Not sure how you missed it, but there's a small passenger ekranoplan service in Singapore called the Airfish. It would also have been polite to provide links in the description to your collaborators channels.
A Russian Lady called Lana Sator recently "traspassed" into that stranded Russian Ekranoplan - sneaking past a sleeping guard no less - and managed to capture some truly incredible photographs of the interior! Seeing the cockpit and internal quarters of this incredible piece of defunct military hardware is quite fasctinating, and I'd recommend checking out her pictures!
The Boeing Pelican ULTRA (Ultra Large TRansport Aircraft) was a designed, but not built aircraft with the best of both worlds: Wing-In-Ground-Effect capability, but also able to fly at higher altitudes to avoid obstacles and use regular airports.
I love how the ekranoplan only needed the two engines on the back for level flight, the 8 engines on the front where only used to create a temporary cussion of air for the plane to start up(you can see that the 8 engines point to the underside of the wings)
guys go see mustard video on the ekranoplan he points out that it only uses the 8 frontal engines to get in the ground effect then it cruises using only the 2 rear engines
There is a video showing Putin visiting the company that used to develop these. When he walked past a model of the Orlenok Ekranoplan, he asked what this is, somebody told him it's too expensive and ushered him on.
@@nightcorekira5787 one more problem was that they were developed for Navy's money ans, thus, has to be like ships: Alexeyev even had to fit anchors pnto them.
A fantastic idea from the Russians. I'd love to see it developed to its full potential. The environmental benefits alone would make it worthwhile not to mention the saved traveling time.
@@cosmiccuttlefish5765 I've just had a look at the Volga 2 on Google. It's great to see but I'd pay good money to fly/sail on a jumbo sized version. Cheers for the info.
There are modern WIG craft. To be honest though, there are many reasons why these have never "taken off". The downsides are a really big deal. Even flying the vehicle was said to be extremely taxing on the pilot - looking out for things in the water, on the water etc, at high speed is ripe for error. Also, although they are efficient compared to aircraft, they are far less efficient than ships. A cool solution looking for the right problem.
@@nightcorekira5787 the more or less did with the Orlyonok. They built it as an ekrsnoplan class-B, meaning it can temporarily break ground-effect to avoid obstacles. The A-90 Orlyonok could fly up to 9000 feet for short bursts.
@@Cat-y4w Not quite, it's technically an unpowered effect like just gliding/"planing" through the air (w/ slightly more lift "trapped" under the wing because of the nearby ground) but once you slow down or move away from the surface sufficiently you lose the effect. "Hovering" is achieved by actively directing/forcing flows downward so that even if the vessel ceases traveling laterally or gains altitude sufficient to take it out of ground effect range it would still produce its lifting force. Ground Effect - Think of a normal little Cessna plane that can't _really_ stay airborne below something like 100 MPH... You'd need to be careful because you can get it a few feet off the ground and stable at 90, fly it out of ground effect, and stall OR on landing you can technically be going JUST slow enough to bring it down but you just keep *hanging* a few feet above the ground until you don't have enough runway left to put it down safely and have to go around. Hovering - Just think helicopters and VTOL (don't think of actual "hovercraft" as that's a completely different principle/they don't fly/they're not aircraft.) extra: VTOL pilots have to worry about a uniquely specific condition that hovering aircraft like helicopters do not.. Since they directly use the exhaust gasses for hover controls there's a risk of re-ingesting the hot/already _used_ exhaust and suddenly losing thrust so they tend to make a committed almost-too-fast vertical descent when VTOL. Whenever possible STOL is usually preferred because you avoid that risk while also giving yourself a a fair bit more speed and control over the aerodynamic surfaces in those critical low and slow moments.
It is a very interesting and potentially useful concept, especially for hauling large loads across the oceans.... One thing that would definitely be needed to do that, would be a very powerful radar system to detect things ahead of it, as it is traveling so fast above the water... Supposedly Boeing has been researching a plane called the 'Pelican' for overwater transport... Maybe something will become of that...
Вектор тяги двигателей должен отклоняться под крыло, усиливая экранный эффект. В этом смысл двигателей перед крылом. А в целом, любой гидроплан эффективней и безопасней экраноплана.
Экраноплан не есть летательный аппарат.Лунь по мощности залпа была сопоставима с ракетоносцами тех лет.С кораблями,несущими стратегическое вооружение Лунь в высоту была с 7-ми этажный дом и в целом у самолёта и советских экранопланов нет ничего общего, кроме как наличие крыльев,потому что экраноплан и летает по другому принципу. Не сравнивайте летающие корабли и плавающие самолётики
@@СтепанТодышев-ы3ь Ни чего общего? Может всё-таки одно отличие - в принципе полета?) А движки там, авионика, технологии производства, подготовка, эээ... рулевого?))) И, если он не летательный аппарат, как Вы сказали, то почему он летающий корабль, по Вашим же словам? Корабль не аппарат? Гидроплан при той же полезной нагрузке умеет низко летать, как экраноплан, в т.ч. и на экранном эффекте, который и бы открыт на самолётах. А ещё он умеет летать высоко, быстрее, требует кратно меньше движков, которые лишний вес, имеет шире сферу применения. По поводу вооружения "как у крейсера", а где у него спарка 130мм, ПВО, торпеды, вертолет и что там ещё на крейсерах? А восемь ПКР и радар можно вкорячить и в самолёт, и без такого вреда обтекаемости как у "Луня". Ни разу я не эксперт, могу ошибаться, но интересно, где аналогичные проекты у стран, где airfors и navi в приоритете, в силу специфики географии, денег дофига, и компетенции они могут как купить, так и самостоятельно наработать? Нету. Сомнительная штука.
