The average air pressure at sea level is 760 mm Hg. Art.
The average air pressure at an altitude of 11,000 meters is much lower - 170 mm Hg. Art.
The aircraft should have the most lightweight design.
The ship, on the contrary, must be strong and heavy in order to withstand the blows of the sea.
For the formation of an "air cushion", the ekranoplan needs to accelerate to 200 km / h or more - only then the multi-ton monster broke away from the surface and gracefully hovered a few meters above the crests of the waves.
In other words:
Water is 770 times denser than air. To gain takeoff speed and overcome the resistance of the water environment, the 300-ton Lun ekranoplan, whose float hull had a draft of almost 3 meters, required a thrust of 1 million Newtons.
Outrageous performance was achieved by installing eight turbojet power plants, similar to the engines of the Il-86 airbus.
The monstrous appearance of the Lun ekranoplan (EKP) with a garland of engines sticking out in front, a float body and a giant tail unit gave the cumulative effect of increasing air resistance during flight. All the tales about the "high" fuel efficiency of the EKP and the shutdown of some of the engines after entering the on-screen flight mode are nothing more than fairy tales for impressionable ordinary people. The flight range of the "Lunya" was only 2000 km - several times less than that of any transport aircraft or bomber-missile carrier
Air force of those years.
At the same time, the EKP payload was less than that of any aircraft of the same size.
Is the frontal resistance of this "unicorn goose" great?
What did you think? Nature does not tolerate jokes on itself.
The creators of ekranoplanes tried to violate all the basic laws of aviation, but life quickly put everything in its place. It was not possible to deceive the earth's atmosphere: the positive influence from the "screen effect" was completely neutralized by the greater force of air resistance at sea level. As a result, the sleek, streamlined Il-86 flew swiftly through the rarefied layers of the atmosphere at a speed of 900 km / h, and the eight-engine "Lun" barely dragged itself along the surface, with difficulty overcoming the resistance of dense air.
Instead of a fabulous "firebird", it turned out to be just a worsened version of a seaplane with castrated flight characteristics and a short flight range.
At the same time, the field of application of ekranoplanes was limited to open sea spaces - in contrast to airplanes, which, in principle, are indifferent to the relief under the wing (Ural, Siberia, Himalayas … we fly to anywhere in the world).
It makes no sense to compare the "Lun", like any ekranoplan, with a ship - the EKP is deprived of the main advantage of sea transport - its carrying capacity. The payload of even the largest and most advanced ekranoplanes designed by R. Alekseev was negligible compared to conventional bulk carriers and container ships.
Sea vessels - that's what they are! Strong!
In addition, sea vessels are the cheapest form of transport. Most customers would rather wait an extra couple of weeks and save millions. And there is always an airplane for the delivery of urgent cargo.
Against the background of the transport aviation, the EKP looked like a bicycle against the background of the Gazelle minibus - the Eaglet transport-combat ekranoplan took on board 3-4 times less cargo than the An-22 Antey. Moreover, the elderly "Antey" was 1.5 times faster than the "Eaglet" and had a 2 times greater flight range.
Everything is as usual. The ekranoplan turned out to be a useless plane and a bad ship.
The idea of using the EKP as a missile strike carrier looked no less dubious: the Lun was four times slower than the Tu-22M and, of course, had a 2 times smaller combat radius.
The only argument of the supporters of the EKP is the low flight altitude, allegedly making it difficult for the enemy to detect them. This would be true only in the absence of airborne early warning aircraft and aircraft radars with a mode of mapping and searching for targets against the background of the surface (radar aperture synthesis). In reality, any "Hawkeye", "Sentry" or A-50 will see the "goose unicorn" for many hundreds of kilometers with all the ensuing consequences.
The second point is target designation. Unlike the Tu-22M flying at high altitude, the "gooseedicorn" does not see anything beyond its nose.
