A number of myths have been created around aviation and ekranoplanes, which openly distort the capabilities of aircraft and create distorted ideas among the population interested in the issue. Alas, sometimes people who are professionally obliged to understand the issue also become victims of these myths.
One of these myths is that to ensure the basing of some specific aircraft, a simpler infrastructure is needed than for normal aircraft, which supposedly expands their capabilities for dispersed or non-aerodrome deployment.
It is worth examining these myths in more detail. To begin with, let's define a list of the myths themselves and a list of aircraft around which they grew up.
Competitive aircraft and boundary conditions
We will deal with the following statements:
1. The basing capabilities of seaplanes are superior to those of conventional aircraft.
I must say that this is partly and sometimes so, but with a number of reservations that change everything very much.
2. To provide dispersed basing of combat aircraft, aircraft with vertical / short take-off and landing are very well suited - better than conventional combat aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing.
3. Item 1. Allegedly, for basing ekranoplanes, a minimum infrastructure is needed in comparison with airplanes, and therefore they are less limited in the choice of places for basing. At first glance, this point could be combined with seaplanes, but this particular myth did not arise by itself, it has creators who introduced some reservations into it. They will also be disassembled.
4. Airplanes with horizontal takeoff and landing and wheeled landing gear, not amphibians - the most "problematic" class of aircraft from the point of view of basing, requiring the most expensive infrastructure, especially for large multi-engine aircraft.
We will check all these statements for their veracity, designate what real restrictions on the basing of certain aircraft have and determine the most universal of them, those that have the least restrictions and the most demanding for basing, those that can be used only in the narrowest range of conditions.
Three points should be outlined right away.
Firstly, radio navigation equipment will remain out of consideration, simply because it will have to be available at any airport or at any temporary airfield, just like on a seaplane base. This is a separate issue, and in this almost all aircraft are equal.
Secondly, the absolute champions who can be based literally anywhere - helicopters - will remain outside the ratings. Their capabilities are already understandable, and everyone knows, and the necessity does not raise any doubts.
Thirdly, all sorts of exotic and gone from the scene aircraft, which are used today in minimal quantities and in fact are exotic, primarily airships and gyroplanes, well, and other exotic aircraft. In theory, ekranoplanes should also be in this group, but they have a lobby, which means that their real capabilities need to be dissected together with seaplanes and "verticals".
Debriefing of myth 1: the basing capabilities of seaplanes are superior to those of conventional aircraft
First you need to decide on the terminology. Seaplanes can be conditionally divided into several large groups. The first and one of the most widespread in the world is the float plane. This is an airplane mounted on floats instead of wheels. Such planes have been and are different.
The largest floatplane in history was the Italian CANT Z.511, a mini-submarine sabotage delivery aircraft. It was really big and, in general, not bad car for its time. During the Second World War, there were float reconnaissance aircraft and even fighters.
Now, however, such large float aircraft are not produced, and they are represented by one- and two-engine modifications of conventional wheeled aircraft. Basically, float planes are "clean" seaplanes, they can land only on water and be based on it, but there are floats, retrofitted with wheels - such planes can be pulled out on a flat and hard surface and rolled on the ground.
Some models of such aircraft, equipped with so-called amphibious floats, can land on the ground, but the strength of their chassis is lower than that of wheeled aircraft and the restrictions on the airfield used may be slightly higher and the stability on wheels is frankly poor.
The second type of seaplane is a flying boat. The specificity of flying boats is that they completely lack a wheeled chassis; at best, they have attachment wheels that can be attached to an aircraft lying in drifting in order to pull it ashore. During the Second World War, flying boats were used by almost all the belligerents, and after the war they were also in service for some time, for example, in the USSR, the Be-6 and Be-10 flying boats were in service with naval aviation.
The third type of seaplane is the amphibious aircraft. This aircraft has both the ability to land on water and the ability to land on a regular airfield using a full-fledged wheeled chassis. In this case, usually amphibious aircraft have an overweight hull for strength and poor takeoff and landing characteristics, at least worse than a conventional aircraft of the same weight, dimensions and with the same engines.