Modern terrain following tech, combined with the increased power of computers and sensors, could make this type of transport safer than it was back then. Looking forward for wave heights and objects, etc. The poor maneuvering when a boat can be solved with modern boat tech, such as hydraulic thrusters built into the hull, and a simple ISP pod that lowers into the water, hooked to a big Volva Penta marine diesel, all controlled by a single integrated joystick. What I'm saying is tech may have caught up to the inspiration. Although we can't seem to move people around safely in ferries, so maybe it never will be ripe.
There was no American made equivalent. By the time the Trident missile entered USN inventory the US was retiring the George Washington class ballistic submarines which had deployed initially with Polaris and the Poseidon missiles. The Poseidens were MIRVed to carry three warheads. The Trident was designed with 8 MIRVed configuration. The weight of one alone is too much for any aircraft especially when you factor in the launch mechanism. This doesn't even touch on command and control or the issue of safely deploying a seaplane with a nuke. It may have been contemplated by some rear echelon type but it would never have proceeded past the laughter stage.
Not to mention the cost, for every single advantage this plane allegedly was able to exploit there were existing cheaper and more reliable ways to do the same things.
See the 2020 article published about WIG craft by the US Naval Institute press "Modern Sea Monsters", calling for the US to develop them for logistics. The DARPA "Liberty Lifter" Wig/airplane is being developed as of 2022. ~100 ton payload, capable of flight as well as extended range in GE. Specified for simple construction and operation for weeks at a time from forward areas.
Imagine if they had tried putting a 20-30ft long retractable hydrofoil or 2 on it to achieve a cruise height of 25 ft and potential short duration low altitude flight. If we built it with modern corrosion resistant materials, it could be made into something spectacular today.
Electric ekranoplans could go farther on a charge than electric airliners or carry more payload. Dedicated "highways" could allow over land travel. One use could be as a fast ferry carrying cars as well.
would be less efficient than cargo trains though, trains also need less space with their train tracks in comparison to having to clear a wide amount of space for WIG highways which will also need a very gentle turning radius and slopes
@@Hazan12345 Good points but what I was thinking of would allow direct transport over water and then inland to the destination. Also; I think the turning problem is solvable since flat turns could be facilitated with a large rudder midship in addition to the rear one(s).
A number of mistakes were made in explaining basic aerodynamic concepts in this video. 1. Ground effect doesn't need engine exhaust to happen. All aeroplanes will experience ground effect when they're close enough to the ground, but GEV wings are optimised for the effect. The engine exhaust does help especially with take-off, but it's not needed. It's the shape of the wing that matters. There are modern ground effect vehicles like the Airfish 8 that have pusher props, behind the vehicle entirely, so this can't be the explanation. The effect is caused by ramming the air. The "Power Augmented Ram" part of PAR-WIG aludes to this, that the air ram is already there, and the engine power merely augments it. 2. Relevant to 1, planes get more lift very close to the ground. You don't lose out on control, lift or propulsion close to the ground. The reason flying close to the ground is dangerous is because... you might hit the ground. 2b. An aircraft able to fly in this regime is not one of the holy grails of aircraft design. I just... where did this come from? The effect was discovered by accident in the early days of aviation because pilots found their planes were "reluctant to land". 3. The "high-pressure cushion" under the wing for a start doesn't loop around like in the animation. It very much goes with the direction of the relative wind. It's just that when it hits the wing and is diverted downwards, it encounters the ground and its pressure increases, increasing its lift compared to that of a wing in free air. 4. The air over the wing doesn't travel faster because it has to "travel further". NASA has a webpage about this being an incorrect theory, it's called the "equal transit time" theory of lift: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html (the website sucks though, you have to be patient for it to load) Essentially, the air on top of the wing does go faster, but not because it has to go further. If you want to understand a more intuitive theory of lift, they have a page that explains "flow turning" as a better way to conceptualise it: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/right2.html 5. Whilst the wings are angled down to trap the air and minimise wingtip losses - the pontoons on the end of the wings also help with this - they're not shorter to maximise this effect. The wings are shorter to minimise drag, and because they don't need to be very long to generate the lift required, because in ground effect deep wings are a good way to maximise lift. This also explains why they have so much more lift with so much less drag, because they present a much smaller cross-section to the air, and hence produce less drag. Also being able to generate the lift at slower speeds reduces drag as well. I'm sure this channel knows how to research aviation history, and that's great, but I'm pretty disappointed in this attempt to explain the physics involved. Like, if they're going to explain a concept, it would help if they didn't just assume that half-remembered stories told by high-school science teachers were correct. Like, please at least check these explanations with a reputable source before publishing them.