Jet flying boat (carrier of nuclear weapons) Martin P6M Seamaster, 1955. According to some reports, it was also tested in the ekranoplan mode. Having received the first results, the Yankees abandoned the project
The significantly higher speed of the EKP compared to the missile cruiser is a useless argument. The cruiser, in contrast to the "goose-unicorn", has a powerful complex of defensive weapons (S-300F air defense missile systems, etc.), which makes it a much more serious enemy than the EKP.
Slow, blind, with a short radius of action, without defensive means, but at the same time terribly expensive (which are eight turbojet engines!) And gluttonous underplane - this is the kind of "wunderwaffe" that specialists from the Central Design Bureau named after. R. E. Alekseeva.
Another amusing project is the sea rescue EKP based on the Lun missile carrier. I wonder how this would-be rescuer planned to look for the shipwrecked? At a flight altitude of 5 meters, at a speed of 300-400-500 km / h, the EKP crew simply will not see the rafts and people in life jackets swaying on the waves.
A specialized helicopter is needed here - with a radar, a heat direction finder and powerful searchlights, loitering a couple of hundred meters above the water and methodically examining tens of kilometers of the sea surface.
And this is another masterpiece, the favorite brainchild of Rostislav Alekseev. The giant ekranoplan KM (also known as the "Caspian monster").
Seeing this miracle of technology, the military were speechless. The "Monster" was set in motion by TEN RD-7 engines removed from a Tu-22 bomber! It is known that only to gain takeoff speed of the KM required no less than 30 tons of kerosene.
At the same time, its carrying capacity was not as great as it might seem - 200 … 240 tons - only 1, 5 … 1, 8 times more than that of heavy transport aircraft - C-5 "Galaxy" (the same age as KM) or An -124 "Ruslan". At the same time, the aircraft were several times superior to the giant EKP in speed, flight range and efficiency. And of course, they could fly over both land and sea - the relief under the wing did not matter to them in the slightest.
Landing IL-76 on a glacier in Antarctica
It makes no sense to compare KM with sea transport - an ocean liner container ship exceeds KM in carrying capacity by more than 100 times.
It is a pity that such a wonderful designer, who had previously created a series of legendary hydrofoils ("Comets", etc.), was suddenly carried away by an unrealizable dream of a fabulous "goose unicorn". All further creations of Rostislav Alekseev and his colleagues cause, at least, bewilderment. KM, "Eaglet", "Lun" …
A-90 "Orlyonok" … The world's first serial transport-combat ekranoplan, produced in the amount of four flightable samples.
Exactly 20 years ago, in the fall of 1993, at the 11th base of the Caspian Flotilla of the Russian Navy, the last flight of the ekranoplan "Orlyonok" took place - the flight took place in the presence of many foreign guests from the Pentagon, NASA and American aircraft companies, incl.a working group of engineers led by aviconstructor Burt Rutan.
20 years have passed, but no serious work in this direction has been noted - neither in our country, nor abroad. Obviously, "Eaglet" did not particularly impress the Yankees with their capabilities …
The only development within the framework of this topic - the super-heavy EKP Boeing Pelican ULTRA with a take-off weight of 2,700 tons was initially an impracticable and unviable project. Work on the Pelican was completely abandoned in 2006.
So, the transport-combat ekranoplan "Eaglet". He was able to take on board up to 20 tons of payload - the EKP cargo compartment was designed for 2 armored personnel carriers or 200 troops. The cargo was delivered to a distance of up to 1500 km at a cruising speed of 400 km / h.
The new ekranoplan looked swift and graceful - instead of the usual "garland" of motors, there was only one NK-12 turboprop engine from the Tu-95 bomber. Is this time Rostislav Alekseev managed to accomplish a miracle by building a fast and economical vehicle that uses the "screen effect" while driving?
So, so … let's take a close look at this miracle of technology. But what is it sticking out in the bow of the economical single-engine "Eaglet"? Not a couple of engines yet - the NK-8 turbojet from the Tu-154 airliner.