Thus, we can safely divide seaplanes into two large groups: those that can only take off from the water (float planes and flying boats) and those that can take off both from the water and from the ground (amphibians and float planes with amphibious floats) …
What are the conditions and restrictions for using seaplanes? One can immediately say the following: for amphibious aircraft, when flying from the ground, the same restrictions apply as for conventional "land" wheeled aircraft. Additional limiting factors are the need for a slightly longer runway and better quality of its surface (this will become obvious when analyzing the capabilities of conventional aircraft). When flying from water, the restrictions on the use of these machines are as follows:
1. The need to have a non-freezing water area without ice. Ice is an important caveat. Formally, Russia has 14 ice-free ports through which year-round navigation is possible without icebreaker support or almost without it. In fact, this applies mainly to ships with a strong displacement hull. The reason is simple: open water is not so "clean" and there may be drifting ice floes, sometimes quite large ones, namely the so-called grated ice (ice floes up to 2 meters in diameter), black frost, sludge, and other ice formations. For a ship with a displacement hull, they do not pose a threat to a certain size, but an aluminum plane landing on water at a speed of 100-200 km / h is a completely different matter.
The hull of an amphibian or flying boat will be severely damaged by these formations, and the float plane may simply capsize. The specificity of the sea is that the wind can quickly drive ice onto a previously clean body of water.
Thus, the very climate in Russia does not allow us to disagree with seaplanes. It is simply too cold in our country, and the number of places on the seas where such machines can be used all year round is less than the number of fingers on the hands of a healthy, untrained person.
A separate reservation should be made for float aircraft: it is technically possible to make a changeable landing gear when the floats are changed to skis or floats and there are skis with a small turning ridge at the bottom. The technical feasibility of such a float ski in the 80s was proved by the Soviet inventor Fyodor Palyamar, who made such float skis and tested it on high-speed snowmobiles of his own design. Such float skis will make it possible to use a float plane in winter for landings on flat snow fields. But this is only possible for very small single-engine cars.
In addition, such aircraft will not be able to fly from frozen sea areas - the ice on the sea is uneven, and there is such a phenomenon as hummocks, a collision with which no ski plane can survive. That is, we are talking more about a ground or lake ice airfield with a flat, prepared surface.
2. The need for minimal excitement. Already a storm of 4 points makes it impossible for any seaplane to take off or land in the world, 3 points will also either not allow you to land at all (for most existing machines), or make takeoff and landing extremely dangerous, with a high risk of disaster or accident. Moreover, in our northern latitudes, storms are not uncommon even in non-freezing waters.
3. The need to check and clean the water surface from floating objects: logs, barrels and the like, before each takeoff and landing. In the USSR, where military seaplanes and flying boats were operated, this was usually neglected. Occasionally the results were seaplane collisions with these objects. This is not to say that this was very often, but it did happen from time to time. At the same time, the aircraft was seriously destroyed and could no longer fly, at least without long and expensive repairs, and sometimes even in general.
4. The need to have a concrete parking lot near the water. In fact, this is the same airfield, only without a runway. It also needs to be built, unless, of course, the goal is to rot the planes faster. If, technically, the seaplane cannot reach this site (for example, there is not enough thrust), then devices are needed to pull it onto it.
In general, we can say that the combination of these restrictions made the operation of seaplanes in our country extremely difficult and, more often than not, simply impossible. Not being able to defeat nature, the USSR Ministry of Defense and later the Russian Federation consistently first abandoned flying boats in favor of exclusively amphibians with a wheeled chassis, then, at the next stage of evolution, provided aviation units on seaplanes with reserve ground airfields, after which they generally transferred them to permanent basing on the ground, leaving the possibility of landing on water as an additional option, after which he formulated in the regulatory documents the requirement to always have a reserve airfield for seaplanes with a concrete runway, after which he abandoned seaplanes altogether, ordering only a few search and rescue Be-200s for some extreme, a unique case when landing on water will be both necessary and possible at the same time. I must say that this was a completely sensible and correct decision. Before us, the Americans ran along the same path, with the same result - and this is in their warm climate!
Alas, there are lobbyists in the naval aviation who want the amphibians to return to service at the expense of normal aircraft. Let's wish them all good luck.
When and where are seaplanes needed? These are "niche" cars. Somewhere in sparsely populated lake areas with a warm climate and the presence of large-sized reservoirs that never freeze, they can be useful and even massively used. There are examples in warm countries. But this is not about Russia with its climate and size. In Russia, in the summer, seaplanes are of interest as firefighters - and are used as such.