To generate high pressure lift, the air has to flow faster on top of the wings. P + 1/2 рv2 = constant The formula explains why the opposite should take place on either side of the wing
Noisy, and very difficult to turn as with any WIG craft, so the risk of collision is very high. Modern 'ekranoplanes' use diesels as any yet a jet engine is inefficient at sea level (so is modern hovercraft), if you want range, good load capability, durability, and don't forget: sea birds can be encountered everywhere.
For those who don't understand Soviet Design Experiments: At one point, 50% of Soviet citizens had some kind of post high school education, They trained engineers, designers, machinists, etc., And they created many "design studies" some of which existed only on paper and some in which resulted in models or a few working prototypes, The purpose of these studies was to explore new ideas, train those who designed & made them, and even to be used for propaganda or to fool The West. Ekranoplans were several of these studies, but a few issues persisted. When waves reached a certain height, they would destroy an Ekranoplan regardless if they were in flight or not. While the Ekranoplan could fly over flat land, they will be destroyed if forced to land on land. And lastly, corrosion would damage aviation aluminum, turbojet engines, etc. from the salt... This is why the militaries of the US & Soviet Union never pursued having them in their inventory. However, the Islamic Republic of Iran has built two-man small seaplanes that fly on ground-effect or at a few thousand feet. And when flying on ground-effect they can't be spotted by shipborne radar. Of course, they can be spotted by US Navy Drones...
You're explination about why the engines are located where they are is completely wrong. The engine thrust is not pulled under the wing. It is blown across the TOP of the wing and utilizes something you seem to have never heard of, the Coanda Effect. The engine exhaust across the TOP of the wing increases the velocity of the air over the wing reducing the pressure on top due to Venturi's Principle. This is the same reason why the An-72 Coaler and the YC-14 had their engines where they did. After said this I stopped watching because if you can't even get fundamental aerodynamics correct then there is no hope for the rest of the video being accurate.
I have wondered the same. I can see them flying on lakes in moderate conditions, but what about worse. How would they handle out in the ocean? If they could handle better now, especially with computer control of the flight control surfaces, maybe looking into these transports as people movers and quick response military craft.
Now, it seems, they can just fly like a normal plane*, but are much more unstable. For small climbs of 2x or 3x cruise height it looks fine. There are free models online you can build and play with yourself. I think rctestflight channel showcases some of this.
It's a myth that they're particularly vulnerable to weather. Any weather with 4+ meter waves and 40+ knot winds stops all air traffic and small watercraft and larger ships might have to just ride it out. Shin Maywa seaplane is on video taking off in 4+ m waves in 200m or less.
If you had an extremely thin front, like a blade, it would probably literally just cut trough the wave. But it would probably also severly defeat the ground effect
8:18 The Aquiline looks like a more fleshed out and futuristic version of the Predator Drone... and like a robot bird. It makes me wish we had developed large or manned Ornithropters by now.
I think ekranoplans could make a comeback. They become more efficient when made extremely large, and with a blended wing-body design. A nuclear powered, drone carrier could make sense in the future. Current aircraft carriers are really only practical against anyone who can't attack them. But every near peer (i.e. China, Russia), and even probably Iran at this point, has long range hypersonic weapons that can sink aircraft carriers with a single shot. There are no practical defenses against hypersonic weapons, you just have to hope your carriers can out range their hypersonic weapons. But ekranoplans are different, their high speed makes them much harder to hit, even with hypersonic weapons. If its entire fleet are drones, the ekranoplan could "shoot and scoot", launch drones while on the move, and remaining evasive enough to be effectively immune to traditional hypersonic or anti-ship missiles in combination with hard-kill active protection systems. They might also be capable of having a stealth design.
It seems like Russia found the perfect search and rescue vehicle. Much faster than boats, and able to loiter much longer than planes or choppers. Maybe Russia should start marketing and production as such.
They tried that with a "Spasatel" ("rescuer") version of the airframe used in the "Lun", but it could fly and could help fight fires and evacuate crew. They dropped it.
Why? Everyone has known for a long time. I have known from the mid-90s approximately. Who does not know the designer Alekseev And his ships on hydrofoils and his ekranoplanes? It seemed to me this world name.
In the USSR there was a PROJECT of an ekranoplan-AIRCARRIER.ALEXEEV was not given access to aviation materials, otherwise he would have created a giant ekranoplan-aircraft carrier, but unfortunately he only had access to ship steel. Alekseev designed and tested more than 5,000 different versions and today almost all ekranoplanes, including Chinese ones, are Alekseev’s brainchild.This is nonsense! Ekranoplanes can operate without problems in oceans and seas, even in ice. the lifting force on the screen in some ekranoplanes was maintained up to 15 meters inclusive, then they could break away from the screen and fly like airplanes up to 5 kilometers.Ekranoplans could be ideal high-speed transporters, the larger the ekranoplan, the greater the height of the screen effect, so it would be possible to create Ekranoplans of 200 meters or more, while the ekranoplan lifts three to four times more payload than an airplane.at the same time it is much safer than an airplane..Alekseev wanted to build ports for ekranoplanes around the world and develop them in the civilian sphere
There are two issues with the propulsion, as fanjets doesn't work very well at zero air altitude, nor do they take collision with seabirds very well. And considering these WIGs flew very fast they were very difficult to avoid colliding with whatever came in their way, like flocks of birds, shipping, or small islets. Modern hovercraft have mostly changed to diesels and props!
