History knows many fantastic projects that surprise with their courage and complete isolation from reality.
Submarine aircraft carriers (submarines with a seaplane - used by Japan for the symbolic "bombing" of the forests of Oregon).
Vertically taking off amphibian VVA-14. An amazingly beautiful car. True, it remains unclear why amphibians take off vertically, when there is an endless water surface around them, suitable as a runway.
"Pocket pistol" for the B-36 strategic bomber. Mini-fighter XF-85 "Goblin", suspended in the bomb bay and released when enemy aircraft appear. Crazy from start to finish, the project, however, managed to grow to the stage of flight tests.
And, of course, the ekranoplan is another daring attempt to deceive the laws of nature. A unique design that combines "the speed qualities of an aircraft with the carrying capacity of traditional sea vessels", capable of "moving over water and solid surface" and "having the broadest prospects in the field of passenger and sea transportation, rescuing people in distress at sea, and - as a military vehicle for the transfer of troops or a carrier of cruise missiles. " Unfortunately, all of the above advantages of ekranoplanes are false information widely circulated on the Internet. The ekranoplan does not possess any of these properties.
Comparison of an ekranoplan with a ship is completely unfounded - 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. Equally groundless is 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 confusion among the passengers of the Tu-154 or Il-96 - the plane is, in principle, indifferent to the relief under the wing. Taiga, mountains, ocean …
This is easy to verify with specific examples - in the course of previous discussions of the "screen effect" we have repeatedly observed interesting scenes:
- transport ekranoplanes "Orlyonok" and "Caspian Monster" lost to smithereens the transport aircraft An-12, An-22 and An-124 in terms of “speed, cost, range of transportation”, as well as in the range of application and flight safety. The same applies to the unfulfilled American Pelican project - the victory of technology over common sense;
- comparison of the combat ekranoplan "Lun" with the ships of the Navy also did not work in favor of the "unicorn goose" - the newly-made "aircraft carrier killer" turned out to be a completely defenseless vehicle with minimal strike potential. In such conditions, the higher speed of the ekranoplan (in the best case - 600 km / h) does not matter any more - for modern jet aircraft "Lun" and the destroyer are equally static objects. Only the latter can stand up for itself, and the combat ekranoplan cannot (if you install ship-based air defense systems on the Lun, the overloaded monster simply cannot take off).
- Equally ineffectual was the comparison of the combat ekranoplan "Lun" with the supersonic bombers Tu-22 and Tu-22M - a huge slow-moving machine with a tiny combat radius looked like a flying embarrassment against the background of Tupolev's missile carriers. In addition, the "Lunya" had problems with target designation - flying at the very surface of the water, he could not see anything further than his nose (radio horizon 20 km). And finally, expensive, too expensive! - which are only 8 jet engines NK-87, taken from the wide-body passenger airliner Il-86.
- for the same reasons, the idea of a rescue ekranoplan turned out to be a utopia. The Goose Unicorn will simply not be able to detect shipwreck victims due to its low flight altitude. In addition, the flight range is too short (2000 km) - contrary to all dreams, the Rescuer ekranoplan could not have rescued the crew of the Komsomolets submarine, which sank in the Norwegian Sea.
The inappropriateness of the construction of ekranoplanes-monsters became clear even at the stage of their design. The main reasons for the failures of the designer Rostislav Alekseev are fundamental natural prohibitions: too high density of air in the lower layers of the atmosphere, as well as the obvious difficulties of taking off from the water surface - to overcome the monstrous resistance (the draft of the ekranoplan is several meters!) And the force of "sticking" of water to the hull " The Caspian monsters "required power plants of incredible power (KM - 10 (ten!) RD-7 jet engines removed from a Tu-22 bomber. Takeoff consumption - 30 tons of kerosene!). Such indicators, of course, put an end to the future career of the "unicorn goose".
The excuses associated with Alekseev's lack of time and funds to improve his designs have no real basis: the first acquaintance of aviators with the screen effect (the appearance of a dynamic "air cushion" under the wing when flying near the shielding surface) took place back in the 1920s last century. Rostislav Alekseev has seriously dealt with this topic since the 50s, the work went so successfully that already in 1966 an incredible 500-ton "Caspian Monster" took off. Such a structure cannot be recreated in artisanal conditions, the construction of the "Monster" required colossal efforts of the whole research and production team. Everything went great until discouraging test results were obtained. As a result, only about 10 "monsters" for various purposes were built (including prototypes and unfinished skeletons).
For comparison - helicopter engineering: if you do not take into account the original projects of Leonardo Da Vinci, helicopter engineering got a start in life in 1911, when the engineer Boris Yuriev invented the automatic blade skew. The first flights on "helicopters" began in the 1920s, each time faster, farther and more confident. Limited use in World War II - and, the triumphant takeoff of helicopters during the Korean War. There is nothing to add here - the helicopter had really remarkable qualities.
Visitors to the Voennoye Obozreniye website rightly drew attention to the existence of a large number of homemade ekranoplan designs created by enthusiasts around the world. Now ekranoplans are still a popular subject, almost at every exhibition of aviation and marine technology you can find a stand with models of these machines and bright booklets describing their outrageous characteristics and efficiency. This is probably not without reason …
Are light ekranoplans really the very sought-after niche for this type of technology?