A! Not bad for a humble ekranoplan?
For comparison, having a similar carrying capacity, the An-12 aircraft has a flight range of 3600 km (with a load of 20 tons) at a cruising speed of 550 … 600 km / h. At the same time, the power of all four of its AI-20 motors (4 x 4250 hp in takeoff mode) is less than the power of one NK-12 theater in the tail section of the ekranoplan.
Trying to find at least one advantage in the "Orlyonok" in comparison with a conventional aircraft, they often cite the example of a case when one of the machines "touched" the water surface with a stern at high speed. A powerful blow tore out the entire tail section along with the cruise power plant. Nevertheless, the pilots managed to bring the crippled ECP to the coast using forward jet engines.
The cited "advantage", on the contrary, is a disadvantage. To understand the meaning of what happened, it is enough to ask one question - how did the tail part touch the water? The answer is simple - the ekranoplan flies just a few meters above the surface. Erroneous elevator movements, a sudden decrease in engine thrust, a wave that is too high or a sudden gust of crosswind - the pilots have no chance to react and correct the error. Unlike an airplane flying at a considerable height and usually having several tens of "holy seconds" in reserve to correct the situation.
It is noteworthy that in 1980, under completely similar circumstances, when hitting the water, the “Caspian Monster” crashed to smithereens.
Three engines and a total of 20 tons of payload. The flight range is 1500 km. Limited scope. Problems with maneuverability and too large a turning radius - how to lower the wing console if water is splashing 5 meters below?
No, the ekranoplan "Orlyonok" is completely unsuitable for operation in peacetime - neither military nor commercial customers will agree to fly twice as slow (and only over the sea), while paying for a ticket twice as much as an airplane.
The only more or less adequate sphere of application for the "Orlyonok" is the lightning-fast landing of amphibious assault forces at short range - for example, to transfer several battalions of marines from Novorossiysk to Turkish Trabzon. Or land an amphibious squad on the island of Hokkaido (further, the range of the EKP will not be enough).
At first glance, the ekranoplan demonstrates some advantages over the classic amphibious assault vehicles:
1. Speed! "Eaglet" is able to reach the Turkish coast in an hour.
2. Possibility of disembarkation on an unequipped coastline (gently sloping beach).
3. EKP is somewhat more resistant to combat damage (although is there a big difference? An air-to-air missile hit will equally destroy any EKP and transport Il-76).
4. "Eaglet", unlike landing ships, is immune to minefields (as well as any aircraft).
It would seem that the alignment is successful.
However, with a slightly more detailed study of the situation, an obvious conclusion arises: landing in Turkey or on Hokkaido with the help of the "Eaglet" is a cheap profanation.
It's not so much the general illogicality of such an event (an attack on a NATO country? World War III?)
The problem is much more serious - the "Orlyonok" has too little carrying capacity - only 20 tons. This is not enough to lift even one main battle tank. Moreover, the tank will need more than one …
A small landing, deprived of the support of heavy armored vehicles, will be immediately destroyed and thrown into the sea. There is no need to doubt this - we already had one joker who promised to take Grozny with one regiment of the Airborne Forces.
When carrying out amphibious landings, one cannot do without amphibious assault ships on an air cushion - for comparison, the Zubr small amphibious assault ship is capable of taking on board three main battle tanks with a total weight of 150 tons and up to 140 marines.
The lower speed compared to the EKP (100+ km / h) is compensated by the higher carrying capacity and the presence of defensive weapons - batteries of automatic anti-aircraft guns AK-630 and MANPADS. For fire support, there are two 140 mm MLRS systems on board.
As for the covert deployment of an advanced reconnaissance and sabotage detachment - the EKP is not at all involved here. Such tasks are much more efficiently solved by military transport aviation, helicopters and tiltrotors - an advantage in speed + the ability to land in the depths of enemy territory.
"Eaglet" was again unemployed. It is unsuitable for carrying out amphibious operations - it has absolutely insufficient carrying capacity.