Considering that the ekranoplan (and other similar projects) require to be in the air for their forward motion, I'd also consider them a plane (of some kind). If they had a propeller that gave them forwards propulsion, I'd consider them a boat of some kind. I doubt there'll ever be a solution to it tho.
It could touch down and navigate the waves like a boat, perhaps. But there's a reason why the new hotness for ekranoplane design is for conventional airplanes that can also harness the ground effect for efficiency.
A WIG does not require the engines in front of the wing, the engines infrastructure are only used to get into ground effect. The caspian Sea monster idled the front engines after getting into ground effect, reason they are so fuel efficient. Also you have your wing physics incorrect. Also the Russians are not the only ones that have done Ekranoplans or are doing them currently. Please check the facts of those who add to your channel.
Downward tilted, aka, anhedral. That’s the word you were looking for. The symbol for it looks like a capital T with the left top chopped off. It’s either +T, T or -T.
WIG has nothing to do with the engines. It's ALL about the wing being close to the ground. Using engines to enhance the concept is ok, but not required to be a WIG. The exhaust of the engines doesn't magically change direction and deflect downward as depicted. And if you're going to augment lift of a wing with engine exhaust, you want the higher velocity air moving over the Top of the wing, not the Bottom.
There was also the Boeing "Pelican" which frankly made all WIG aircraft before it look like Cessna's it was Massive. I notice you keep calling it 'The Caspin Sea Monster' I think you find it is 'Caspian Sea Monster' like the Caspian Sea
New physics? Uhhh, no. Ground effect had been known for decades. Anhedral is not used to trap high pressure under the wing. Anhedral is the opposite of dihedral (wings angled upward) Anhedral is for stability. Need to do better research or contact someone with aerodynamic experience before you publish.
It's interesting this video just came out now the pentagon has put out a listing looking for people to design a wig with a 100 tonne payload for quick relief missions.
You are wrong! It\s NOT easier to fly the further up you are; there is a reason every airplane has a service cealing, and that is because the higher up, the thinner the air, so the plane must fly faster to maintain lift! Every plane experience the ground effect when landing, that is how they got the damn idea for the Ecranoplane in the first place!
So basically acronym planes they fill the military capability gap between Naval warships and aircraft if anyone catches the metal gear reference in that you deserve a cookie button reality they probably would being somewhat more maneuverable and faster than regular Naval vessels but more durable than regular aircraft because they don't need to go as fast as an aircraft you can stick loads of armour on them end point defenses or stick nuclear or conventional missiles on them they would be kind of vulnerable to Air Attack but what Naval unit is it these days and they're somewhat less vulnerable than regular Naval units so basically or capability that maybe we should be looking into the NATO Powers I mean by we it sounds decent but also make a pretty nice troop deployment platform being a lot longer range than swifter than amphibious armored vehicles and a lot longer range than hovercraft
У нас в России есть экранопланы, только маленькие гражданские, у нас по Волге передвигаются! В этом видео про "Каспийский монстр" говорят, это военный экраноплан для десанта
Well,it's true-Australia and the US ARE two countries separated by a common language!/jk But i wonder just how "invisible" the Ekranoplan would actually be to radar?Sepending on sea conditions and the radars tune,it would probably be pretty easy to pick up.Using a 3CM set common on most OSV's we could easily pick up small craft such as pleasure fishing boats-again,depending on sea condition.And often were able to track helos flying at 500 to 1000 feet at 150 knots.So I figure something as big as an Ekranoplan would'nt be too hard to spot.And that's not taking CAP into account.
A ram-wing GEV is nothing at all like a skirted hovercraft. A ram-wing GEV does not "hover", ever. The Aleksyev type is not at all the only sort of ram-wing GEV you could mention, or talk about it as if it's the norm of such craft. A Lippisch (as in the Lippisch/Collins X-113 or the RFB X-114) inverse delta has none of the design features of the Aleksyev, the Jorg sort has few if any. A Lippisch type can actually fly, like an airplane, and none of them are limited to "only a few feet" above the water if designed properly. The KM and Lun were not designed to fly, as they were one-off, or the Orlyonok type as limited production test craft. The second Lun airframe was suggested to be fished as the "Spasatel" ("Rescuer"), to fly, as a SAR/firefighter. Many WIG craft are on video banking for turns, dipping a wing-tip in to even help that yaw. It is not a disaster, it is not a limitation. If anybody expects an aircraft of 400+ tons and 400 kts speed to turn quickly, don't listen to them about anything, because they have no idea what they're on about. If they object that a big ship can't turn around in a harbor, tell them about underwater thrusters and show them ships that can maneuver very precisely in port, and ask them if any big ship will be moving at highest speed while in port, thereby limiting its turning radius. If they still think this is a problem, again you probably shouldn't listen to them about anything. A GEV could turn in its own length in port, if designed and handled properly. The last supposed risk or disadvantage of a WIG is made up, so it may be safely ignored. Show that it's endemic to the type and all sub-types. Beriev bought back from the Russian navy some Be-12 "Mail" seaplanes for conversion to test the systems for the Be-200 firefighter seaplanes. With regular Navy servicing, they found very little or no corrosion issues. So all these supposed disadvantages are overblown or entirely imaginary.