I invite readers to make a quick comparison of the three cars:
- modern ekranoplan Ivolga EK-12P (2000), - the ancient "maize" An-2 (1947), - the legendary UH-1 "Iroquois" helicopter (1956).
At first glance, a light ekranoplan looks very attractive - it is not inferior to light-engine aircraft in terms of speed and carrying capacity, 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 machines, for example, the ASh-62 engine is installed on the maize, created back in 1937 on the basis of the licensed Wright-Cyclone. Put an EMK engine instead of modern BMW engines on the Ivolga and see how the characteristics of the device change. And do not forget to make a discount on the archaic design of the 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 best build quality and aerodynamics. Passengers of the Ivolga ekranoplan sit in armchairs, huddled shoulder to shoulder - passengers of An-2, on the contrary, can freely get up and walk to the end of the cabin, where a plumbing system of the "bucket" type is installed on the 15th frame - a thing of no small importance, given the "bumpiness "During the flight of the" maize "near the surface of the earth.
For the sake of fairness, we can consider a more modern light-engine aircraft "Cessna-172" (first flight - 1955) "Cessna" cannot be directly compared with the An-2, because this aircraft is in a completely different weight category (max. takeoff weight - a little over a ton). Nevertheless, it is possible to make some correlation between the performance characteristics of the Ivolga, the maize and the Cessna.
"Cessna-172" takes on board up to four people (including the pilot) and is capable of covering a distance of 1,300 km at a cruising speed of 220 km / h. The power plant is the only four-cylinder engine with a capacity of 160 hp. The fuel supply on board is 212 liters. "Cessna-172" showed very good characteristics, which, together with simplicity, reliability and cheapness, ensured its worldwide success. As a result, the little Cessna became the most massive aircraft in the history of aviation.
From all this comparison, an uncomplicated conclusion follows: light ekranoplanes can quite successfully compete with light-engine aircraft. Small size, good aerodynamics and low flight speed neutralize all the disadvantages inherent in large "Caspian monsters" and provide excellent fuel efficiency. The disadvantages of the car are its price (it is enough to estimate the cost of servicing two 12-cylinder engines from a BMW 7-series) and a limited area of application associated with water spaces (for the most daring - a snow-covered tundra without palisades and power lines). The verdict is an amateur car.
These flying boats represent a new level of combat technology designed to enhance our defensive capabilities. They are not afraid of waves, and they are able to fly very low at high speed, which makes them almost invisible.
Ahmad Wahidi, Iranian Defense Minister
A very interesting story is connected with the creation of ekranoplanes in Iran - several years ago it became known that the guards of the Islamic revolution adopted three squadrons of flying boats - light single-seater ekranoplanes of the Bavar-2 type (“confidence” in Farsi). A feature of Iranian aircraft is the delta wing - the result of the work of the German aircraft designer Alexander Lippisch, who was involved in the problem of the "screen effect" along with Rostislav Alekseev.
Lippisch's works were well known throughout the world, including in the USSR. Back in the early 80s, Soviet enthusiasts designed a light flying boat, the design of which, down to individual elements, completely coincides with the design of the Bavar-2. The Iranians only slightly modernized the ekranoplan, replacing the pulling propeller with a pushing one and, probably, equipped their vehicles with weapons and special equipment (according to official data, the Bavar-2 is armed with a machine gun).
Of the unique properties of "Bavar-2" - high secrecy. For the American fleet, the Iranian ekranoplan is like the Elusive Joe, whom no one is looking for, because no one needs him. All jokes, but if the body of the "Bavar-2" is made of wood, plastic or other radio-transparent materials, detecting such small targets becomes a really difficult task. Another thing is that a single-seat light combat vehicle does not pose any threat to enemy ships … However, in the presence of 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 associated with the creation of a high-speed passenger vessel of the A145 planing project. A modern Russian development embodied in metal at the Zelenodolsk shipyard. The vessel was launched in May 2012.
The A145 project vessel is designed to carry 150 passengers with luggage at a speed of 40 knots for a distance of up to 200 miles during daylight hours in the coastal sea zone. The seaworthiness of a high-speed passenger vessel provides the ability to operate at sea waves up to 5 points. The total displacement of the A145 type vessel is 82 tons, the power plant is two MTU diesels 2000 hp each. each.
A sufficiently high level of comfort is provided on board the new passenger ship, including due to rational layout and a spacious cabin with a multimedia system, comfortable seating, air conditioning, three bathrooms, and catering for passengers on board.
Actually, I cited this masterpiece of shipbuilding as an example to show you how economical a ship is compared to an ekranoplan. The planing vessel of the A145 type was enough with two diesel engines with a total capacity of 4000 hp. The ekranoplane "Orlyonok" at one time required the NK-12 sustainer turboprop engine with a capacity of 15 thousand hp, plus two NK-8 turbojets removed from the passenger Tu-154.
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 for 1,500 km of track. The difference in the cost of a liter of aviation kerosene and diesel fuel can be neglected.
