production team. Everything went fine until the discouraging test results were obtained. The result - only about 10 "monsters" of various purposes (including prototypes and unfinished cores) were built.

For comparison, the helicopter industry: if you do not take into account the original projects of Leonardo Da Vinci, the helicopter industry received a start in life in 1911, when engineer Boris Yuryev invented the blade skew machine. The first flights on "helicopters" began in 1920-x, each time faster and farther and more confident. Limited use in World War II - and the triumphal take-off of helicopters during the Korean War. There is nothing to add here - the helicopter had really wonderful qualities.

Another "unicorn goose" did not fly farther away from the museum

Visitors to the site "Military Review" rightly drew attention to the existence of a large number of homemade ekranoplanov designs created by enthusiasts around the world. Now, ekranoplans are still a popular subject, almost at every exhibition of aviation and marine equipment you can find a stand with models of these machines and bright booklets describing their extreme characteristics and efficiency. This, for sure, is no accident ...

Are lightweight wig - the very desired application niche for this type of technology?

I suggest readers make a brief comparison of the three cars:
- modern EKVOLK EK-12P (2000 g.),
- the ancient "corncob" An-2 (1947 g.),
- the legendary UH-1 “Iroquois” helicopter (1956).



At first glance, the lightweight wig looks very attractive - not yielding to light aircraft in speed and payload, it has no equal in terms of fuel efficiency. But the first impression is deceptive, the An-2 and the Iroquois helicopter are quite old cars, for example, the ASH-62 engine installed back in the distant 1937 year based on the licensed Wright Cyclone is installed on the corncob. Put on the "Oriole" instead of modern BMW engines, the engine from the "emka" and see how the characteristics of the device will change. And do not forget to make a discount on the archaic design of An-2 - no composites, plastics and other high-tech. Heavy (but cheap and durable) wheels of the main landing gear from the Il-2 attack aircraft. Not the highest quality assembly and aerodynamics. Passengers of the Ivolg ekranoplan sit in armchairs, leaning shoulder to shoulder - the An-2 passengers, on the contrary, can freely get up and walk to the end of the cabin, where the “bucket” sanitary system is installed on the 15 frame — a thing of no small importance, considering the “bumper” "During the flight" kukuruznik "near the surface of the earth.

Oriole EK-12P



Legendary Crop Duster



Cessna-172 with modern "tuning"


For the sake of justice, a more modern light-engine Cessna-172 aircraft (first flight - 1955) can be considered. The Cessna cannot be directly compared to the An-2, since This aircraft is in a completely different weight category (max. take-off weight - a little more than a ton). Nevertheless, it is possible to make some correlation between the performance of the Orioles, the corncob and the Cessna.

The Cessna-172 takes on board up to four people (including the pilot) and is able to cover the 1300 km distance with a cruising speed of 220 km / h. The power plant - the only four-cylinder engine power 160 hp The fuel supply on board is 212 liters. The Cessna-172 showed very good performance, which, coupled with its simplicity, reliability and low cost, ensured its global success. As a result, the small Cessna became the most massive aircraft in aviation history.

From all of this comparison follows a straightforward conclusion: lightweight wig can quite successfully compete with light aircraft. Small size, good aerodynamics and low airspeed level all the disadvantages of the large "Caspian monsters" and provide excellent fuel economy. The disadvantages of the car are its price (it’s enough to estimate the cost of servicing two 12-cylinder engines from BMW 7-series) and the limited scope associated with water areas (for the most daring ones there is snow-covered tundra without subsurface and power lines). Verdict - the car on the fan.



These flying boats represent a new level of military equipment, designed to strengthen our defense capabilities. They are not afraid of the waves, and they are able to fly very low with great speed, which makes them almost invisible.
Ahmad Vahidi, Iranian Defense Minister


A very interesting story is connected with the creation of ekranoplans in Iran - several years ago it became known that the guards of the Islamic revolution adopted three squadrons of flying boats - light single-winged ekranoplanes of the type “Bavar-2” (“confidence” translated from Farsi). A special feature of Iranian cars is the delta wing - the result of the work of the German aircraft designer Alexander Lippisha, who dealt with the problem of the “screen effect” along with Rostislav Alekseev.

The works of Lippish were well known throughout the world, including in the USSR. As early as the beginning of the 80s, Soviet enthusiasts designed a light flying boat, the design of which, up to individual elements, completely coincides with the design of the Bavar-2. Iranians only slightly modernized WIG, replacing pulling propeller with pushing and probably equipped their cars. weapons and special equipment (according to official data, "Bavar-2" is armed with a machine gun).

Of the unique properties of "Bavar-2" - high secrecy. For the US Navy, Iranian ekranoplan is like the Elusive Joe, whom no one is looking for, because nobody needs that one. Jokes, but if the “Bavar-2” case is made of wood, plastic or other radio-transparent materials, the detection of such small targets becomes a really difficult task. Another thing is that a single light combat vehicle does not pose any threat to enemy ships ... However, if there are desperate guys, the mosquito fleet can be used for reconnaissance and sabotage similar to attacks on tankers during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). )

Finally, I would like to tell an optimistic story related to the creation of a high-speed passenger ship for the A145 gliding project. Modern Russian development, embodied in the metal at the Zelenodolsk shipyard. The ship was launched in May 2012.


The ship of the project A145 is designed to carry 150 passengers with baggage with a speed of 40 nodes over a distance of 200 miles during daylight hours in the coastal sea zone. The maritime qualities of a high-speed passenger ship provide the ability to operate at sea state up to 5 points. Full tonnage of А145 type vessel - 82 tons, power plant - two MTU diesel engines for 2000 hp. each.

A sufficiently high level of comfort is provided on board the new passenger ship, including through a rational layout and a spacious cabin with a multimedia system, comfortable seating, air conditioning, three bathrooms, and catering for passengers on board.

Actually, I gave an example of this masterpiece of shipbuilding, to show you how economical a ship is compared to an ekranoplan. The gliding ship of type А145 had two diesel engines with the total power of 4000 hp. The Eagranoplan "Eaglet" at one time took the main propulsion turboprop engine NK-12 15 thousand hp, plus two turbojet NK-8, taken from the passenger Tu-154.
With the same payload (20 tons, 150 marines), the glorious brainchild of Rostislav Alekseev was twice as large and 28 spent tons of kerosene per 1500 km of the way. The difference in the cost of a liter of aviation kerosene and diesel fuel can be neglected.










Eaglet, Eaglet - a mighty bird
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. FID
    FID 16 January 2013 09: 31 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Good morning Oleg! WIG - a "sore" topic? But, probably, there were a lot of such "symbionts": snowmobiles, buer .... They also tried to adapt them to cargo and passenger transportation. History puts everything in its place, I think.
    1. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 11: 37 New
      • -10
      • 0
      -10
      Good morning!
      Goose unicorns is a sore subject of our whole country. A lot of cool things were done in the USSR - from super-submarines to orbital stations, but for some reason the goose-unicorn was most remembered in human memory.
      1. sniper 16 January 2013 13: 36 New
        • 12
        • 0
        +12
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Goose unicorns - a sore subject

        Good afternoon friends ! Oleg, with all due respect to you, I should note that this article is just a cheating falsification ... To begin with, constantly applying the term "Goose-unicorns", which you like so much, you do incorrectly, it’s about the same as if if you would have been approached by the "Frantic Screen Hater", you must admit that this is not beautiful ... Further, comparing Eaglet with a gliding ship, you again forget that Eaglet is not designed for 40 nodal moves, which leads to its increased power supply and gluttony. And even here:
        From all of this comparison follows a straightforward conclusion: lightweight wig can quite successfully compete with light aircraft. Small size, good aerodynamics and low airspeed level all the disadvantages of the large "Caspian monsters" and provide excellent fuel economy. The disadvantages of the car are its price (it’s enough to estimate the cost of servicing two 12-cylinder engines from BMW 7-series) and the limited scope associated with water areas (for the most daring ones there is snow-covered tundra without subsurface and power lines). Verdict - the car on the fan.

        You are a little cunning ... What do you want to say that a BMW engine is more expensive to maintain than an airplane engine? What about safety in the event of engine failure? All conceivable arguments have long been given, so is it worth it to return to the same topic with enviable constancy? I will not evaluate either the article or your posts, respecting you ...
        1. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 21: 44 New
          • -7
          • 0
          -7
          Quote: sniper
          The eaglet is not created for the 40 nodal move, which leads to its increased power density and gluttony

          There is a very economical vessel for the 20 nodal move
          There is a less eco-friendly planing boat for the 40 nodal course
          There is an uneconomical aircraft for the 500-node move

          But what does the WIG Eaglet offer us?
          200 nodal move. Profitability - worse than aircraft

          Question: Why is Eaglet necessary?
        2. kavad 17 January 2013 18: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I support! How many of his articles about ekranoplanes read - transfusion from empty to empty, all the same.
          Che and clung ...
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 3 May 2014 22: 19 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            wants Russia not to have them. for some reason.
            1. saturn.mmm 3 May 2014 23: 37 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              wants Russia not to have them. for some reason.

              Ivanovich You are on the page a year ago, look at the dates.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 4 May 2014 04: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Is there any problem?
                1. saturn.mmm 4 May 2014 09: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  Is there any problem?

                  No. It is unlikely that someone is reading it.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 4 May 2014 12: 38 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    so until she decides, then read from what is now on the top will always be what.
                    1. Shurik70 21 October 2018 18: 46 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      I believe that any technique has its own scope.
                      If you need to deliver a large cargo by sea, without rushing - yes, it is better to use an ordinary sea vessel.
                      Passengers who prefer short distances by water are better off with a glider or hydrofoil (relatively cheap), and long ones — by plane (the fastest means of delivery).
                      If rescuers are brought to a sinking ship, the best thing is a seaplane.
                      But if you need to land a company of landing on the shore, where there is no marina - then the Caspian Monster will do.
        3. Kassandra
          Kassandra 3 May 2014 22: 17 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          here, a gang of at least three accounts is clearly operating, which inspires the electorate, which is fragile in the brains, that:
          1. ekranoplanes is bad (only for some reason everyone except the Russian Federation makes them, even Germany and Iran)
          2. aircraft carriers are bad (only for some reason everyone except the Russian Federation and Germany makes them)
          3. VTOL is bad (only for some reason everyone except France and Israel have them, even Thailand)

          and all this so that the Russian Navy does not have a global projection of force, its SSBNs and fighter cover could be easily detected by anti-submarine aircraft, and front-line aviation and air defense aircraft of the Russian Federation in the event were easily destroyed at airfields (1941, 1967, to be continued)

          the most dangerous for them is of course an aircraft carrier wing bully
          1. Mooh 25 August 2014 19: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Shh, don’t disclose to state secret. lol
          2. Basarev 4 November 2014 12: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And there was such a project - remember the famous Second. Just planned aircraft ekranoplan. A model was created, but what happened next, I do not remember. But I remember very well the project of Robert Bartini SVVP-2500 - they were planning to build an intercontinental VTOL amphibian the size of a football field and the theoretical possibility of modernization into a flying nose. The famous VVA-14 has become a large-scale acting model of this monster. In the case of the successful construction of the aircraft carrier SVVP-2500, the possibility of such an unlimited projection of force appeared that where the United States was with their carriers.
          3. The comment was deleted.
      2. Genry 16 January 2013 14: 46 New
        • 13
        • 0
        +13
        Does the author of the article compare the interior decoration or the capabilities of ekranoplanes?
        And right at all it hurts so much that everyone constantly and without exception speaks about it. Yes, in general, few people know about ekranoplans.
        And why did the author want to write about the fact that he clearly does not like and does not know?