For your chance to win the Telsa Model S Plaid and support a great cause,
enter at www.omaze.com/fae
What is Telsa?
Not sure how you missed it, but there's a small passenger ekranoplan service in Singapore called the Airfish.
It would also have been polite to provide links in the description to your collaborators channels.
@@faisalofficialchannel6480 A Electric Car Company
@@kathy8770 Tesla, i've heard. Telsa, never.
@@faisalofficialchannel6480 look it up on youtube then or something
A Russian Lady called Lana Sator recently "traspassed" into that stranded Russian Ekranoplan - sneaking past a sleeping guard no less - and managed to capture some truly incredible photographs of the interior! Seeing the cockpit and internal quarters of this incredible piece of defunct military hardware is quite fasctinating, and I'd recommend checking out her pictures!
Sorry to hear about her untimely and unexpected suicide in a week from today.
Hahaaa, ryska stvar iz 7o ih.
where can i find these?
You have a link to these?
@@chrisbendall8490 - Try : Lana Sator Ekronoplane 👍
The rendered coffee table needs a Found An Explained coaster.
The Boeing Pelican ULTRA (Ultra Large TRansport Aircraft) was a designed, but not built aircraft with the best of both worlds: Wing-In-Ground-Effect capability, but also able to fly at higher altitudes to avoid obstacles and use regular airports.
When the Americans copy Russia’s homework:
The funny part is half the time they were just copying each others homework heh
Speaking of copying, this channel's videos look like the ones of a similar channel. Something to do with a condiment that goes on hotdogs?
@@Blakezilla594 yup similar design to Mustard videos but this dude posts more frequent than Mustard
Copying the basic idea, not bolt by bolt copies like the soviets did.
@@bandvitromania9642 Quantity vs Quality.
Ngl American Ekranoplan lookin' kinda cartoon plane
Also the front kinda looks like 747
Like someone kitbashed oversized airplane wings backwards onto to the body of a nuclear sub while slapping on the front of a commercial airliner.
@@TheRyujinLPdas tru
Last time i was this early soviet government still had interest in this technology
I love how the ekranoplan only needed the two engines on the back for level flight, the 8 engines on the front where only used to create a temporary cussion of air for the plane to start up(you can see that the 8 engines point to the underside of the wings)
No you can't.
@@boomerrob9223 what. ?
@@boomerrob9223 what? This thing only needed all the engines to actually get going then would shut most off.... you dumb?
guys go see mustard video on the ekranoplan he points out that it only uses the 8 frontal engines to get in the ground effect then it cruises using only the 2 rear engines
@@matheusdelucca8458 yea thats a really good vid that explains it well
Developed by Soviet engineer Alekseev 80 years ago 🤔
If this is a secret weapon, then how am I watching this video about it?
Because it was secret and then became declassified, I guess
because it is outdated
@@destroyertashkent5713 Outdated CGI plane?
Declassified? Lol
This is over 50 years ago, imagine what secrets they have developed now.
There is a video showing Putin visiting the company that used to develop these. When he walked past a model of the Orlenok Ekranoplan, he asked what this is, somebody told him it's too expensive and ushered him on.
It's kinda pathetic since thess things never had the problems of being expensive but the problem was that it could not work well with bad weather
@@nightcorekira5787 one more problem was that they were developed for Navy's money ans, thus, has to be like ships: Alexeyev even had to fit anchors pnto them.
@@stanislavcherepanov8788 Yes, but these were "sea anchors," not the heavy metallic Danforth types. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_anchor
A fantastic idea from the Russians. I'd love to see it developed to its full potential. The environmental benefits alone would make it worthwhile not to mention the saved traveling time.
Not the full potential but the Volga-2 was built in the 80s for passenger use and is still flown today.
@@cosmiccuttlefish5765 I've just had a look at the Volga 2 on Google. It's great to see but I'd pay good money to fly/sail on a jumbo sized version. Cheers for the info.
There are modern WIG craft. To be honest though, there are many reasons why these have never "taken off". The downsides are a really big deal. Even flying the vehicle was said to be extremely taxing on the pilot - looking out for things in the water, on the water etc, at high speed is ripe for error. Also, although they are efficient compared to aircraft, they are far less efficient than ships. A cool solution looking for the right problem.
The Brabazon used ground effect for landing, this british aircraft predates the Russians.
@@Desrtfox71 with modern technology, less input would be required from pilots, the vehicle could have sensors and manuver appropriately
The world needs more ekranoplan.
If they could figure out the bad weather problems for all forms of ekranoplanes. Then it would
@@nightcorekira5787 the more or less did with the Orlyonok. They built it as an ekrsnoplan class-B, meaning it can temporarily break ground-effect to avoid obstacles. The A-90 Orlyonok could fly up to 9000 feet for short bursts.