Epilogue
Regardless of our reasoning, history has passed its fair verdict on the EKP and their creators. Vessels moving to the border of two environments and trying to violate the canons of aerodynamics turned out to be a dead-end branch of technology. Despite all the enthusiasm of the designer R. E. Alekseev and the "golden era" of the Soviet Union, the development of new ECPs practically stopped. For 20 years of work on the creation of machines that use the screen effect during movement, Rostislav Evgenievich managed to build only a couple of working life-size models - KM and Orlyonok. After the tragic death of Alekseev in 1980, his followers gave birth to three more flying "Eaglet" and a new ekranoplan-missile carrier Lun.
An-74 at the ice base "Barneo", the North Pole region
Those who believe that in the Arctic it is smooth, like on a rink, and an ekranoplan is an ideal vehicle for the development of the Arctic, are greatly mistaken. The EKP will open its belly against the first oncoming hummock.
And this at a time when any ideas received the broadest support at the state level, the USSR did not spare funds for the development of the military-industrial complex!
A melancholy ballad about the imperfection of technology in assembling the EKP and the lack of suitable materials can only impress junior students of humanitarian specialties. To Rostislav Aleksev's “colleagues” - aircraft designers M. L. Mil and N. I. It took Kamov ten years to "spin up" and switch to the mass production of his wonderful machines - thousands of helicopters were sold all over the world. No complaints about the imperfection of technology and the lack of suitable power plants.
It's not about the propulsion system. And not in the intrigues of the opponents of R. Alekseev, who wanted to destroy the ingenious designer.
The ekranoplan could not demonstrate a single even convincing advantage over conventional aircraft. Airplane - speed. Helicopter - the ability to hover in the air and take off from confined areas. But what can an ekranoplan do? A degraded version of a seaplane capable of flying only over the open sea.
Even in prosperous Soviet times, there were no military, let alone civilian customers for Alekseev's ekranoplanes. The sailors, barely seeing such monsters and evaluating the prospect of maintenance and repair of ten jet engines in combat units (when operating in sea conditions: humidity, salt deposits), completely abandoned further plans for the purchase of "unicorn geese". Moreover, they did not have any distinct advantages - only disadvantages.
But it is even more surprising that the idea of ekranoplan construction has grown into a wild color in modern Russia. Our compatriots like EKP - and nothing can be done about it: the voice of reason is powerless before blind love.
Probably, nostalgia for the glorious times of the USSR is to blame for everything. A huge roaring monster that flies over the sea, billowing up clouds of foam and spray, is perhaps the best interpretation of the feelings of Russians yearning for the great achievements of our past.
P. S
On October 28 of this year, Voennoye Obozreniye published an article by a certain Oleg Kaptsov "I was called" Eaglet "in the detachment, the enemies were called Eagle."
By themselves, the author's theses are a rare nonsense arising from Kaptsov's ignorance of many, both historical and technical aspects of the domestic ekranoplan construction. In addition, Kaptsov sucked out of his thumb the "facts" about the last (!) Flight of the "Eaglet" in 1993.
But that's not what I mean.
Kaptsov did not forget to sign his opus, however, without asking permission and even without specifying the source, he illegally published my author's photographs, "borrowed" by him from the network media "Lenta.ru".
Oleg Kaptsov expresses his sincere apologies to journalist, historian and photographer Dmitry Grinyuk for accidentally including three of his author's photographs in the photos of the article "I was called" Eaglet "in the detachment, the enemies were called Eagle"
If D. Grinyuk, after reading this material, has any constructive arguments ("rare nonsense" - that is not), the author (O. Kaptsov) will be glad to see them in the comments to the article or in personal correspondence.
Also, it is interesting to know what exactly did you mean when you were indignant at the facts about the last flight of the "Eaglet" in 1993? Similar facts can be found at the link provided in your letter.
Best regards, Oleg Kaptsov.