        Does the customer spit?

        Minus per article!
  2. Baron Wrangell 16 January 2013 09: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    interesting opinion about ekranoplans!
    Eo, because in Soviet times there were hydrofoil ships that were fast and maneuverable, why they didn’t develop this topic, surely fast ships would be useful for landing operations!
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 16 January 2013 09: 38 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      IPC FALCON ....................
      1. FID
        FID 16 January 2013 09: 50 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Great, Sasha!
    2. FID
      FID 16 January 2013 09: 40 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      They are small, small. And to build big ??? Who knows what would happen. And here is another example - the Australian trimaran A-127m, speed - the same 40 knots, transports 1200 passengers and a bunch of cars ....
      1. FID
        FID 16 January 2013 09: 43 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        The appearance of the trimaran
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 16 January 2013 09: 51 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Hi Seryozha, the Swedes created the ferry, but there the problem is high fuel consumption.
          1. FID
            FID 16 January 2013 10: 09 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            In this respect, a trimaran is preferable, I think. He has water cannons,
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 16 January 2013 10: 17 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Seryozha I am not a major specialist in this area, but in my opinion he will have problems with stability.
              1. FID
                FID 16 January 2013 10: 26 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Do trimaran? No, the three hulls give very good stability, remember the native boats with counterweights. And the middle case, in addition, has a small wetted surface. Those. low resistance. But I, too, will not be from the sea, I could be wrong. Off-topic, the Cubans have come to study now, January is full. Well, you know what I mean.
            2. sniper 16 January 2013 13: 53 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: SSI
              . He has water cannons,

              SSI, alex 241Sergey, Sasha! Hi friends ! Well, water jets are not more economical engines, rather the opposite ... At high speeds, partially immersed super-cavitating propellers are probably more interesting ... But we must not forget that the planing mode, even with very little disturbance, leads to huge dynamical loads on the ship ... They experimented with different contours of the case, but in my opinion they didn’t find anything acceptable ...
          2. Srgsoap 16 January 2013 12: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            And I know this car ... Between Hong Kong and Macau runs ... it is very cool ... although of course it's already a bit old. Had a ride a few times.
    3. kpd
      kpd 16 January 2013 12: 32 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      At one time, I talked with employees of the Feodosia Shipbuilding Plant "More" on which hydrofoils were built. So they explained to me that usually after a trip at maximum speed the ship was immediately driven for repair - cavitation spoiled the wing edge and screws.
      Well, it is precisely for amphibious operations that hydrofoil vessels are not suitable — their underwater part is too tender — to climb in shallow water.
      1. FID
        FID 16 January 2013 13: 10 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        I agree with you! Cavitation on the wings all the time!
        1. Kir
          Kir 16 January 2013 18: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And in many cases, cavitation is created deliberately to reduce drag, and what is surprisingly common when applied to hydrofoils, look at the information on the same supercavitation.
    4. Firstvanguard 30 March 2013 06: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I want to recall that the authorship of hydrofoil vessels belongs to the same Alekseev. After practicing and introducing ships on this principle, he set about the subject of ekranoplanes. Knowing all the advantages and disadvantages of hydrofoils. And I think this ingenious man was not at all a short-sighted moron sawing the state budget on utopian projects, as is customary in 3.14ndosia.
      The huge power-to-weight ratio of the ekranoplan is needed only when entering the mode, at cruising speed, it is even possible to turn off some of the engines. Regarding low altitude and blindness, no one canceled external target designation. As well as air cover. In addition, flying at low altitudes makes it difficult to detect the ekranoplan itself.
      In the end, neither Lun, nor KM, nor Eaglet were completed projects; these are extremely experimental machines. If work on this topic was fully continued, then the final characteristics of such machines at the output would be significantly different for the better from those we know. After all, we compare them with ships and planes that continued to develop all this time.
      The article is full of prejudice, because - soldier
  3. Zerstorer 16 January 2013 09: 40 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Quote: "
    - modern EKVOLK EK-12P (2000 g.),
    - the ancient "corncob" An-2 (1947 g.),
    - the legendary UH-1 Iroquois helicopter (1956). "
    Take something newer ... now finding data is not a problem.

    Quote: "Cessna-172" takes on board up to four people (including the pilot) "
    You would have compared with a bicycle and rollers. The criteria for the same target (commercial) load (not to be confused with the payload) are relevant here.

    Quote: “No jokes, but if the Bavar-2 case is made of wood, plastic or other radio-transparent materials, the detection of such small targets turns into a really difficult task.” You yourself do not know the topic you are talking about. Your statement is true if there are no reflective elements at all on the Bavar-2. Example: All-wooden aircraft are clearly visible and not obscure.

    Quote: "With the same carrying capacity (20 tons, 150 marines), the glorious brainchild of Rostislav Alekseev was twice as large and consumed 28 tons of kerosene per 1500 km of track." You yourself said that the comparison with the vessel is not correct?

    PS Have you read Belavin’s book? (I’m already telling you about this 5 times).
  4. LaGlobal 16 January 2013 10: 40 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The best ekranoplanes were created in the Soviet Union by Soviet scientists!
    Everything else is beautiful toys!
  5. Avenich 16 January 2013 10: 55 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    Oleg again for his. First of all, the message: How to replace the ekranoplans? ", Which reminds us of Solozhentsevskoye" How can we equip Russia? " there’s only one thing when they will be replaced. The following is an incomprehensible comparison of passive hovercraft with airplanes. I propose in the next article to compare the ekranoplan with a ballistic missile and a rover. As for the reciprocating motion of technical wonders, if I were you, I’d hack "all modern Boeing aircraft. They dared to use a propeller on a noble turbine engine. As for popular prospectuses of firms, firms and firms, I agree, because" first we sell the film, and then we shoot it (Cosmic Eggs (s) ".
    I just don’t understand why you are so obsessed with ekranoplans with amazing perseverance worthy of a better application.
    In the end, find sponsors, build an ultramodern ekranoplan or even an ekranolet, carry out a test cycle, push it into a series, and then ask "what is there to replace them with?"
    1. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 11: 47 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      Quote: Avenich
      How to replace the ekranoplans? ", What reminds us of the Solozhentsevsky" How can we equip Russia? "

      I did not read Solzhenitsyn.
      "How do we equip Russia" - did he propose something realistic, or was he engaged in manilism?

      Quote: Avenich
      Followed by not quite clear comparison Passive hovercraft with airplanes. I propose in the next article to compare the ekranoplan with a ballistic missile

      It doesn’t matter what the vehicle’s maintenance principle is (floats, hydrofoils, dynamic cushion, static cushion, wings). And which engine (ICE, nuclear or Stirling)

      But if this vehicle is going to compete with airplanes and ships - it should be compared with airplanes and ships

      A ballistic missile is not a direct competitor to aviation and the navy, therefore its example is incorrect.

      Quote: Avenich
      I just don’t understand why you are so obsessed with ekranoplans with amazing perseverance worthy of a better application.

      EMNIP of all 3 stories from 100

      Quote: Avenich
      In the end, find sponsors, build an ultramodern ekranoplan or even an ekranolet, conduct a test cycle, push it into a series

      This has already been done by Alekseev and Beriev. Result -
      1. FID
        FID 16 January 2013 13: 13 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        Well, here I do not agree with you. What does the result mean "-". The USSR would not have collapsed, but Alekseev would have been alive - I think in the Pacific Fleet the ekranoplanes would run.
        1. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 13: 17 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -3
          Quote: SSI
          The USSR would not collapse, but Alekseev would be alive

          The USSR collapsed. Miles and Kamov passed away, HOWEVER
          Mi-8 (Mi-17, Mi-171) - the most massive helicopter in the world, production continues
          Ka-52 - production continues

          Life has put everything in its place
          1. FID
            FID 16 January 2013 13: 24 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9
            Mi-8 managed to launch in a series before the collapse of the USSR. Mi-17, Mi-171 - refinement of the eight. The Ka-50/52 is a good example, but I think that ekranoplanes would launch.
  6. Nastyusha
    Nastyusha 16 January 2013 12: 51 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    They are not needed. There is no autonomy, they can’t go to sea, they can’t stand a serious storm, firing rockets on them is just a circus. For inland seas too expensive.
    1. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 13: 13 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      New faces on the site! This is a good omen))))

      Quote: Nastya
      firing rockets on them is just a circus.

      The Tsar Cannon is resting
    2. Genry 16 January 2013 13: 51 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Quote: Nastya
      No autonomy,

      Ekranoplanes aerodrome is not needed. Aircraft are much less autonomous.

      Quote: Nastya
      they cannot go to sea, they cannot survive a serious storm

      Why not? This is due to size, like ships. The ekranoplan will simply run away from the storms, which is impossible for the ship. It is easier for him to find a temporary window of tolerable weather.

      Quote: Nastya
      make missiles on them it's just a circus

      On ships and planes - not a circus. And on the ekranoplane occupying an intermediate stage - it is suddenly "down."

      Quote: Nastya
      For inland seas too expensive.

      On the basis of experimental samples, with sticky engines from supersonic bombers, making conclusions is too stupid!
      They need engines like the AN-70 - high-torque but not high-speed (and in the start-break mode, an additional water-jet propulsion is needed).
    3. Hon
      Hon 16 January 2013 18: 11 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Quote: Nastya
      They are not needed. There is no autonomy, they can’t go to sea, they can’t stand a serious storm, firing rockets on them is just a circus. For inland seas too expensive.


      Advantages of ekranoplanes and ekranoslet
      High survivability
      High enough speed
      The ekranoplanes have high profitability and higher carrying capacity compared to airplanes, since the lifting force is added to the force generated from the screen effect. The ekranoplanes are superior in speed, combat and lifting characteristics to hovercraft and hydrofoils.
      For the military, the inconspicuity of the ekranoplan on radars due to flying at an altitude of several meters, speed, immunity to anti-ship mines is important.
      For ekranoplanes, the type of surface that creates the screen effect is not important - they can move over a frozen water surface, a snowy plain, over impassable roads, etc .; as a result, they can move along direct routes, they don’t need ground infrastructure: bridges, roads, etc.
      Modern ekranoleta is much safer than conventional aircraft: in the event of a malfunction in flight, an amphibian can land on water even with strong excitement. Moreover, this does not require any pre-landing maneuvers and can be carried out simply by discharging gas (for example, in case of engine malfunction). Also, engine malfunction itself is often not so dangerous for large ekranoplanes due to the fact that they have several engines divided into a starting and marching group, and a malfunctioning of a marching group engine can be compensated by starting one of the engines of the starting group.
      The ekrasoloty belong to aerodrome-free aviation - for take-off and landing they need not a specially prepared take-off strip, but only a sufficient water area or a flat land area.
  7. atos_kin 16 January 2013 12: 53 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    I think that advances in materials science, such non-wettable nanocoatings, will make it possible to return to the topic of creating ekranoplanes.
  8. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 13: 09 New
    • -7
    • 0
    -7
    Iranians may wish to quit dumbing and renew their fleet of combat aircraft. And he and so fly on 40-year-old "Phantoms" and F-14 "Tomcat"
  9. Edgar
    Edgar 16 January 2013 14: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Many THANKS to the author. Very interesting article. Thanks to her, it became clear to me why zilch came out of this venture. One thing is not clear now - Alekseev was a competent and talented designer, why did he take it and then fanatically pull it?
    1. engineer74 16 January 2013 16: 12 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +14
      Because Alekseev did not study the topic on Internet publications. hi
  10. engineer74 16 January 2013 15: 53 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    wassat Again "ekranosrach"!
    Imagine that oil costs $ 2 per barrel, operational costs come out in the first place. Will the picture change?
    "- for the same reasons, the idea of ​​a life-saving ekranoplan turned out to be utopian. The Gooseedhorn simply cannot detect shipwreck victims because of its low flight altitude."
    And what prevents the use of UAVs with a thermal imager?
  11. Chicot 1 16 January 2013 16: 24 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    At the very beginning, the author was very surprised (and also trying to surprise the reader of his material) with what the VVA-14 needed a vertical take-off when there was an endless expanse of water around ...
    So, dear author (let it be known to you), VVA-14 was originally designed for ship-based (the first, but not the last base for it was the BOD pr.1123 ... yes, the same one that is a helicopter carrier, a series of 2 units . - "Moscow" and "Leningrad"). But for this very ship-based deployment on a very limited area, he needed the same vertical take-off ... And the boundless expanse of water was certainly present (your truth). But overboard ...
    You did not know about this, dear author? .. It is clear that there isn’t ... Well, so if you didn’t know, it wasn’t necessary to write about it. This is a jamb, the author ...
    1. Chicot 1 16 January 2013 17: 25 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      In order not to be unfounded ...