@@sky_professor3051 that's good. But the really bad weather most of the engineers think of are storms. Particularly class 2 and above.
@@nightcorekira5787 I mean, tbf that's a problem current conventional ships and planes have.
0:12 - Flying in ground effect is not the same thing as "hovering"...
Isnt that like hovering over water
@@Cat-y4w Not quite, it's technically an unpowered effect like just gliding/"planing" through the air (w/ slightly more lift "trapped" under the wing because of the nearby ground) but once you slow down or move away from the surface sufficiently you lose the effect. "Hovering" is achieved by actively directing/forcing flows downward so that even if the vessel ceases traveling laterally or gains altitude sufficient to take it out of ground effect range it would still produce its lifting force.
Ground Effect - Think of a normal little Cessna plane that can't _really_ stay airborne below something like 100 MPH... You'd need to be careful because you can get it a few feet off the ground and stable at 90, fly it out of ground effect, and stall OR on landing you can technically be going JUST slow enough to bring it down but you just keep *hanging* a few feet above the ground until you don't have enough runway left to put it down safely and have to go around.
Hovering - Just think helicopters and VTOL (don't think of actual "hovercraft" as that's a completely different principle/they don't fly/they're not aircraft.)
extra: VTOL pilots have to worry about a uniquely specific condition that hovering aircraft like helicopters do not.. Since they directly use the exhaust gasses for hover controls there's a risk of re-ingesting the hot/already _used_ exhaust and suddenly losing thrust so they tend to make a committed almost-too-fast vertical descent when VTOL. Whenever possible STOL is usually preferred because you avoid that risk while also giving yourself a a fair bit more speed and control over the aerodynamic surfaces in those critical low and slow moments.
@@llYossarian yes
Not at all alike, and a ram-wing GEV like this is nothing at all like an air-cushion craft.
Exactly it's not a land speeder when you slow down to a stop, you touch back down
I'm calling it the WAR-PIG and you can't stop me
🤘💪Brilliant !
It is a very interesting and potentially useful concept, especially for hauling large loads across the oceans.... One thing that would definitely be needed to do that, would be a very powerful radar system to detect things ahead of it, as it is traveling so fast above the water... Supposedly Boeing has been researching a plane called the 'Pelican' for overwater transport... Maybe something will become of that...
Until a blue whale beaches the water
@@Michael-ij6kg yeah, that is a good point.... Maybe an ekranoplane that could cruise just 10' above the water to avoid things like that...
Вектор тяги двигателей должен отклоняться под крыло, усиливая экранный эффект. В этом смысл двигателей перед крылом. А в целом, любой гидроплан эффективней и безопасней экраноплана.
Экраноплан не есть летательный аппарат.Лунь по мощности залпа была сопоставима с ракетоносцами тех лет.С кораблями,несущими стратегическое вооружение
Лунь в высоту была с 7-ми этажный дом и в целом у самолёта и советских экранопланов нет ничего общего, кроме как наличие крыльев,потому что экраноплан и летает по другому принципу.
Не сравнивайте летающие корабли и плавающие самолётики
@@СтепанТодышев-ы3ь Ни чего общего? Может всё-таки одно отличие - в принципе полета?) А движки там, авионика, технологии производства, подготовка, эээ... рулевого?))) И, если он не летательный аппарат, как Вы сказали, то почему он летающий корабль, по Вашим же словам? Корабль не аппарат?
Гидроплан при той же полезной нагрузке умеет низко летать, как экраноплан, в т.ч. и на экранном эффекте, который и бы открыт на самолётах. А ещё он умеет летать высоко, быстрее, требует кратно меньше движков, которые лишний вес, имеет шире сферу применения.
По поводу вооружения "как у крейсера", а где у него спарка 130мм, ПВО, торпеды, вертолет и что там ещё на крейсерах? А восемь ПКР и радар можно вкорячить и в самолёт, и без такого вреда обтекаемости как у "Луня".
Ни разу я не эксперт, могу ошибаться, но интересно, где аналогичные проекты у стран, где airfors и navi в приоритете, в силу специфики географии, денег дофига, и компетенции они могут как купить, так и самостоятельно наработать? Нету. Сомнительная штука.
Modern terrain following tech, combined with the increased power of computers and sensors, could make this type of transport safer than it was back then. Looking forward for wave heights and objects, etc. The poor maneuvering when a boat can be solved with modern boat tech, such as hydraulic thrusters built into the hull, and a simple ISP pod that lowers into the water, hooked to a big Volva Penta marine diesel, all controlled by a single integrated joystick. What I'm saying is tech may have caught up to the inspiration. Although we can't seem to move people around safely in ferries, so maybe it never will be ripe.
Agreed
it is enough just to make the engines swivel and not torture yourself with inventions.
The LUN ekranoplan has been since towed onto land so its not sitting in water any more
Just sitting there on the beach I was afraid it'd be looted in a matter of days
Hello there
General Kenobi! You are a bold one.
General Kenobi
.
Hi how's your day?