Of interest is the concept of a small cargo-passenger amphibious aircraft with the ability to mount a ski landing gear. Such an aircraft could serve the regions of the Far North, Eastern Siberia and other similar places, taking off from the runway in summer, on wheels and landing near settlements on the water, and in winter using a ski landing gear. Such a machine could replace helicopters in many cases. But even she would have a seasonality of use: in the spring, when the soil becomes limp, and ice drifts on rivers, even such a versatile aircraft turns out to be inapplicable. It's Russia.
However, he could still find his place, but again as a "niche" machine for a specific task and conditions and with a lot of restrictions.
And in the world, flying boats were a mass phenomenon only until a sufficient number of concrete runways were built - and after that their decline began.
Let's make a final conclusion.
The use of "clean" seaplanes in Russia on a regular and massive basis is impossible: the climate interferes. At the same time, amphibious seaplanes can be used in the same way as ground wheeled aircraft, and sometimes, when there is an opportunity and need, to land and take off from water. When flying from ground airfields (and most transportation, even military, albeit civil, requires just this), amphibians are significantly inferior to conventional aircraft in terms of efficiency
In general, seaplanes do not have advantages in terms of ease of basing over normal aircraft, since, due to the climate, their flights from the water are seasonal in nature and in most territories in Russia are practically meaningless, and when flying from ground airfields, conventional aircraft are more efficient.
When may the mass construction of seaplanes of various types be necessary for Russia? Only in case of some unrealistic events, for example, if Russia conquers Oceania in a conventional war and it will be necessary to quickly airlift troops between the atolls. Or if, due to global warming, winter disappears in Russia and by some miracle many new lakes are formed, Siberian rivers will become much more abundant, etc. That is, seriously speaking, never. We will never conquer Oceania and we will never have a tropical humid climate, so Russia will never need seaplanes in large quantities - the climate will not allow them to be used normally, it imposes too many restrictions on their basing.
Live with it now.
Debriefing Myth 2: Vertical / short takeoff and landing aircraft are very well suited to ensure dispersed basing of combat aircraft
From time to time, information about the ongoing research work to determine the possible appearance of the future Russian aircraft with a short takeoff and a vertical landing comes up in Russia. At the same time, supporters of the project often point out that, firstly, for Russia, having such aircraft, it will be much easier to acquire large-scale carrier-based aircraft and aircraft-carrying ships of a simpler design than a normal full-fledged aircraft carrier.
Regarding carrier-based aircraft, we will limit ourselves to a simple statement that this is simply not true, but the topic of "vertical aircraft" and light aircraft carriers is too voluminous and requires separate consideration.
But the dispersed and supposedly aerodromeless basing is worth taking apart.
The specificity of the "vertical" is that during takeoff, this aircraft uses not only horizontal thrust for acceleration, but also vertical thrust to give the aircraft additional lift. The effect of this method of takeoff, of course, is: for example, AV-8B and F-35B rise from the decks of American landing ships, having a little over 200 meters to accelerate. True, with an incomplete combat load.
With full combat load, these aircraft were used by the British and Americans in Afghanistan. Usually the distance of the short takeoff run was within 600-700 meters, sometimes reaching 800-900. At the same time, what is important, all flights of these machines in a real ground war were made only from concreted airfields, just often from dilapidated ones (hence the limitation on the length of the takeoff run).
But what about the Soviet experience? The Soviet experience had a specificity: the Yak-38 was used in hostilities only once - in 1980 during Operation Rhombus in Afghanistan. Those who wish today can find a lot of information about these combat missions, but we are interested in the fact that domestic "verticals" in a ground war also flew from the airfield, just from a steel collapsible - it, by the way, was worth the "Yak" lost in the war - our only " vertical structure ", which crashed in a real war, and not in military service. As you know, during landing, the jet stream knocked out the soil from under the steel plates of the runway, and the plane, together with the airfield coating, fell into the resulting hole.
The British, who massively used their Harriers in the Air Force, also did not fly from the ground - for each Harrier base they had and still have to equip a field airfield with take-off and landing pads made of steel strips and plates, "aircraft landing mats". Such an airfield, of course, is much simpler and cheaper than a capital one, but the question is that these planes cannot fly regularly without coverage.