      This is for you, dear author, a small (literally) picture. Pay special attention to the boat. Although it does not apply to Project 1123, it is clearly aircraft carrier. Moreover, geared specifically to the BBA-14 ...
      These are such plans, however, for this plane. And absolutely no unjustified miracles ...
      1. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 20: 36 New
        • -8
        • 0
        -8
        Quote: Chicot 1
        Pay special attention to the boat.

        Quote: Chicot 1
        This is for you, dear author, a small (literally) picture.


        This is an artist’s fantasy. There were no ships of this type in the USSR Navy
    2. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 20: 26 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Frankly, I did not particularly want to respond to your comment. The facts that you are trying to reproach the author look so stupid that they break like a house of cards

      Quote: Chicot 1
      WWA-14 was originally designed for ship-based

      You do not find the 50 tons take-off weight unusual for ship-based aircraft wink

      for comparison:
      Max. take-off weight Ka-25 - 7 tons
      Max. take-off weight Yak-38 - 10 tons
      Max. take-off weight of the F-14 Tomcat - 30 tons (the heaviest aircraft in the history of carrier-based aviation, for the base of which an aircraft carrier with an 300-meter flight deck was required)

      Quote: Chicot 1
      You did not know about this, dear author? .. It is clear that there isn’t ... Well, so if you didn’t know, it wasn’t necessary to write about it. This is a jamb, the author ...

      Let's tie with the jambs. Good advice to you.

      Quote: Chicot 1
      Moreover, geared specifically to the BBA-14 ...

      Interestingly, the BBA-14 will fit on the helicopter lift of an anti-submarine cruiser, etc. 1123? BBA wing span - about 30 meters. Although, why the BBA-14 lift? - 50-ton of engine will simply break the flight deck, designed for 7-ton helicopters




      Quote: Chicot 1
      These are such plans, however, for this plane. And absolutely no unjustified miracles ...

      the question remains the same: Why was the amphibian-VTOL created?
  12. PistonizaToR
    PistonizaToR 16 January 2013 16: 48 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    I’ll degenerate simply, without explanation, the author- Cormorant is stupid, not afraid of a ban, without explaining my position I’ll say-talk about things that you don’t understand, you don’t even have an idea, it’s strong and funny, especially for knowledgeable people. they will understand. Comparing a zone with a tram handle has always been a favorite pastime of various pseudo-readers. When I first visited this site, I got to a resource comparable in material to the magazine of the same name, but most of the articles in the zone are written by someone who hasn’t heard anything - 70%. I apologize in advance to the adequate authors ...
    1. Edgar
      Edgar 18 January 2013 17: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      if the author is so stupid - why did the construction and development of this "miracle of technology" cease? Is it because the manual came to the same conclusions as the author! And in other countries (which, incidentally, can count money) didn’t fight for it, for a deliberately useless thing
  13. abc_alex 16 January 2013 17: 07 New
    • 21
    • 0
    +21
    The author - you are a sharpie. You draw conclusions based on the rigging of facts, stubbornly ignore everything that does not fit into your doctrine.

    To start with the number of engines. This fact is known to everyone, and you, I am sure too, ALL Alekseev’s devices used a full set of engines for only a few minutes during take-off. The rest of the time they went at half, or even 1/3 of the power plant’s power! At the same time, the power-to-weight ratio of, for example, Orlenka was reduced to l / a indicators of almost 1MV! And at the same time, on 12 tons of traction, he carried his 28 tons or 200 marines at a given distance. At the same time, the engines for him (and here you did not lie, which is typical!) Really REMOVED from the aircraft! According to the testimony of the pilots, Orlenka was equipped with motors written off from the aircraft, which underwent several repairs.
    And when the entire "chandelier" KM was included in the work, then he could drag a load of about 500 tons! This is also eyewitness testimony.

    Now compare - IL-76 with a carrying capacity of 20-40 tons is equipped with 4 turboprop engines with a total capacity of 48 tons. And the An-22 Antey - being three or four carrying capacity is equipped with 4 15-ton ships, but at the same time, here's an ambush, it takes only 90 soldiers more than Eaglet! And not one of these aircraft can turn off 2/3 of its power plant in flight! :)

    And why did you “forget” to mention that Eaglet is capable of landing on an NOT EQUIPPED strip? Enough of your literary talent to describe what happens if you drive a BTA plane onto the sand of the surf? :)

    You say that the survivability of the ekranolet is negligible? And you recall the case when the Eaglet lost due to the impact on the reef half of the fuselage along with the tail and the main SU? And he reached the base.

    And in what place of the body did you invent a draft of the ekranolet of several meters? At the time of launch, the Eaglet’s wing lies on the water, and even on the chassis, the height of its lower surface above the ground is no more than 2 meters.



    Look carefully, people are standing near the wing of the distant car.

    You brought a tablet mockingly comparing a small ekranoplan, a corn dipper and a helicopter. Have you seen that the Oriole will throw a comparable load at a comparable range at 225 liters of fuel, and a corn barn per ton? At the same time, your passage touched on the high cost of servicing the Oriole's car engines. Well, yes, in our country it’s much easier to service and repair an aircraft engine than a car! :) And you can fill in jet fuel at all at any gas station.

    Well, I’ll continue a little bit about the large impact ekranoplan. What kind of devil do you need to play this ridiculous game every time, "letting out" the moon on the modern AUG? This machine was created for strikes on naval formations 30-40 years ago. And his concept, by definition, did not provide for catching the ammunition of the enemy ship-wise, all overboard. This is a machine for the rapid concentration of the anti-ship strike group, a powerful strike and quick exit from the affected area. And since they began to oppose its price and combat capabilities to the product of the "Tupolev genius" at number 22, it would be nice to recall that he was not good as a bomber. And of the entire series, less than a third of the cars were shocked.

    If you want analogies, then Lun is a self-propelled gun of naval aviation. And he does not need to go to sea in a hurricane and storm. At its speed, he simply does not need to watch the enemy ship in the open sea for days. In any case, he will catch up and fire him.
    1. Windbreak
      Windbreak 16 January 2013 17: 26 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: abc_alex
      And when the entire "chandelier" KM was included in the work, then he could drag a load of about 500 tons! This is also eyewitness testimony.
      do not confuse the maximum take-off mass with the mass of the transported cargo
      1. abc_alex 16 January 2013 17: 56 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        I do not confuse. According to eyewitnesses, the process of loading the KM for testing at maximum load capacity took a whole day. Do not forget the EC wing has significantly greater lift. And 250 tons with a draft of one and a half hundred tons is Mriya, :) although even in this case the KM is more effective - his chandelier had a total thrust of 130 tons.
        1. Windbreak
          Windbreak 16 January 2013 22: 47 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          KM has a maximum take-off weight of 544 tons
          Quote: abc_alex
          According to eyewitness accounts, the process of loading the KM for testing at maximum load capacity took a whole day
          maybe because loading it is more difficult than a transport plane with a ramp and a large hatch?
        2. Windbreak
          Windbreak 16 January 2013 23: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          “In accordance with the TTZ, the KM was designed for a total displacement of 430 tons. Alekseev wanted to make sure how much the ship could actually“ carry ”. Therefore, during the tests, he set the task to determine the maximum take-off weight of the vehicle. To achieve the maximum take-off weight to the KM deck they packed 1000 sandbags on average 20 kg each, i.e. another 20 tons. In the process of preparing this outlet, they carried out a full fueling of all compartments, and water ballast was placed in one of the bow compartments, a total of 544 tons, which was noted in the exit task (flight sheet). When approving the flight sheet, RE Alekseev pointed out the need to “pour” another 6 tons of water into the washers. Thus, the maximum take-off mass of KM was 550 tons. " "Equipment and armament" No. 1/2007
    2. postman
      postman 16 January 2013 20: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: abc_alex
      This fact is known to everyone, and you, I am sure too, ALL Alekseev’s devices used a full set of engines for only a few minutes during take-off.

      And the rest of the time they just carried ballast in the form of an engine.
      (The same dilemma for VTOL, well, or for Shuttle - the truth is the ballast is not an engine here, but a glider and aerodynamic surfaces)
      Dornier Do 31

      Quote: abc_alex
      And not one of these aircraft can turn off 2/3 of its power plant in flight!

      12.1979: 4 aircraft of the 81st VTAP performed a special mission for transportation of goods for flood victims in India. 40 minutes after take-off from Dhaka Airport (Pakistan) to An-22 No. 02-05 (USSR-09305), Skok crew, all 4 engines turned off. One NK-12 managed to launch and bring the aircraft to the airport of Panagarh (India). However, landing with three idle engines (landing speed increased by 150 km / h more) and, probably, under "anesthesia of the Peruvian catastrophe", the crew could not land the plane in this difficult situation.

      Quote: abc_alex
      The eaglet is capable of landing on an NOT EQUIPPED


      It seems to be not only him (I don’t know how real this photo is):


      Quote: abc_alex
      And in what place of the body did you invent a draft of the ekranolet of several meters? At the time of launch, the Eaglet’s wing lies on the water,

      True draft of only 1,5 m (photo below)
      Quote: abc_alex
      Have you seen that the Oriole will throw a comparable load at a comparable range at 225 liters of fuel, and a corn barn per ton?

      EVALUATION OF FUEL EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN PLANS according to the given fuel consumption, there’s nothing to escape from it:
      Obviously, when using the same engine types, the ekranoplan and the aircraft will not have advantages over each other
      1. postman
        postman 16 January 2013 20: 25 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        Extension
        Quote: abc_alex
        This is a machine for the rapid concentration of the anti-ship strike group, a powerful strike and quick exit from the affected area.


        The ekranoplan has a combat turn radius, like the SR-71

        Quote: abc_alex
        In any case, he will catch up and fire him.