General kenobi
There was no American made equivalent. By the time the Trident missile entered USN inventory the US was retiring the George Washington class ballistic submarines which had deployed initially with Polaris and the Poseidon missiles. The Poseidens were MIRVed to carry three warheads. The Trident was designed with 8 MIRVed configuration. The weight of one alone is too much for any aircraft especially when you factor in the launch mechanism. This doesn't even touch on command and control or the issue of safely deploying a seaplane with a nuke. It may have been contemplated by some rear echelon type but it would never have proceeded past the laughter stage.
Not to mention the cost, for every single advantage this plane allegedly was able to exploit there were existing cheaper and more reliable ways to do the same things.
See the 2020 article published about WIG craft by the US Naval Institute press "Modern Sea Monsters", calling for the US to develop them for logistics.
The DARPA "Liberty Lifter" Wig/airplane is being developed as of 2022. ~100 ton payload, capable of flight as well as extended range in GE. Specified for simple construction and operation for weeks at a time from forward areas.
US: hay USSR can i copy your homework?
No? Ok let us dissolve your country then
Only on this channel will you hear of aircraft like this ! Thank you for that..
Imagine if they had tried putting a 20-30ft long retractable hydrofoil or 2 on it to achieve a cruise height of 25 ft and potential short duration low altitude flight. If we built it with modern corrosion resistant materials, it could be made into something spectacular today.
USA: hey can I copy your homework
USSR: sure but make it a little bit different
Electric ekranoplans could go farther on a charge than electric airliners or carry more payload. Dedicated "highways" could allow over land travel. One use could be as a fast ferry carrying cars as well.
would be less efficient than cargo trains though, trains also need less space with their train tracks in comparison to having to clear a wide amount of space for WIG highways which will also need a very gentle turning radius and slopes
@@Hazan12345 Good points but what I was thinking of would allow direct transport over water and then inland to the destination. Also; I think the turning problem is solvable since flat turns could be facilitated with a large rudder midship in addition to the rear one(s).
British : Aircraft
US and European : Boat
Me : Let's make it simple, "Vehicle"
Nah, I prefer
V E S S E L
A number of mistakes were made in explaining basic aerodynamic concepts in this video.
1. Ground effect doesn't need engine exhaust to happen. All aeroplanes will experience ground effect when they're close enough to the ground, but GEV wings are optimised for the effect. The engine exhaust does help especially with take-off, but it's not needed. It's the shape of the wing that matters. There are modern ground effect vehicles like the Airfish 8 that have pusher props, behind the vehicle entirely, so this can't be the explanation. The effect is caused by ramming the air. The "Power Augmented Ram" part of PAR-WIG aludes to this, that the air ram is already there, and the engine power merely augments it.
2. Relevant to 1, planes get more lift very close to the ground. You don't lose out on control, lift or propulsion close to the ground. The reason flying close to the ground is dangerous is because... you might hit the ground.
2b. An aircraft able to fly in this regime is not one of the holy grails of aircraft design. I just... where did this come from? The effect was discovered by accident in the early days of aviation because pilots found their planes were "reluctant to land".
3. The "high-pressure cushion" under the wing for a start doesn't loop around like in the animation. It very much goes with the direction of the relative wind. It's just that when it hits the wing and is diverted downwards, it encounters the ground and its pressure increases, increasing its lift compared to that of a wing in free air.
4. The air over the wing doesn't travel faster because it has to "travel further". NASA has a webpage about this being an incorrect theory, it's called the "equal transit time" theory of lift: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html (the website sucks though, you have to be patient for it to load) Essentially, the air on top of the wing does go faster, but not because it has to go further. If you want to understand a more intuitive theory of lift, they have a page that explains "flow turning" as a better way to conceptualise it: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/right2.html
5. Whilst the wings are angled down to trap the air and minimise wingtip losses - the pontoons on the end of the wings also help with this - they're not shorter to maximise this effect. The wings are shorter to minimise drag, and because they don't need to be very long to generate the lift required, because in ground effect deep wings are a good way to maximise lift. This also explains why they have so much more lift with so much less drag, because they present a much smaller cross-section to the air, and hence produce less drag. Also being able to generate the lift at slower speeds reduces drag as well.
I'm sure this channel knows how to research aviation history, and that's great, but I'm pretty disappointed in this attempt to explain the physics involved. Like, if they're going to explain a concept, it would help if they didn't just assume that half-remembered stories told by high-school science teachers were correct. Like, please at least check these explanations with a reputable source before publishing them.
One of the most underrated channel on youtube.
Amazing contents in a short amount of time!
Glad you like them!
To generate high pressure lift, the air has to flow faster on top of the wings. P + 1/2 рv2 = constant
The formula explains why the opposite should take place on either side of the wing
My voice in your video sounds way better than it is in my owns. Can you do the same "magic" with my accent? 😀
Glad to see u finally something with an ekranoplan Mr. Cummins !
Could you imagine what it would be like if we all just got along
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🤝🏻
Noisy, and very difficult to turn as with any WIG craft, so the risk of collision is very high. Modern 'ekranoplanes' use diesels as any yet a jet engine is inefficient at sea level (so is modern hovercraft), if you want range, good load capability, durability, and don't forget: sea birds can be encountered everywhere.