Here is how the Harrier takes off from such mats:
It is important to understand that for laying mats on the ground, you first need to, in fact, perform the same amount of work with the ground as for a dirt runway - level and tamp in places. And only then lay the flooring.
Any "Harrier" can break away from a short run from "bare" ground. But - once. Then at this point there will be a ditch formed by a jet of jet exhaust, and it will be necessary to look for a new place for takeoff. Vertical draft on open ground will lead to the same - the formation of a hole under the aircraft.
This is what the very first public vertical landing of the Harrier looked like on an unequipped site - pay attention to the dust, and this is not soil.
We state: STOL or "clean" VTOL aircraft cannot be based outside airfields. They need special cover in order to take off and land
In the USSR, there were a lot of attempts to organize a non-aerodrome basing of "Yaks". They all failed. Vertical exhaust, even on ordinary airfields, destroyed the asphalt, tearing it out of the airfield cover in huge pieces, and even the open ground did not hold the exhaust in any way.
As a result, the USSR seemed to have found a way: a folding platform on a car trailer, raised high above the ground, made it possible to sit on it and take off from it an unlimited number of times. Unlimited in theory, in practice, the aircraft needs inter-flight maintenance, and sometimes repairs on this site were extremely difficult.
In addition, this Soviet specificity in the future will be a thing in itself: the old Yaks could not only land vertically, but also take off with a full combat load, albeit for a very short combat radius. The SCVVPs being investigated now will not be able to do the same as the F-35B: at least a short, but takeoff run will be needed. This means that the slabs are temporary steel or permanent concrete.
And what about ordinary airplanes? Ordinary planes don't need flooring. Let's give a simple example: a Su-25 with the number of weapons on board comparable to that with which the Harrier flies from a 600-meter concrete track can take off from the ground! Just from the tamped ground, from an ordinary field airfield, not very different from those that were the norm during the Great Patriotic War. And from the same "about 600" meters!
As you can see from the video, some kind of flooring is still made under the Su-25 parking lot, but this cannot be compared with what is needed for the SCVVP takeoff, and besides, it was possible to do without it.
And here is shown the landing on a section of the road of an already full-fledged fighter, incomparable in its flight characteristics with the SKVVP.
And if flight from unreinforced ordinary asphalt using vertical thrust is fraught with destruction of the surface, then normal fighters calmly sit down on road sections and take off from them. The "vertical" can only do this almost without the use of lifting motors, which completely deprives the idea of its meaning.
Let's summarize.
Aircraft with vertical or short take-off and vertical landing do not have any advantages over conventional combat aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing in a dispersed or non-aerodrome deployment. The reason: conventional aircraft can take off from unpaved runways or road sections, while SCVVP needs special equipment or a full-fledged concrete runway, albeit a short one
In this case, the combat load of an aircraft taking off from the ground of a normal scheme will be almost the same or just the same as that of a "vertical" on concrete going for a short takeoff. The requirements for the basing of conventional aircraft are thus lower, and they have fewer restrictions.
Why would such aircraft be needed? Without plunging into the topic too deeply, let's say briefly: for a naval war, and in its very specific form. SCVVP - naval weapon, and highly specialized, not capable of replacing normal aircraft even on the decks of aircraft carrying ships, but capable of complementing them if the country has a lot of money. However, this is a topic for a separate article.
Analysis of myth 3: the basing capabilities of ekranoplanes surpass the capabilities of conventional aircraft
In the case of ekranoplans, we have the most severe restrictions: they are subject to the same limiting factors that affect flying boats. But there are caveats.
Firstly, there is information that the open data on the masses and loads of the CM is incorrect, since its body was allegedly mainly made of steel to ensure the required strength and due to the fact that the Alekseev Design Bureau was not able to obtain aluminum.
In this case, the same frost will not be dangerous for the takeoff and landing of such an apparatus, but then the question arises of its meaningfulness in terms of carrying capacity. If the data on the massive use of steel in the structure of the hull are correct, then the KM could hardly lift more than 100-120 tons of payload, which is not enough for an apparatus of 544 tons and huge fuel consumption, to put it mildly.
On the other hand, during the construction of future ekranoplanes, it is technically possible to ensure, due to the pressurization of air under the body, its separation from the surface and exit to the screen at low speed and acceleration already on the screen. This makes the ekranoplan even more ineffective in terms of fuel consumption, but since the support of ekranoplanes among the people is clearly religious in nature, no one cares about economics in these circles, but the adepts of ekranoplan construction use this feature of the ekranoplan takeoff as proof of its versatility.