        He is likely to be destroyed before entering the launch zone.
        =======================
        Another piloting / control issue ????
      2. Windbreak
        Windbreak 16 January 2013 22: 23 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Postman
        It seems to be not only him (I don’t know how real this photo is)
        Just a frame from a computer game trailer
        1. postman
          postman 16 January 2013 22: 53 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: Burel
          Only

          Sorry
          в

          the same "play"
    3. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 21: 06 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      Quote: abc_alex
      the power-to-weight ratio, for example, Orlenka was reduced to l / a indicators of almost 1МВ! And at the same time on 12 tons of traction, he was carrying his 28 tons or 200 marines at a given distance

      The set distance was 1500 km. During this time, the economical Eaglet consumed 28 thousand liters of kerosene
      By the way, max. the capacity of the Eaglet was equal to 20 tons

      The old An-12 transport aircraft, with equal carrying capacity (20 tons), had a range with a cargo of 4500 km. The capacity of the An-12 fuel tanks is 18 thousand liters.

      Quote: abc_alex
      ALL Alekseev’s devices used a full set of engines for only a few minutes during take-off. The rest of the time they walked in half

      This trick has long been exposed.
      The economical ekranoplan Orlyonok has rotary nozzles for the turbojet engines - in the start mode there is a pressurization under the wing to create a “dynamic pillow”. In marching mode - the jet is directed above the wing.
      You ask why this is necessary? When the thrust of the tail engine was fully loaded, it was simply not enough

      1. abc_alex 17 January 2013 15: 29 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This trick has long been exposed.
        The economical ekranoplan Orlyonok has rotary nozzles for the turbojet engines - in the start mode there is a pressurization under the wing to create a “dynamic pillow”. In marching mode - the jet is directed above the wing.
        You ask why this is necessary? When the thrust of the tail engine was fully loaded, it was simply not enough


        I didn’t understand what kind of trick and who was exposed? Someone found APU in the nose? So do not "expose" read TTX, everything is written there. As it is written in the description, and in the reports of the pilots that the APU was not used in flight, and the operating time of the APU during takeoff was no more than 6 minutes. In marching mode, the engines of the APU were turned off, but it was considered preferable to keep them at low speeds, and to resolve emergency situations, and in case of emergency speed reduction. By the way, what you said about "not enough" is nonsense. Pilots described the control mode of the SU as follows: the main engine is 75-80% of the power, the APU 1 is turned off, the second is low speed.
    4. Misantrop
      Misantrop 16 January 2013 23: 33 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      This reminds me of the recent history of the cancellation of the only hovercraft in the Ukrainian Navy with the wording “as unnecessary” wassat The whole world licks on such, but Ukraine "does not need" ... winked
      1. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 23: 44 New
        • -5
        • 0
        -5
        Quote: Misantrop
        The whole world licks at such

        Well, it’s just the opposite: no one in the world is interested in ekranoplans
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 16 January 2013 23: 50 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          no one in the world is interested in ekranoplans

          Quote: Misantrop
          the only ship in the Ukrainian Navy hovercraft
          Over the past few years, the Estonian plant (while it still had money) and Greece tried to place an order for several units at the More factory. Now build for China. It seems "Squid", if not mistaken
          1. Kodiak
            Kodiak 17 January 2013 10: 51 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            Duc SWEET_SIXTEEN and indicates the fundamental difference between SVP and EP - nobody needs the latter, unlike the former.
  14. Horde
    Horde 16 January 2013 18: 58 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    yes, perhaps "sweet ..." again, in his hostility to everything Russian, he made several fundamental mistakes for example.
    Comparison of an ekranoplane with a ship is completely groundless - the largest of the built “monsters” are inferior in carrying capacity even to heavy transport aircraft, and against the background of ships they generally look like small graceful boats.


    only absolute idiots can compare machines using different physical principles at the heart of the construct, for ships - the "Archimedes law", for ekranoplanes - "screen effect on the boundaries of the media."

    Equally groundless is the comparison of ekranoplanes with aviation - aircraft fly two to three times faster


    why so? for Ruslan max. 885 km / h, for Lun 500 km / h Eaglet gave 600 km / h!
    or comparison with the Tu-22m -2000km / h,

    but the ekranoplane ALWAYS has one big advantage - at low altitudes, several meters above the surface of the enemy’s radars cannot confidently pinpoint and track, and aim weapons due to the fact that there is a fundamental physical restriction on the propagation of electromagnetic waves at medium boundaries. AUG can detect WHAT, but until the Hokai lift up, while it takes off and arrives, it identifies and transmits information, while the Hornets lift it up, the ekranoplane hits the target at a speed of 120km, it will hit the Mosquitoes over the horizon and will open the side, but imagine new Onyx, Bramos missiles at three-four hundred kilometers? And to introduce new technologies of invisibility that Alekseev did not even dream about?
    As for the Tu-22, it has its own attack tactics, because on radars this aircraft is visible from afar.

    destroyer equally static objects. Only the latter can stand up for itself, but the military ekranoplane can’t (for the ship’s air defense systems installed on the “Lun” - an overloaded monster will simply not be able to fly into the air).


    -this is absurd assumptions. Eagle’s and Lun’s screens are the first LOW-YEARs brought to practical use. These were the first-generation combat ekranoplanes, so say “Needles” or maybe “Arrows” on board it was always possible to reflect air attacks. Our military never refused to use this weapon, only by betrayal did they close the military-ekranoplan theme, corrupt politicians intervened in the game.
    I think that the amers would not refuse to use such toys, but there are other reasons, the Americans could not create something similar, the mind was not enough, it looks like the RD-180, and they don’t need anything, pin dos and so are the masters of the seas.
    1. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 21: 33 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      Quote: Horde
      machines using different physical principles at the heart of the construct, for ships - the "Archimedes law", for ekranoplanes - "screen effect on the boundaries of the media."

      Although the law of Archimedes, at least the "screen effect", at least YaSU. even horse drawn

      The ekranoplan tries to duplicate the tasks of ships, and therefore it must be compared with ships (and if it duplicates the tasks of aviation, then with airplanes)

      Quote: Horde
      Eaglet gave 600km / h!

      Max. skorst - 350 ... 400

      Quote: Horde
      at low altitudes, several meters above the surface level, enemy radars cannot confidently pinpoint and track, and aim weapons, because there is a fundamental physical restriction on the propagation of electromagnetic waves at medium boundaries.

      Those. any ship, in principle, is undetectable, because he is on the border of two environments
      Did you mean to say that?

      Quote: Horde
      ekranoplan at a speed already hit "Mosquitoes" 120km- over the horizon

      Tyu-ty-tyu)))) The radio horizon of the ekranoplan Lun 20 km))))

      The formula for calculating the visibility range is D = 4,124 x (square root of H), where H is the antenna (observer) suspension height
      The height of the keel Lun 19 meters + flight altitude 5 m - substitute in the formula we get 20 km.
      The flight altitude of the Hawkai AWACS aircraft - 10 thousand meters - is substituted into the formula, we get 400 km.

      In such conditions, the ekranoplan idea died before it was born
      1. Horde
        Horde 16 January 2013 22: 23 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Although the law of Archimedes, at least the "screen effect", at least YaSU. even horse drawn


        at least in the forehead, at least halfway ... You are generally an adequate person, what do you mean these words?
        WIG tries to duplicate the tasks of ships, therefore, it must be compared with ships


        where does the ekranoplan duplicate a ship? Does he look like a steamer? in appearance it’s a plane and its element is the bottom of the atmosphere means it is LOW.
        Max. skorst - 350 ... 400


        it doesn’t matter, it’s still more than the ship’s, and if I put NK-12 instead of NK-93MK, I think the speed will increase.
        Those. any ship, in principle, is undetectable, because he is on the border of two environments


        In order to answer such a question, you must first understand in practice how the location of the object occurs, and it happens so that, along with good and stable signals (aircraft steamships), there are poor signals that are poorly understood and not distinguishable from noise and interference, therefore, on radars if the AUG will respond to every hindrance on the radar, then there may not be enough human or other resources, and even more so a time factor, you might wonder why ships are being built using invisible technology just to disguise themselves as a “black cloud”, it’s clear ?

        Tyu-ty-tyu)))) The radio horizon of the ekranoplan Lun 20 km))))


        pointing to AUG can be any better from satellite.

        The formula for calculating the visibility range is D = 4,124 x (square root of H), where H is the antenna (observer) suspension height
        The height of the keel Lun 19 meters + flight altitude 5 m - substitute in the formula we get 20 km.


        from the geography course for the 4th grade - “from a person’s height of 170cm the horizon line is 40km” so the radar can work completely freely if it has enough power within the line of sight.
        1. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 22: 54 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -3
          Quote: Horde
          it’s a plane and the element of its lower atmosphere means it is LOW.

          LOW-SQUARE is trying to duplicate the tasks of airplanes - so we will compare it with airplanes.

          Quote: Horde
          therefore, if AUG responds to every interference on the radar, then there may not be enough human or other resources

          Good noise, height 19 meters, 400 tons of displacement

          Quote: Horde
          pointing to AUG can be any better from satellite.

          Wow. It turns out in addition to the ekranoplan you need a space satellite.
          otherwise blind "Lun" will pass by the target

          Quote: Horde
          from the geography course for the 4 class - "from a person’s height 170cm horizon line 40km"

          Here, of course, the school has influenced a lot. request I confess I do not find something to object
          1. Horde
            Horde 16 January 2013 23: 13 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Good noise, height 19 meters, 400 tons of displacement


            -that is not all, I see a war so that you can engage in an attack on the AUG, the attack will be combined and TU22, and submarines, and ekranoplan crew, and of course with the use of electronic warfare, and even from different sides.

            Wow. It turns out in addition to the ekranoplan you need a space satellite.
            otherwise blind "Lun" will pass by the target


            Well, if you write on Military Review, you should know that any over-the-horizon weapons need external target designation, that rockets, that planes, that ekranoplan.
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 16 January 2013 23: 42 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            then we will compare with airplanes.

            Why not with the Wright brothers? Machines of the same generation however
      2. abc_alex 17 January 2013 15: 38 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Oh, it started! But nothing that at the time of the development of KM, the United States did not have Hokaev? BASICALLY. NO ONE? Therefore, it simply could not be designed taking into account the presence of a carrier-based AWACS aircraft. The Eagles left the series in 1972, and the first Hokai in 1971!
        1. Windbreak
          Windbreak 17 January 2013 16: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          E-2A Hawkeye made its first flight in 1961, previously developed by KM.A later you took E-2C
    2. postman
      postman 17 January 2013 00: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Horde
      could not create something similar

      It is unlikely that they had technical limitations, even in the tree


      The anti-submarine ekranoplan RAM-1 of the Research Affiliate Internet company, organized in 1961 to perform R&D on hovercraft and ekranoplanes for the US Navy, had a mass of 80-90 tons and was intended for search, detection and destruction of submarines, and also for the transport of goods and landing. The device was made according to the “flying wing” scheme with two developed consoles to ensure high values ​​of aerodynamic quality and the required lateral stability characteristics. Search equipment and armament boats with a total mass of about 11 tons were located in the main wing (hull) in rooms with a volume of about 85 m3.

      The power plant consisted of four engines located in the wing consoles (two on each). Their total power exceeded 8000 hp, which provided an ekranoplan with a flight speed of 185-240 km / h; search speed was about 93 km / h, about 2 times higher than that of modern anti-submarine ships. The fuel supply provided the apparatus with a flight range of about 3000 km at a speed of 160 km / h.

