With all due respect to Alekseev, Lippish and Bartini, constantly flying in takeoff mode is bad, damn uneconomical and deadly. Height is very beneficial for the aircraft, the health of its crew and passengers.
All the advantages of the ground effect (an increase in lift when flying several meters above the surface) are leveled by the resistance of dense layers of the atmosphere, exacerbated by the design of the "sea monsters" themselves.
They need whole "garlands" of engines to go to screen mode, which entails obvious troubles:
A) Deterioration of aerodynamic appearance compared to conventional aircraft (smooth cigar-shaped fuselage, only two or four engines).
B) Catastrophic fuel consumption in takeoff mode. Ten jet engines of the KM ekranoplan burned at the start of 30 tons of kerosene!
C) Some of the engines were turned off when entering the screen mode and then fiddled with as a useless "ballast".
Each of the Lunya engines, together with fuel fittings and a nacelle, weighed four tons. And he had eight of them!
To expand the possibilities of using ekranoplanes in stormy weather and safe take-off with overcoming hydrodynamic resistance at speeds of hundreds of km / h, their design should have increased strength, like the hulls of ships. All this is a direct violation of the LA theory, where there is a struggle for every kilogram of weight.
Plus a fuselage with characteristic ship lines and a bulky, non-removable hydro-ski for landing on water and maintaining stability on the water.
Yes, that is why the unfortunate "Eaglet", with the same carrying capacity with the An-12, had 1.5 times less speed and half the flight range. It lifted only 20 tons, with a dry weight of its structure of 120 tons! For comparison: the An-12, created twenty years before it, lifted the same load with its own weight of only 36 tons.
That is why the Lun ekranoplan did not have enough combat radius to cross the Caspian Sea. Then someone suggests using such ECPs to pursue aircraft carriers in the Atlantic. Isn't it funny yourself?
That is why the modern EKP "Aquaglide" has the same carrying capacity (400 kg) as the Cessna-172 created half a century ago. At the same time, “Cessna” for some reason (surprise!) Is content with a motor with half the power (160 versus 326 hp) and, of course, has a high speed.
All these figures are unlikely to impress the public. Fans of this type of technique will continue to deny the obvious. As usual, all failures will fall not on the objective difficulties that arise when flying in dense layers of the atmosphere, but the lack of modern engines, materials and calculations.
But if many years of "calculations" show that it turns out stupidity, it would be strange to continue to decide something.
In the future, there will be new lightweight materials and fuel efficient engines, but the situation will remain the same. With the introduction of new technologies, aircraft will once again show their complete superiority over ekranoplanes.
Fans of ekranoplanes are saddened by the comparison of EKP with aviation and ships. In their opinion, this brilliant “monster” exists in a separate reality and, due to its genius, cannot compete with existing modes of transport.
Different types of transport are quite necessary and can be compared, becauseRussian Railways is quite a competitor to Aeroflot and is fighting for one client. And suddenly some RosEkranoplan wedges into this pair and says that it will be able to carry everyone faster, cheaper and safer. Will such a RosEkranoplan be able to squeeze out a significant chunk of the transportation market from Russian Railways or Aeroflot?
Comment by Alex_59
Unable to provide technical counterarguments and explain the advantages of flying at low altitudes, ECP enthusiasts refer to other types of technology. Allegedly, they also experienced unbearable torment when introduced into life.
Replace the ekranoplan in this article with an "airplane", change the date to 1903, and it will look like the truth.
Only the truth is different there.
It took airplanes only 10 years to become a full-fledged air force. Without whose participation any military conflict has become unthinkable. Despite the wretchedness of the design of the first "whatnots", their advantages were so great that they could not leave anyone aside.
As soon as a reliable propeller misalignment mechanism was created, helicopters went into production en masse. "Sikorsky R4" has been actively used in hostilities since April 1944. Since 1944, the Germans have operated a helicopter carrier "Drache" with a squadron of anti-submarine helicopters Fl.282 "Kolibri". Appreciating the car, the command of the Kriegsmarine immediately issued an order for 1000 of these "birds".
The ability to take off from any “patch”, hover in place and move bulky loads on an external sling - the properties of helicopters are invaluable.
And what can an ekranoplan offer?
The only achievement of the creators of "monsters" was that they, at the cost of incredible efforts, still were able to lift into the air what, by its nature, should not fly. Ignoring the costs, relying on endless funding from the state.
The question, why and for what to create difficulties out of the blue, remained unanswered.
Probably, it was fun for them to drive a 500-ton “shed” across the Caspian Sea with the help of a “garland” of 10 jet engines from Tu-22 supersonic bombers.
The inadequacy of the 10-motor “monster” was obvious even at the stage of initial calculations. But he was still embodied in metal. And, apparently, the experiment was considered successful. The crazy ideas of the “Caspian Monster” were developed in the form of the Lun ekranoplan with eight engines from the IL-86 wide-body airliner.
The comedy with ekranoplanes lasted more than half a century, but it could not last forever. Having received the results of the practical operation of these machines, incl. 140-, 380- and 540-ton "monsters", customers from the Navy, in the end, covered the hopeless direction.
Several times lower speed and carrying capacity with the same take-off weight, triple fuel consumption, the impossibility of flying over land - all that distinguishes an ekranoplan from a conventional aircraft.
The ekranoplan is ideal for landing groups of scouts - the roar of 10 engines will be heard all over the coast.
About stealth on radars when flying at low altitude: what prevents a missile-carrying bomber from doing the same trick? Sneak up to the target at extremely low altitude at twice the speed of the EKP?
Contrary to rumors about the safety of ekranoplanes, “which immediately land on the water in case of engine failure,” in reality, they beat no less often than conventional airplanes. Of the eight large "Alekseevsky" monsters, four were defeated, incl. two fatal accidents.
Pilots of ekranoplanes have no saving seconds to assess the situation and level the car. One awkward movement of the steering wheel - and the tail will break off from hitting the water at 400 km / h. If you take the helm a little over yourself - separation from the screen, loss of stability, loss of control over the car, disaster, death.
Driveability becomes an even bigger problem. Due to the impossibility of making turns with a deep roll, the turning radius of the "Lunya" at cruising speed was three kilometers! Now let the most desperate try to "pass" the bend of the river on a 380-ton ekranoplan. Or to evade a tug that suddenly appeared directly on the course.
The only area of application of the EKP these days is a water attraction for spoiled tourists who are tired of riding a banana and hydro-skiing.
The idea of an ekranoplan does not carry the slightest common sense. Flying at an ultra-low altitude can only worsen all, without exception, the characteristics of an aircraft. In the same way that a kettlebell tied to the leg will never increase the athlete's running speed. You can count it again and make a weight from carbon, but the weight will remain a weight. The main question is why is she even on her leg, if you can live without a kettlebell.
The story with the ekranoplan is an interesting social experiment. How easy it is for people to believe in all kinds of nonsense. And when trying to point out the obvious erroneousness of their judgments, they are ready to furiously defend an absurd point of view, accusing opponents of betraying national interests.
And then they wonder how the Kashpirovskys and the MMM could appear.
Those who call for the revival of work on the creation of heavy ekranoplanes fall into two categories. The first are impressionable ordinary people who liked the sight of a low-flying “super-plane” with a dozen roaring engines. Being confident that they are right, they do not notice the shortcomings and invent imaginary advantages of the ECP on the fly.
The latter represent a group of interests of serious people. Who understand everything perfectly, therefore they are trying to launch a deliberately ineffectual, therefore long and expensive project, “sawing” a decent amount of money on this.