The essence of the thesis is as follows: for a seaplane ice is a problem, but for an ekranoplan it is not, it will first take off over the ice, and then it will pick up speed
In fact, of course, this is not the case. Any person who imagines what a cold sea is, remembers the previously mentioned ice hummock. Toros is the boundary of the collision of large ice masses, on which extensive and erratic rises of ice blocks are formed, sometimes to great heights. Sometimes the hummock can be covered with snow, it will not be visible from afar, even snow can hide the height difference. Moreover, snow in the Arctic reflects almost all sunlight and in clear weather is very blind - up to causing damage to eyesight. As a result, the ekranoplan accelerating on the screen over small irregularities will simply crash into the hummock. It will not be completely destroyed after this, but it can hardly be considered a normal flight mode.
In the case of a roll in open water, the ekranoplane can easily hook the wing tip to a floating ice floe, which in cold latitudes are abundant in open water, and they often hardly rise above it and are not visible from afar.
It can be stated that when basing an ekranoplane is subject to the same restrictions as a seaplane, although sometimes it can actually take off in conditions in which the seaplane will no longer fly, but this difference is at the level of statistical error.
However, ekranoplanes have one more specific problem: any ekranoplane capable of carrying a more or less significant load is huge and heavy. For example, the Orlyonok, which could lift the same load as the Mi-26, had a maximum take-off weight that was more than twice that of the Mi-26.
One of the solutions allowing to somehow improve the weight efficiency of the ekranoplan is the rejection of the chassis, which the "Orlyonok" had. Then the payload will really grow. For example, the Lun had no landing gear and carried six heavy missiles.
But then the question arises of lifting the ekranoplan out of the water and pulling it out to the parking lot for drying and repair, if necessary. For an aircraft of 50 or 60 tons, you can come up with an attachment landing gear, which will be attached by divers and then with powerful winches pull it out of the water to the parking lot.
But what to do with a 400-ton ekranoplan without a landing gear? The answer, alas, is one: we need a floating dock.
Thus, to those four points limiting the use of seaplanes (which by themselves make no sense of not amphibious seaplanes completely, but turn amphibious seaplanes into a "niche" aircraft), one more constraint on basing is added: a floating dock is needed; without it, the possibility of basing will only be temporary. Or you will have to put up with the low weight return is no better than that of the "Eaglet". Not a bad level of versatility!
It is unnecessary to say that they cannot fly normally above the ground, at least in the same way as seaplanes. And the height differences between ordinary glaciers, icebergs, fast ice, etc. in northern latitudes, their flights over the sea are fundamentally impossible, but this no longer applies to basing issues.
We draw a conclusion: the restrictions on the basing of ekranoplanes are no less than the same for flying boats and float airplanes, and for ekranoplanes without a wheeled chassis, a floating dock is also needed. Thus, the most severe restrictions are imposed on the basing of ekranoplanes by nature itself in Russia, such that make them practically inapplicable.
Analysis of myth 4: aircraft with horizontal takeoff and landing and wheeled landing gear, not amphibians, are the most "problematic" class of aircraft from the point of view of basing, requiring the most expensive infrastructure, especially for large multi-engine aircraft
Let's approach the problem straight away from the end: it is not. The opposite is true. Anyone who has seen the airport can imagine how large and complex infrastructure is needed to base aircraft. But this is for permanent basing, repairs, long-term storage, rest and food for passengers, and so on. And for temporary dispersal or temporary use away from populated areas?
And there - no. Conventional wheeled ground-based aircraft are one of the most unpretentious types of air transport. Aircraft can be based on unpaved airfields, where there is no asphalt at all, and this also applies to heavy aircraft. To prepare for takeoff, the planes need several special vehicles and a tanker with fuel. In winter, they can land on ice airfields, while ensuring that temporary runways are free of foreign and dangerous objects is much easier than on water.
Normal airplanes do not need any steel plates, like "verticals". The climate is not so important to them as to seaplanes or ekranoplanes.
All that an airplane needs is a packed strip of soil or snow, or a section of a road. And that's all.
See examples.