      The device was equipped with a starting device - a nozzle system for the formation of a static air cushion. To facilitate the launch, a special device for blowing the upper surface of the wing was provided, due to which the moment of disruption of the incoming air flow was delayed. In accordance with the project, the flight altitude of RAM-1 at full load was 0,6 m, the power spent on the formation and maintenance of the air cushion to a height of 1,8 m was 1500 hp, and on the movement of the ship - 500 hp At an altitude of 8 m, the flight could be carried out in an airplane mode. The maximum design height reached 2200 m, the ascent speed - 150-300 m / min.
      1. Old skeptic
        Old skeptic 17 January 2013 01: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Postman
        At an altitude of 8 m, the flight could be carried out in an airplane mode.


        Could not!

        If you know the history of this machine, then I recall that it made only one flight and flew with less than a kilometer, at an altitude of less than one hundred meters. All. After that she never flew again.

        Ну
        Something like this...
        1. postman
          postman 17 January 2013 01: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Old Skeptic
          If you know the history of this machine, t

          8 m THIS is about RAM-1! Then there was RAM-2
          BUT THIS R&D was
          а
          Hughes H-4 Hercules
          21 m from the water and a speed of 217 km / h about 1,6 km
          It was precisely on him that the WIG (screening) effect influenced
          ================
          Cruising speed: 250 mph (407,98 km / h)
          Range: 3000 miles (4800 km)
          Practical ceiling: 20 feet (6370 m)
          =======================
          Quote: Old Skeptic
          After that, she never flew again.

          It was reminded that the contract was terminated in 1944, then everything was at their own expense, the Senate commission on the expenditure of funds on August 6, 1947
          United States Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

          The Hercules was a monumental undertaking. It is the largest aircraft ever built. It is over five stories tall with a wingspan longer than a football field. That's more than a city block. Now, I put the sweat of my life into this thing. I have my reputation all rolled up in it and I have stated several times that if it's a failure I'll probably leave this country and never come back. And I mean it

          Try to use such a carcass on your own
  15. Kir
    Kir 16 January 2013 21: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, I’ll tell you an interesting situation, so as not to be unfounded, look at the site at the specified address, just Alekseev’s factory, but for some reason there aren’t any eclipses in promising projects, but in general with respect to the comparison itself, it would be necessary for the author to compare at least with ECIP, and then to some extent closer
    www.volga-shipyard.com
    1. Horde
      Horde 16 January 2013 21: 39 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Kir
      But for some reason, in promising projects there are no ekranolet,


      in general, to develop and build an impact ekranoplan is not even Tiger 6a; it’s not enough to develop the means of one low-power plant here, the help of the state is needed, and our rulers can only talk.
      1. Kir
        Kir 16 January 2013 22: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, if it were about some other design bureau, and not Alekseevsky, then Yes! Here, either it is really a question of hopelessness, including the fact that now it’s more sinful than ever to turn everything around them, the economic costs of development will pay off badly, or they have lost the school, or that it’s more likely that the person is at least somehow incompatible with Alekseev, that's work well debugged. Especially if you recall. that many breakthrough projects were created on an initiative basis, without interruption from the release plans.
  16. postman
    postman 16 January 2013 22: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Horde
    SWEET_SIXTEEN
    (Author)
    Let me (as soon as you dedicated this "3 out of 100" works) to the calculation of the ekranoplan, but not in the variant of an attack ship with the speed of an airplane, but in high-speed transport. According to the given fuel consumption (procedure below).
    Under conditions:
    1. the use of low-speed propellers of large and extra-large (as on SRN-4) diameters.

    2. Of course, not with semi-submerged wings (without a “dynamic cushion”). Aerodynamic surfaces at a height approximately like this:


    with bobbers to avoid heeling. Something like that of American Americans - who "hadn’t had enough mind" 1949)



    You forget all the time that the ekranoplanes (with REASONABLE construction of the model) have a lower cruising power ratio, CONDITIONED:
    -decrease in the relative mass of the design of ekranoplanes, due to smaller than airplanes have aerodynamic loads
    - lack of weight related costs with passenger compartment sealing and installation of high-altitude equipment
    - less concentrated loads (chassis mount)
    - lack of air balloons and chassis (and their mechanisms) during take-off and landing (ballast)
    - a smaller mass of the power plant (if a specialized one is used and it is NOT NECESSARY to “detach” the wings from the water),
    - lower specific wing load
    - Lack of heavy aircraft strength standards A and A1 aerodynamic loading of the airframe.

    But not for this:

    ? What do you think?

    According to the given fuel consumption (procedure below).
    1. Kir
      Kir 16 January 2013 22: 25 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Well, become a Yankee, they have a lot of fantasies, but as before being embodied in a material, it either turns out to be less effective compared to those performed according to the traditional scheme, or it’s a kind of incompetent unit, but then they will make a statement to the World that it’s not possible at all create, if they really can’t do it for super specialists! A familiar song, which is then picked up by their adherents and distributed throughout the world as divine infallible truth, but when we stop the topic, then questions already arise.
      1. postman
        postman 17 January 2013 00: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Kir
        Well, with the Yankees become, they have ogogo fantasies, but as before the embodiment in the material

        Come on? and what prevents them?








        Let me remind you, the patent for ekranoplan (WIG) and the first demo model belongs to:
        T.Kaario in 1935
        The Germans seemed to be going through the English Channel on it:


        HERE WHAT WAS:

        1. Kir
          Kir 17 January 2013 02: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I don’t know that only the fact bothers them; the Be-200 and A-40 remain the fact, they fly, but what you brought, something ......., And with regards to patents it’s better not to talk about them at all, in history there are not a few cases where the priority of the invention belongs not to the one who filed the patent, even though it is not called at the box office at all, before Dremel there were others, but his patent ..
          1. Kir
            Kir 17 January 2013 02: 52 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            I apologize for not being in the previous one, so with regards to T.Kaalo’s authorship, our invention, it’s just some clever man who printed this in open literature, like “Technique of Youth”, here I can completely justify my deceased, father, since he told me this story more than once, and I can’t help but trust his opinion on this matter, since he worked for many years as in the ministerial department, and before that in the current Keldysh Center, he also knew it , such people as Rkademik B.V. Rauschenbach, and he didn’t know him alone.
            And besides, why in general, have you cited American flying boats as an example?
            1. postman
              postman 17 January 2013 12: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Kir
              and so with regards to T.Kaalo’s authorship, our invention



              N.I. Belavin "Extra-large ekranoplanes of the chief designer R.E. Alekseeva. " Shipbuilding. 1993.





              What is already here
              Quote: Kir
              that kind of "Youth Technique",

              Quote: Kir
              and besides, why, in general, have you cited American flying boats as an example?


              Quote: Kir
              since he told me this story more than once,
              I can’t say anything on this issue. I worked on a slightly different topic (Prof. Polaya, Prof. Kudryavtsev). BUT (as I was small), quite authoritative people told me the same thing when fishing that they burned the Chinese in Damansky with battle lasers.

              because it is essentially the same thing, the effect itself was recorded at 20 days when taking off / landing low-wing aircraft.
              See the Dornier Do X Trials in 1932
              Read the work "Ground Effect Seaplane Wing Impact Study"
          2. postman
            postman 17 January 2013 12: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Kir
            fly, but what you brought, something ....

            The question was not "fly", but maybe in the "metal or not"
            See the history of seaplanes.
            I assure the USSR- not the first and not the largest park (Italy seems to be bigger), and “Catalina” was such a thing.
            They just got away from it, the TRUTH is now trying to get back
            1. Kir
              Kir 17 January 2013 15: 40 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              If you’ll reformulate well what I’ve said about translating into material, building serial models, and even if you didn’t go into series, it’s not because of the fact that it was simply created for working out, and not because of “unfulfilled hopes,” what exactly is the question of flying and how is flying, but about the number of units-park, the conversation did not start at all, and in fact this is nothing.
              1. postman
                postman 17 January 2013 16: 46 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Kir
                well reformulate, the construction of serial samples,

                Let’s just not talk about stupid Americans, who can’t create anything.
                And that even the wheel was invented by the Russians.
                They (believe the experience) clearly: over-> economic efficiency / feasibility-> they do, or forget, even bringing about 90% readiness if the situation has changed.
                To say that in the United States is dumber than ours (see patents, life around, Nobel laureates) or that American industry cannot translate into “metal”, what can we (look around and, achievements, where we come from a lot of things went) - NOT SERIOUSLY.
                =============
                It’s just that no one continues to rest against them and release something, if this is pointless.
                1. Kir
                  Kir 17 January 2013 17: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Sorry of course, But you still don’t have to juggle, about the fact that We didn’t say anywhere in front of us, let alone the wheel, but who’s interested in the construction of the moonwalker’s wheel? And on the part of patents, apparently yours, the truth is as your favorite subject. only the approach we have seems to be diametrically opposite, I stand in the position of how much you don’t pay and what conditions you don’t create, don’t get born new, judging by all the times you’re talking about economic feasibility, by the way, depending on how you look at it, and over time the situation can change, most importantly the one who pays, according to the principle of who pays the one ...., and about the Nobel laureates, a separate song.
                  And let's end it
                  1. postman
                    postman 17 January 2013 18: 07 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Kir
                    moonwheel wheel design

                    CCCR: 1960
                    Yuri Girsch and Ilya Berman, Design Bureau of Bicycle Construction? {Fhmrjdcrbq dtkjpfdjl

                    For the wheels for the lunar rover bought "Lada"


                    U.S.:
                    Bendins
                    Chrysler
                    MOLAB 1959


                    Quote: Kir
                    don’t pay and don’t create what conditions

                    Who do you mean this? "Niggas that go right after the Mexicans"?

                    Quote: Kir
                    and about the Nobel laureates,

                    I don’t know ... try google invented in XY (only about Mozhaisky’s plane is not necessary)
    2. Horde
      Horde 16 January 2013 22: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I think that Alekseev chose low-set wings for reasons of shallow draft to solve problems with land access, however, this applies to the landing "Eaglet", but the "Lun" draft does not limit in any way, so if take-off with such a design is more difficult than with high wings then ... although what Alekseev calculated there is hard to say.
      1. postman
        postman 17 January 2013 00: 23 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Horde
        I think that Alekseev chose low-set wings for reasons of fine draft to solve problems

        Does not look like it. On land (exit), they just prevented him (more likely to damage)

        It seems to me a thing in the law of Archimedes (well, remember the weight of the liquid squeezed out), but it was IMPOSSIBLE to raise it higher, the screen effect disappeared.
        Lun and KM

        "dynamic pillow" all the time?
        Although the wing is the same in water:


        Quote: Horde
        It’s hard to say what Alekseev calculated there.

        Everything seems to be here:
        N.I. Belavin "Extra-large ekranoplanes of the chief designer R.E. Alekseeva. " Shipbuilding. 1993. No. 1. S. 3 - 8
    3. Santa Fe 16 January 2013 23: 06 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      You can calculate what will happen - I can’t draw conclusions straight away

      Quote: Postman
      -decrease in the relative mass of the ekranoplanes design, due to the lower aerodynamic loads than in aircraft
      - the absence of weight costs associated with sealing the passenger compartment and the installation of high-altitude equipment
      - less concentrated loads (chassis mount)
      - lack of air balloons and chassis (and their mechanisms) during take-off and landing (ballast)
      - a smaller mass of the power plant (if a specialized one is used and it is NOT NECESSARY to “detach” the wings from the water),
      - lower specific wing load
      - Lack of heavy aircraft strength standards A and A1 aerodynamic loading of the airframe.


      And here you can immediately note something:
      1. Based on the problem of seaworthiness and controllability - the design of the ECR should be designed for significant loads (for example: during the flight, the ECR will “strike” the wing through the water). It follows that the design of the ECR cannot be any easier than aviation.

      2. Lack of sealing in the passenger compartment ... I don’t know ... but what about soundproofing and water permeability?

      3. Instead of the chassis - floats. Ballast + air resistance

      4. Less specific wing loading? Maybe big? And as a result - a problem with controllability
      1. postman
        postman 16 January 2013 23: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        1.
        I didn’t consider such an option, but he won’t "kick out" to the part if he strikes? Well, you don’t count the aeroplan on the runway teal?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        2.
        Well, these are different things: Strength = pressure on the area (F = px S) - conduct an experiment in a hot jar of boiling water with a screw-tight sealed lid, cool, try to open (I usually use chtok, with a fork, knife, opener, ELSE too many helpers required)
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        3.
        Come on?
        How much do you think these wheels weigh?

        And are they easier entih "floats"

        Do you remember why you experimented with such a thing?

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        4.

        Well, you do not make the poor student move at the speed of a glider?
  17. suharev-52 16 January 2013 23: 24 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Although I am not an expert, but having read the article, I got the impression of an order, for turning our ekranoplans, the brainchild of Soviet science. As the author did not try to give not quite correct calculations, but he did not convince me. Sorry ekranoplans. Early they came to this world ahead of their time. But I think that we have lost these technologies forever. In order to create something, a design school is needed, which may have been destroyed with the death of the designer. Sincerely.
    1. Horde
      Horde 17 January 2013 00: 15 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Early they came to this world ahead of their time.


      low-flying ekranoplanes were born in a great country and died with their country ...
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 17 January 2013 00: 19 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Moreover, the entire archive of these developments disappeared without a trace!
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 17 January 2013 00: 25 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Horde
        died with their country

        Alas, they were killed before. They hacked it, the archive disappeared, with the help of such articles they block the very idea of ​​continuing the experiments. And in a few years, a foreign “revolutionary and innovative development” will suddenly appear, and we will recognize our past in it and bite our elbows. "Pseudoscience cybernetics", etc., you never know how many ...
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 17 January 2013 00: 42 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Combat railway missile system or abbr. BZHRK - a type of strategic missile systems mobile railway-based. It is a specially designed train, in the wagons of which strategic missiles (usually of the intercontinental class) are located, as well as command posts, technological and technical systems, security equipment, personnel ensuring the operation of the complex and its life support system.
          The name “Combat railway missile system” is also used as a proper name for the Soviet missile system 15P961 Molodets (RT-23 UTTKh), the only BZHRK brought to the stage of adoption and serial production. 15P961 "Well done" was on combat duty in the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Armed Forces of the USSR and Russia in the period from 1987 to 2005.
          The first studies on the use of the train as a carrier of strategic missiles appeared in the 1960s. Work in this direction was carried out both in the USSR and in the USA. One of the sad examples !!!!!!!!!
          1. Kodiak
            Kodiak 17 January 2013 11: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And what is sad?
            BZHRK lost PGRK.
            It is not effective to maintain the infrastructure of both of them; it is better to abandon the BZHRK and send the released resources to further development and improvement of the PGRK.
            On the contrary, I’m glad that they made the right decision, as well as with the rejection of ekranoplanes.
            If we recall the amounts spent on R&D on ekranoplanes, it only saddens that these projects were so late abandoned.
  18. navj
    navj 17 January 2013 01: 00 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The author apparently is a smart guy and an expert in everything .... But Korolev, Tupolev and finally, closer in time, General Designer Simonov - complete idiots?! ....
  19. fayver3000 17 January 2013 08: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The ekranoplan cannot be replaced; this is a special kind. To use them, you need a modern design school, with its own production and training of pilots. Many ekranoplans were broken due to errors in piloting.
    Quote: navj
    And Korolev, Tupolev, and finally, closer in time, General Designer Simonov - complete idiots?! ....
    none of them wanted to do something incomprehensibly, because it hindered the development of their own projects.
  20. Martar
    Martar 17 January 2013 09: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    It is easy to condemn something that you yourself have never seen and about which you do not know, especially when the bias of judgment is obvious.
    It is strange to hear blind and unsubstantiated statements regarding the ekranoplanes: “And, of course, the ekranoplan is another daring attempt to deceive the laws of nature; Unfortunately, all of the above merits of ekranoplanes are false information widely disseminated on the Internet. The ekranoplan does not have any of these properties; and so on ”when there is no violation of the laws of nature (it is simply impossible to deceive them), the rest are unverified statements that contradict the facts.
    Comparisons of the technical characteristics of the ekranoplan with ships and airplanes are incorrect, since each has its own environment: airplanes have air, ships have water, and ekranoplan has a zone between the water surface and airspace, those ekranoplan is neither an airplane nor a ship. This is not a flying ship or a seaplane, it is an ekranoplane (although in my opinion the ekranoplane is nevertheless closer to the ships, it can only efficiently perform its tasks from above the surface of the water).
    As for the inefficiency of combat ekranoplanes:
    The ekranoplan “Lun” was not built to stand alone against the enemy’s fleet or replace the naval combat ships, it was built as a launch platform for anti-ship missiles, which has high maneuverability, speed and invisibility with respect to almost any craft. I position the ekranoplanes precisely to the ships, since the zone of effective use is the same for both. On the water, the ekranoplan has undeniable advantages: speed, maneuverability and invisibility. This is precisely the key factors that make it possible to create effective machines to combat surface targets.
    The six Mosquito anti-ship missiles deployed on the Moon have a range of 250 km, to launch the Moon it is not necessary to approach the enemy at a distance of artillery fire or the radius of guaranteed detection (the most difficult to detect targets are those that are located at a very small height from the surface of the water). He does not need to independently detect goals, since there are other more effective means for this task. The combat mission of the ekranoplan "Lun" is not complicated: to quickly reach the distance of rocket fire, maneuver to launch missiles at the target and leave the affected area. In fact, the main objective of Lunya will be just defense, rather than an attack by enemy naval groups at a great distance from the coast, and the defense is not alone, but with the support of at least aviation, and it’s ridiculous to say that it’s ridiculous to open sea or an air battle to enter is not his task.
    In fact, we know:
    - ekranoplan speed 500km.h,
    - not visible to radars (at least, radars of the period when the Lun was built),
    - not heard by sonar,
    - minefields for Lunya are not an obstacle,
    - missiles can launch during maneuvering and moving,
    - the salvo power is comparable to a missile cruiser,
    - in the construction and maintenance of cheaper missile cruiser,
    - by land can be transported on wheeled platforms,
    - able to transport troops.
    Everyone draws conclusions for himself.
    1. Windbreak
      Windbreak 17 January 2013 11: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Martar
      - the salvo power is comparable to a missile cruiser,
      volley with 6 Mosquitoes is not comparable with 16 Basalts
    2. Kodiak
      Kodiak 17 January 2013 11: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The proposed tactics involves comparing the “Moon” not with NK, but with aviation.
      The speed is higher for the aircraft.
      Maneuverability too.
      The combat radius is there.
      The secrecy is about the same, the tales about the fact that the EP with a mass of 380 tons suddenly turns out to be invisible to radars - well, do not make people laugh.
      In both cases, minefields and acoustics in flight, both start up during maneuvering.
      Well, if the "Moon" volleys, which are approximately equivalent to a third of the RKR salvo, are accepted comparable to the cruiser salvos, then the salvo of the aircraft is comparable to the ekranoplan.
      At a cost, the aircraft wins back (and still the cost of building infrastructure for basing ekranoplanes + again we increase the "zoo", which is unpleasant for the supply and large-scale production of both ekranoplanes and performing similar tasks of naval aviation).
      Over land, the plane flies calmly.
      1. abc_alex 17 January 2013 16: 13 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        The moon does not need to be compared. He was never supposed to replace planes. On the contrary, the only way to use it correctly is with aviation. And at the time of its adoption, NO plane could provide a salvo of 6 supersonic anti-ship missiles. And now it can’t. And no ship can ever deliver them to the launch site at such a speed. And the delivery speed allows the airstrike group to be in the coverage area of ​​the AUG wing for MINIMUM time. Not hours, like NK, but minutes.

        The speed of the aircraft is higher. But where? At an altitude of 10 km? Where does it become visible to all radars in the half of the ball? And why did he need such speed then? To commit suicide? Tu-22s were supposed to either blind the AUG tactical special warhead radar or approach it at the MINIMUM HEIGHT. At which their speed is comparable to ekranoletnoy.

        From here the insolvency of the thesis of "equal secrecy" is understandable. Radar is the more dolby, the higher the desired object. The radio horizon, geometry, you will not jump anywhere from it. And either you are a “Spirit” billion / piece or go down to 100 meters, where you will have neither aircraft fuel efficiency, nor speed nor maneuverability.

        Volley Moon is certainly not cruising. But if desired, Lun and a couple of times for ammunition hits the base until the cruiser reaches the launch site :) But in any case, the Lun volley is incomparably more powerful than the volley of ANY aircraft that had a chance to approach the AUG at the launch distance.

        But what about the cheapness of aircraft and similar infrastructure - in what way did you think? To begin with, ANY runway capable of servicing the Tu-22 is EASY to be detected from space and in which case it will be destroyed in the first hours. No "temporary" or "field" version of the machine of this class is accepted.
        Further, even in overload, the Tu-22M can carry 2 anti-ship missiles, that is, for a comparable salvo, 2 cars are needed.
        The engines of the Tu-22M are very different from those of the Lun :)

        And the last, Lun as a modern carrier is hopeless. If you do, then do the percussion Eaglet. That is, not an ekranoplan, but an ekranolet. A car that can stay in the air, at least at the level of duty bombers of 60-70 years.
  21. Martar
    Martar 17 January 2013 10: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Postman
    It seems to be not only him (I don’t know how real this photo is):

    the photo is not real, it’s a montage, so many "Moon" has not been released.

    Quote: Kir
    In general, I’ll tell you an interesting situation, so as not to be unfounded, look at the site at the specified address, just Alekseev’s factory, but for some reason there aren’t

    Well, there are not only ekranoplanes not there, but also there:
    - Ships with an air cover
    - Cargo ships
    - Motor boats
    - Recreational boats
    - Special Purpose Vessels
    Yes, what I list, which is not in promising projects, it is easier to say that there is:
    - Hydrofoils
    - Passenger ships
    moreover, in these two directions the same vessels:
    Hydrofoil passenger sea boat (based on project 14620, Dolphin).
    COMET 130M marine hydrofoil passenger ship

    Here is the link for those who want to see real photos of the real "Moon" these days.
    http://nnm.ru/blogs/barhudarow/ekranoplan_lun_proekt_903/
  22. Martar
    Martar 17 January 2013 12: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Burel
    volley with 6 Mosquitoes is not comparable with 16 Basalts

    “Basalt” has nothing to do with it, since they were not installed on the “Moon” and are larger than “maskites” in size, see TTX, and “comparable” is not “equivalent”, please do not forget about this.
    Quote: Kodiak
    The proposed tactics involves comparing the “Moon” not with NK, but with aviation.