Example 1. The Guatemalan Air Force is overtaking a Hawker-Siddley 125 business jet, which was repulsed from the drug mafia. As you can see, just a clearing in the forest is used as a runway, in fact, an ordinary forest road.
For the sake of justice, let's say: the SCVVP would take off from here too, but would plow the strip very seriously, that is, the "airfield" would be disposable. And so, as long as there is no rain, you can fly to and from it regularly.
There is really nothing special about such flights.
People are still alive from the era when any normal pilot of an aircraft, even a large multi-engine, such as the TB-3, should have been able to find a clearing suitable for landing from the air. But then the aircraft retained their universal qualities.
We know from history that La-11 fighters, Tu-4 bombers and Il-14 and An-12 transport aircraft flew from airfields on drifting ice floes in the Arctic Ocean. Tu-16 successfully landed on such an ice floe, however, due to an error during takeoff, it hooked on another plane, but this accident was not a foregone conclusion. And once a giant Tu-95 made a successful landing at such an airfield. And they successfully took off.
The Americans put the four-engine "Hercules" on the ship and then, without any catapults and accelerators, they understood it into the air. It is unnecessary to talk about landings on ice airfields in Antarctica.
Example 2. Flights of a twin-engine aircraft L-410 from the highway in Congo. An airplane in such conditions usually carries up to 2.5 tons of cargo.
More from the same road, but a slightly different section.
As you can see, the plane literally in automobile mode drives along a curved and bumpy road until it gets off the ground. Of course, this is not a big plane. And what are the big ones? Here's what.
And so:
On ice in Antarctica:
Of course, there are landings on pre-prepared unpaved airfields, but there are not any steel plates, prefabricated runways necessary for "vertical" and do not need ice-free lakes nearby, as for seaplanes. Just level and compact the ground or ice, equip a gas station, trenches or wagons for personnel, a mobile control tower, and that's it.
But there are other examples as well.
In 1980, in Iran, during the failed operation "Eagle Claw" in general, American C-130s landed in the desert. Prior to this, a CIA agent single-handedly took soil samples from this site to determine whether the sand could withstand the weight of the Hercules. And, although the operation failed, the planes landed and took off.
Below is the video: "Hercules" sits on a site in the desert. Apparently, it was once leveled, but judging by the coating - a long time ago.
And here is the landing on the ground of a huge and heavy C-17, and takeoff from there:
Can heavy passenger aircraft do that? Can:
So much for your attachment to airfields, right? The second episode in the video, by the way, answers all the questions about the runway bombed by the enemy.
It is also worth noting that all the airplanes shown are not airplanes that were SPECIALLY designed for regular takeoffs and landings anywhere (and there are also such examples, for example, the legendary DHC-4 Caribou in the west).
In a modernized form, with turboprop engines and modern electronics, this machine was produced until 1974, and even now it continues to be relevant in terms of its characteristics.
And, of course, we remember the absolute champion in basing anywhere - this is our An-2.
What can compare with a normal aircraft in terms of versatility in terms of basing? Only an amphibian with a landing gear, which in summer can land on a lake or in a calm bay closed from a storm, and the rest of the time - in the same place as a wheeled aircraft. But the amphibian is not able to provide the same performance characteristics, and the same durable chassis as a conventional aircraft is not always possible due to the requirement to provide good weight return with an overweight hull. Amphibians with multi-wheeled chassis that allow you to sit on soft ground and not bury yourself in it, no. Thus, their superiority over conventional aircraft in terms of the latitude of available basing conditions is not obvious - at least it will manifest itself very rarely when there is open water, but there is no flat piece of land. And the only class of aircraft that are guaranteed to outperform normal aircraft in terms of available bases are helicopters. And this is a fact.
The only planes that are really tied to concrete runways are heavy vehicles such as Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-142, the presidential Il-96 and similar giants. But in the end, we have a lot of concrete runways.
The final conclusion is that ordinary aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing are the most versatile aircraft in terms of possible basing conditions after helicopters. Apart from helicopters, nothing can compare with them in versatility. And if seaplanes (amphibians) in narrow and rare conditions can still be useful even against the background of normal aircraft, then everything else (SCVVP, flying boats, float seaplanes) are just highly specialized aircraft, applicable once and somewhere there, where we are not and never will be. And the fact that this flying exotic is "more universal" than aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing are just myths
These are the realities.