    I specifically mentioned in the commentary that I compare Lun to ships, not planes
    Quote: Kodiak
    Over land, the plane flies calmly.

    and will a missile cruiser swim across land?
    Quote: Kodiak
    Well, if the "Moon" volleys, which are approximately equivalent to a third of the RKR salvo, are accepted comparable to the cruiser salvos, then the salvo of the aircraft is comparable to the ekranoplan.

    not comparable, since there is currently no combat aircraft capable of carrying 6 anti-ship missiles, while maintaining superiority in speed and dynamics over the ekranoplan.
    1. Kodiak
      Kodiak 17 January 2013 12: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Martar
      “Basalt” has nothing to do with it, since they were not installed on the “Moon” and are larger than “maskites” in size, see TTX, and “comparable” is not “equivalent”, please do not forget about this.


      "Basalts" they are on the RKR.

      Quote: Martar
      I specifically mentioned in the commentary that I compare Lun to ships, not planes


      Airplanes use similar tactics; this is their tactical niche.
      It is supposed to compete with them, so that the comparison is correctly carried out with them.

      Quote: Martar
      and will a missile cruiser swim across land?


      He will sail around, he does not have such a penny range and autonomy as the ekranoplanes.

      Quote: Martar
      not comparable, since there is currently no combat aircraft capable of carrying 6 anti-ship missiles, while maintaining superiority in speed and dynamics over the ekranoplan.


      If the Lunya volley (6 missiles with less chances to reach the target) is comparable to the RKR volley (16 missiles), then the carcass volley (2 missiles) is comparable to the EP volley :-)
      1. abc_alex 17 January 2013 16: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        He doesn’t just “swim”; he defiles. In front of everyone who looks from above. With insignificant speed, moving his carcass to a point to which he could never reach. Since the cruiser, having entered the coverage area of ​​the AUG air wing, at best, for several hours, it will go up to the launch distance.
    2. postman
      postman 17 January 2013 13: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Martar
      not comparable, since there is currently no combat aircraft capable of carrying 6 anti-ship missiles, while maintaining superiority in speed and dynamics over the ekranoplan.

      B-52

      8 x AGM-84 Harpoon or 8 x AGM-142 Popeye
      and P-3 Orion

      6 x AGM-84 Harpoon or 6 x “Have Rain” Popeye-II (AGM-142 Raptor)
      1. abc_alex 17 January 2013 16: 38 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, for starters, the B-52 is a strategic bomber. For such machines, their tasks are defined. And their number is limited. At the same time, the radar location of this miracle is a task for graduates of military schools.

        And for Orion, the issue of comparability of characteristics can be raised only if there are no weapons on the external sling.

        And Harpoons still do not need to be compared with Mosquitoes.
        1. postman
          postman 17 January 2013 16: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: abc_alex
          Well, for starters, the B-52 is a strategic bomber.

          Which stupidly bombed (carpet bombing) Vietnam Afghanistan and so on (.y BOMB.
          HE carrier THESE RCC
          Quote: abc_alex
          only if there is no weapon on the external sling.

          and what kind of weapon besides RCC should be there?
          Quote: abc_alex
          And Harpoons still do not need to be compared with Mosquitoes.


          Why? Take the Tomahawk (109V)? what
          But seriously: YES.Tk Harpoon, with comparable parameters 5 times easier. In the plate comparison with Yakhont.
  23. Martar
    Martar 17 January 2013 13: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It’s useless to argue, I repeat:
    Quote: Martar
    Everyone draws conclusions for himself.

    in modern combat, it doesn’t matter whether it’s marine or air, it decides time, accuracy and secrecy, therefore ESs have advantages over both ships and aircraft, although there are also disadvantages.
    Therefore, returning to the question of the article “How to replace the ekranoplan?”, The contents of the article and the comments, we can confidently say that EP can be replaced by a larger concentration of aircraft or ships, but will it be better and more economical? In my opinion, it is obvious that no, it will not be beneficial in any way. This is equivalent if you replace the poker with a stick or bricks to mix the coals, the stick burns, the brick does not burn, but the coals are heavy and inconvenient to mix the coals.
  24. abc_alex 17 January 2013 15: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Postman
    And the rest of the time they just carried ballast in the form of an engine.


    Take away! Due to this “ballast”, the eaglet could break away from the screen and fly at a height of not less than a kilometer. In addition, we consider only one of the schemes, Alekseevskaya with the thrust vector of the marching engine directed along the longitudinal axis of the machine. But there is an Aquaglide scheme, with a deviating thrust vector in a large range.

    Quote: Postman
    12.1979: 4 aircraft of the 81st VTAP carried out a special task for the transportation of goods for flood victims in India. 40 minutes after takeoff from Dhaka Airport (Pakistan) to An-22 No. 02-05 (USSR-09305), Skok’s crew, all 4 engines turned off. One NK-12 managed to launch and bring the aircraft to the airport of Panagarh (India). However, making a landing with three idle engines (landing speed increased by 150 km / h more) and, probably, being “anesthetized by the Peruvian catastrophe”, the crew could not land the plane in this difficult situation.


    Yes, that's just in the case described by you, the plane crashes, at best, urgently lands. And the Eaglet in this mode regularly performs the task. :)


    Quote: Postman
    It seems to be not only him (I don’t know how real this photo is):


    If you're talking about Lunya, then this thing cannot go ashore, it is designed for a floating dock.

    Quote: Postman
    Obviously, when using the same engine types, the ekranoplan and the aircraft will not have advantages over each other


    Yes, but there is subtlety. If we talk about military the use of machines, the fact that the BTA aircraft has high fuel efficiency only at high altitudes, where it is extremely vulnerable to weapons of destruction, unlike the EL that spreads above the surface, is fundamental.
    Well, if about small civil aviation, then it is worth remembering that the aerodynamic quality of the winged wing is much higher than the airplane. That is, with equal thrust of the engine, it will create a significantly greater lifting force.

    Quote: Postman
    The ekranoplan has a combat turn radius, like the SR-71



    Watching in what mode. On water (you know, it’s even strange, but a ship), the turn radius of 90 degrees is only 50 m for Orlyonok. At full speed, on the screen it’s 3000 m. That is, 33 times less than the SR-71 .

    Quote: Postman
    He is likely to be destroyed before entering the launch zone.


    THEN there was nothing. And now AUG is capable of destroying ANY target "before entering the launch zone."

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The set distance was 1500 km. During this time, the economical Eaglet consumed 28 thousand liters of kerosene
    By the way, max. the capacity of the Eaglet was equal to 20 tons


    I have already said that no plane will land a landing method in the surf. And the Eaglet can.
    Its carrying capacity is 28 tons. Not 20. 2 armored personnel carriers of 14 tons each.
    1. postman
      postman 17 January 2013 16: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: abc_alex
      Take away! Due to this “ballast”, the eaglet could break away from the screen and fly at a height of not less than a kilometer.

      «Impact force "No. 071 - "... Flight height - 0,5-6000 m... "
      “Seaplanes and ekranoplanes of Russia. 1910-1999 "-" ... The ceiling, m 3000... "

      Only there is no evidence of this. and CSS, there is CSS.

      Quote: abc_alex
      Yes, that's just the case

      There are tests where "sits down." The question was, in principle, MAYBE or NO
      Quote: abc_alex
      where it is extremely vulnerable to weapons, in contrast to EL that spreads above the surface.

      The anti-ship missiles are being shot down, and such a target, LESS maneuvering opportunities are all the more so.
      Could see him and AN / SPG-59

      Quote: abc_alex
      that the aerodynamic quality of the winged wing is significant
      in ... depending on the speed. I have already given the author a graph and formulas.
      Quote: abc_alex
      At full speed, on the screen - 3000 m

      at 400km / h (111 m / s)?
      R = W ^ 2 / gtg (roll angle), where W-track, g = 9.8 m / s ^ 2.
      5 ° = 14m This is the most real value, if not 3 ° (let the flyers correct me, if that)

      31,5m / 2 = 15,75m at a height of 10 (! Not 2), maximum roll angle: 15,75 * sin (roll angle) = 10
      sin (roll angle) = 10 / 15,75 = 0,63, h / s Arcsin

      those. angle of heel ("strike with a wing over the water") = 39 °
      R = 1540 m
      In reality, I DO NOT even imagine more than 10 ° = 7 m

      And this is at 10, and at 2m = STRICK at 7 ° 2 '
      Airplane crossing Denmark nand at an altitude of 80 feet (000 m) and a speed of M = 24flew over the Baltic along the Polish and Soviet coasts. In the area of ​​the northern tip of Gotland, a scout laid a bend with a radius of 110 km and laid down on the return course
      1. postman
        postman 17 January 2013 16: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There is only a difference:

        Set a guideline for the conclusion. Set the instrument speed to 300 km / h at 82% engine speed and full boost. Smooth movement of the control knob towards yourself and towards the combat turn with the simultaneous movement of the pedal in the same direction, create a pitch angle of 10 ... 15 ° and a roll of 10 ... 15 ° and coordinated movements of the rudders to enter the plane into a U-turn.
        The rate of entry into a combat turn should be such that after a turn of 120 ° the plane had a roll of 60 ° [b] and the angle of elevation of 40 ... 50 °, with a further turn to keep this position. Having turned around 150 ° (30 ° to the reference point) with the coordinated movements of the control knob and pedals in the direction opposite to the turn, start the plane’s exit from the turn so that the speed the output was at least 140 km / h.When withdrawing, follow for a simultaneous decrease in the angle of climb, roll and angular velocity.
  25. USNik
    USNik 17 January 2013 17: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The people, what are you all about KM and about Eaglet? In the article, IMHO, the emphasis was on lightweight ekranoplanes. Here they are just promising. So the Iranians did a good scout. Although, intellectually, you need to put a second person into it with a 12.7 machine gun and RPG in addition, so that you could not only detect, but also bite ...
  26. spravochnik 17 January 2013 20: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN RU
    This is an artist’s fantasy. There were no ships of this type in the USSR Navy

    And here you are, my dear, mistaken. The picture is a fantasy, and the ship is quite real, and there were three of them in the USSR Navy. This is a BDK type "Ivan Rogov" (pr. 1174).
    Amphibious for ship-based NOT intended, this is a fact. A vertical, or rather, a shortened take-off, she needed to avoid a long and energy-intensive acceleration section and for greater maneuverability (the possibility of take-off from small water areas).
    1. Santa Fe 17 January 2013 21: 33 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: spravochnik
      and the ship is quite real, and there were three of them in the Soviet Navy. This is a BDK type "Ivan Rogov" (ave. 1174).

      The ship shown in the picture looks similar to the Rhino, and, according to the plan of the walker, it is designed for the BBA-14

      There were no such ships in the Navy of the SSSSR and were not planned to have

      Quote: spravochnik
      to avoid a long and energy-intensive overclocking section

      Vertical take-off requires even greater energy costs.

      Quote: spravochnik
      (the ability to take off from small water areas)

      You don’t have enough sea
  27. spravochnik 17 January 2013 21: 53 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Strange you are a disputant. Just to answer. It depicts exactly “Ivan Rogov”, because, once again I repeat, the VVA-14 was not intended for ship-based purposes. You carefully examined her photos. If you carefully, you should see that it has a BLOW system installed (approximately like on the "Eaglet"), i.e. not VERTICAL, but SHORTED take-off.
  28. sso-xnumx 19 January 2013 23: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    How to develop and destroy any idea - the main thing is to find its correct application, or bring to absurdity. Rostislav Alekseev created unique cars! It is not his fault that he was forced to use for their manufacture what they give starting from metal for the case ending with engines.
    To my deep regret, something will be invented in our country at first, and then the leadership thinks what to do with this "... reny".
    For ekranoplanes, the tactics and principles of their application in the Army and Navy were not thought out and developed, not to mention the national economy. In the Central Committee of the CPSU at this time there were other undercover games, how everyone ended up knowing .........
  29. line
    line April 23 2013 00: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As noted in the comments, the article is a complete fraud, in some lies. Maybe even part of a campaign to redistribute funding to bite off the budget for the development of large ekranoplans. If they are so bad, then why do they grow in size from series to series (in SEA, for example)? The field of development / production of mass ekranoplanes is still at its very beginning, the technologies for their application are still being developed.
  30. thick
    thick 15 May 2013 12: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Due to its high speed at sea, the ekranoplane can be used as an aircraft carrier - for example, those bulky aircraft carriers - one ekranoplane - one fighter on board - the airfield will replace the speed of the ekranoplan on which the fighter is docked from above.
    there is enough carrying capacity of an ekranoplan with its head - protection from turtles is not needed - but from enemy aircraft there is already "on board".
    By the way, you can use, if necessary, the thrust of the fighter’s engines - since you don’t have to spare any fuel, they suck directly from the ekranoplan tanks.
    1. sumcream56
      sumcream56 13 June 2013 17: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Year-round navigation opens in Yakutia June 11, 16:35 Author Aytalina Indeeva Ksenia Gagay worked on the article
      In Yakutia, they decided to expand the passenger fleet through innovative vessels that will be able to sail in the summer and winter. Year-round navigation will solve two main problems of the transport scheme of Yakutia - seasonality and high cost of routes. Recently, a meeting was held in the capital of the republic on the development of the passenger fleet in the Lensky basin, at which the leaders of shipping companies presented innovative water transport projects. Already in the summer of 2013, a high-speed ekranoplane amphibian boat will be tested in the republic. "Petrel-24", developed by the company "Sky + Sea". The ekranoplan may well become a worthy replacement for hydrofoil vessels such as the Rocket and the Meteor. This is one and a half glider floating at a speed of up to 20 km / h and flying at the height of the screen effect of the underlying surface at a speed of 170-200 km / h. Ground movement in snowmobile mode at a speed of 110 km / h. The production of Petrel would allow year-round navigation in Yakutia. A model for Yakutia was built in the suburbs and passed the first tests in winter conditions, the second in summer. At the third stage, in July 2013, test tests will be held on the Lena River in the Yakutsk region. Reviews were received from regions of the republic that this particular type of transport is required under such weather and terrain conditions.
      Abroad, the most fruitful studies are developing the pattern of the tent-shaped wing of A. Lippisch conducted in Germany under the leadership of Hanno Fischer. As a result, a 50-seater WSH-500 ekranoplane, suitable for commercial operation, was built in the Republic of (South) Korea by Wingship Technology Corp. led by Hanno Fischer under license from German firms Fischer Flugmechanik and AFD Airfoil Development GmbH. The mass of the device is 17 tons, the flight altitude on the screen (this is an A type WIG) is up to 4,9 meters, cruising speed is -175 km / h, maximum speed is more than 200 km / h, specific fuel consumption is 29 grams / passenger-km ) Passenger capacity -47 seats + 3 crew members. Range-400 km. Diesel fuel consumption 250 kg / h. In 2013, the start of its commercial operation on the coastal line Gunsan - Jeju is scheduled.
  31. sumcream56
    sumcream56 13 June 2013 17: 04 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Published on the Military-Industrial Courier Weekly (http://vpk-news.ru)

    China completed tests of its own ekranoplan
    The flight tests of the Chinese-designed CYG-11 ekranoplane have been recognized as successful, according to the Hong Kong edition of Zhongpingghe. The ship was created by Inge and became the first model of ekranoplanes of its own Chinese design. It is capable of transporting up to 12 people, speeds up to 210 km / h at an altitude of one to four meters. Fuel consumption per 100 kilometers is 28 liters, ITAR-TASS reports the Chinese media.
    According to Liu Guoguang, one of the leaders of Inge, ekranoplanes in China have a great future. Such vehicles, officially classified as marine vessels, have universal driving characteristics. “For them, there is no need to build special runways and other airfield infrastructure. A vessel can take off and land from a water surface, hard ground, ice cover, sand and wetlands, ”he said. High operational characteristics of this type of vessel are supported by indicators of carrying capacity at the level of up to 50 percent. from the mass of the ekranoplan, as well as the low cost of production.
    According to Liu Guoguang, CYG-11 will be especially in demand by the law enforcement agencies of the PRC, since it is practically not noticeable for radars and sonars. Currently, Inge has also completed the development of the ekranoplan CYG-40, with a capacity of up to 40 people. The other three modifications, CYG-100, CYG-150, CYG-200, are under construction. http://mil.eastday.com/m/20130424/u1a7348178.html
    All this is very interesting, but this Chinese ekranoplan is a copy of the Russian Oriole Ek-12. Its designer V. Kolganov has been working in China for 5 years. In the photo from the Chinese edition, it is clearly visible that there is one Chinese sitting in the cockpit (and there are a maximum of three Chinese in the photo of 9 people), next to a gray-haired man similar to V. Kolganov.
    http://bigtu.eastday.com/img/201304/24/30/3603108542225978306.jpg

    In Russia LLC EO Orion received three state contracts for design and development work on ekranoplanes for a total of 450 million rubles. In 2012, one ekranoplane crashed in Petrozavodsk. An eyewitness says: “Regarding Petrozavodsk. The border guards were bred like suckers with this car. No one paid attention to the fact that the aft compartments of the balonettes were filled with water. What centering can we talk about here? The car just broke off the water and made a candle, and then fell. And here, transnational supervision, technical supervision, the register and other controlling organizations are powerless, since the car is being tested by the LLC company. But the border guards do not manage this at all. They have eliminated themselves. Apparently ekranoplanes in Russia are only HUMOR!
  32. sumcream56
    sumcream56 13 June 2013 17: 07 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    But some do not think so. In any weather. Year-round navigation opens in Yakutia June 11, 16:35 Author Aytalina Indeeva Ksenia Gagay worked on the article
    In Yakutia, they decided to expand the passenger fleet through innovative vessels that will be able to sail in the summer and winter. The other day, a meeting was held in the capital of the republic on the development of the passenger fleet in the Lena basin. Already in the summer of 2013, a high-speed ekranoplane amphibian boat will be tested in the republic. "Petrel-24", developed by the company "Sky + Sea". This is one and a half glider floating at a speed of up to 20 km / h and flying at the height of the screen effect of the underlying surface at a speed of 170-200 km / h. Ground movement in snowmobile mode at a speed of 110 km / h. The production of Petrel would allow year-round navigation in Yakutia. A model for Yakutia was built in the suburbs and passed the first tests in winter conditions, the second in summer. At the third stage, in July 2013, test tests will be held on the Lena River in the Yakutsk region. Reviews were received from regions of the republic that this particular type of transport is required under such weather and terrain conditions.
    Abroad, the most fruitful studies are developing the pattern of the tent-shaped wing of A. Lippisch conducted in Germany under the leadership of Hanno Fischer. As a result, a 50-seater WSH-500 ekranoplane, suitable for commercial operation, was built in the Republic of (South) Korea by Wingship Technology Corp. led by Hanno Fischer under license from German firms Fischer Flugmechanik and AFD Airfoil Development GmbH. The mass of the device is 17 tons, the flight altitude on the screen (this is an A type WIG) is up to 4,9 meters, cruising speed is -175 km / h, maximum speed is more than 200 km / h, specific fuel consumption is 29 grams / passenger-km ) Passenger capacity -47 seats + 3 crew members. Range-400 km. Diesel fuel consumption 250 kg / h. In 2013, the start of its commercial operation on the coastal line Gunsan - Jeju is scheduled.
    1. atalef 13 June 2013 17: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: sumcream56
      But some do not think so. In any weather. In Yakutia, open year-round navigation 11 June, 16: 35 Author Aytalina Indeeva Ksenia Gagay worked on the article
      In Yakutia, they decided to expand the passenger fleet through innovative vessels that will be able to sail in summer and winter

      Skolkovo innovation wassat
      A nylon fabric harness is a multifunctional harness for training, walking and working with a dog. The nylon harness is lightweight, easy to design and classic in design.

      A handle made of nylon fabric will allow you to completely control the dog when crossing the road, and with the help of a quick-detachable buckle, the process of dressing the harness will become simple and enjoyable.
      When developing the harness, our specialists paid special attention to the increased comfort of the harness and its durability.
      It is important to know:
      The harness is made of nylon fabric and has a low weight.
      The harness design will provide a comfortable feeling for your dog for a long time.
      The harness is produced in the maximum number of sizes, and is suitable for both small and large dogs.
      All connecting rings and half rings are welded for maximum strength.
      The design of the harness straps will allow you to adjust the harness in accordance with the structural features of your dog.


      Photo: St. Bernard pulls a boat in harness.
      1. sumcream56
        sumcream56 13 June 2013 17: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Petrel-24 - photo
  33. sumcream56
    sumcream56 13 June 2013 17: 09 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Published on Military-Industrial Courier Weekly (http://vpk-news.ru). China has completed testing of its own ekranoplan
    The flight tests of the Chinese-designed CYG-11 ekranoplane have been recognized as successful, according to the Hong Kong edition of Zhongpingghe.
    The ship was created by Inge and became the first model of ekranoplanes of its own Chinese design. It is capable of transporting up to 12 people, speeds up to 210 km / h at an altitude of one to four meters. Fuel consumption per 100 kilometers is 28 liters, ITAR-TASS reports the Chinese media.
    According to Liu Guoguang, one of the leaders of Inge, ekranoplanes in China have a great future. Such vehicles, officially classified as marine vessels, have universal driving characteristics. “For them, there is no need to build special runways and other airfield infrastructure. A vessel can take off and land from a water surface, hard ground, ice cover, sand and wetlands, ”he said. High operational characteristics of this type of vessel are supported by indicators of carrying capacity at the level of up to 50 percent. from the mass of the ekranoplan, as well as the low cost of production.
    According to Liu Guoguang, CYG-11 will be especially demanded by the law enforcement agencies of the PRC, as it is practically not visible to radars and sonars. Currently, Inge has also completed the development of the ekranoplan CYG-40, with a capacity of up to 40 people. The other three modifications, CYG-100, CYG-150, CYG-200, are under construction. http://mil.eastday.com/m/20130424/u1a7348178.htmlThis is all very interesting, but this Chinese ekranoplan is a copy of the Russian Oriole Ek-12. Its designer V. Kolganov has been working in China for 5 years. In the photo from the Chinese edition, it is clearly visible that there is one Chinese sitting in the cockpit (and there are a maximum of three Chinese in the photo of 9 people), next to a gray-haired man similar to V. Kolganov.
  34. Okinavo
    Okinavo 13 May 2014 16: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Many thanks to the author!
    Honestly, they lifted up the hobby-writing articles of the "professionals" about the wonderful properties of ekranoplanes, discs and other similar technical "miracles" (and even airships). But they are bullied because, possessing "wonderful", "unique" properties, they have not been put into mass mass production for decades.
    Finally, a man was found who was able to analyze and justify reasonably.