Best Summary Ever of the PAR-WIG.
Mustard called, he wants his videos back
No. We are tired of waiting 1 month
@@emaheiwa8174 Entitlement is pathetic
A small wig with antiship missiles and an Avenger cannon in a turret would be a great high speed patrol boat.
I love how the guy from paper skies has a Russian name and when he starts talking he has a Russian accent :D
His channel is fantastic, too.
Conversely, all American speakers of Russian have a strong accent.
00p00 m,,mm,
For those who don't understand Soviet Design Experiments:
At one point, 50% of Soviet citizens had some kind of post high school education,
They trained engineers, designers, machinists, etc.,
And they created many "design studies" some of which existed only on paper and some in which resulted in models or a few working prototypes,
The purpose of these studies was to explore new ideas, train those who designed & made them, and even to be used for propaganda or to fool The West.
Ekranoplans were several of these studies, but a few issues persisted. When waves reached a certain height, they would destroy an Ekranoplan regardless if they were in flight or not. While the Ekranoplan could fly over flat land, they will be destroyed if forced to land on land. And lastly, corrosion would damage aviation aluminum, turbojet engines, etc. from the salt...
This is why the militaries of the US & Soviet Union never pursued having them in their inventory. However, the Islamic Republic of Iran has built two-man small seaplanes that fly on ground-effect or at a few thousand feet. And when flying on ground-effect they can't be spotted by shipborne radar. Of course, they can be spotted by US Navy Drones...
There are some commercial small passenger wigs being built, mostly in Asia.
Опять у вас все для обмана запада))) да всем на вас плевать)
You're explination about why the engines are located where they are is completely wrong. The engine thrust is not pulled under the wing. It is blown across the TOP of the wing and utilizes something you seem to have never heard of, the Coanda Effect. The engine exhaust across the TOP of the wing increases the velocity of the air over the wing reducing the pressure on top due to Venturi's Principle. This is the same reason why the An-72 Coaler and the YC-14 had their engines where they did. After said this I stopped watching because if you can't even get fundamental aerodynamics correct then there is no hope for the rest of the video being accurate.
Damn, it's so cute. It looks like it came out of the Disney film Planes!
I've always wondered how ground effect crafts handle waves, most have to be taller than it can jump, no?
I have wondered the same. I can see them flying on lakes in moderate conditions, but what about worse. How would they handle out in the ocean? If they could handle better now, especially with computer control of the flight control surfaces, maybe looking into these transports as people movers and quick response military craft.
Same question. Guess I'm waiting here for the answer too
Now, it seems, they can just fly like a normal plane*, but are much more unstable. For small climbs of 2x or 3x cruise height it looks fine. There are free models online you can build and play with yourself. I think rctestflight channel showcases some of this.
It's a myth that they're particularly vulnerable to weather. Any weather with 4+ meter waves and 40+ knot winds stops all air traffic and small watercraft and larger ships might have to just ride it out.
Shin Maywa seaplane is on video taking off in 4+ m waves in 200m or less.
If you had an extremely thin front, like a blade, it would probably literally just cut trough the wave. But it would probably also severly defeat the ground effect
О, наш экраноплан!1977 года разработки. До сих пор некоторые под Таганрогом стоят.
Это разработка немецкая до войны. Совки утащили всё вместе с инженерами.
@@alexanderjung7361 Да хорош трындеть! Разработки 30,а сделали в 70-80? Че тянули так долго, и какие немецкие ученые оставались в России в те годы?
My god. This craft does fill a gap in force. As a commander id love to have these at my disposal.
I beg to differ on its use factor.
Ace Combat and Project Wingman Devs: *WRITE THAT DOWN WRITE THAT DOWN!!!*
No "the Soviet Union would not be the Soviet Union" from Paper Skies?
That's a shame.
😀👍
America: hey can coy your homework
USSR: yea but change it u a bit soo its not to obvious
8:18 The Aquiline looks like a more fleshed out and futuristic version of the Predator Drone... and like a robot bird. It makes me wish we had developed large or manned Ornithropters by now.
I think it is spelled without the r so ornithopter
"A notoriously difficult aircraft to dock." What a wild sentence. No wonder there's arguments about weather it's a plane or a boat. Lol
Stated as difficult, with no citations or proof, like several other notably false assertions in this video.
@@JFrazer4303 you've never seen a ekranoplan, then you start doubting the crap out of it
Это всё было придумано в СССР больше 30 лет назад 😂
ты ошибся больше 50
Придумано сделанно и спиженно из Германии.
@@alexanderjung7361 Германия когда то разрабатывала экранопланы?
@@vladislavzhdanov8302 Билет и в музейный тур по Европе
@@ОлегКо-э9к И что я там должен увидеть?
I think ekranoplans could make a comeback. They become more efficient when made extremely large, and with a blended wing-body design. A nuclear powered, drone carrier could make sense in the future.
Current aircraft carriers are really only practical against anyone who can't attack them. But every near peer (i.e. China, Russia), and even probably Iran at this point, has long range hypersonic weapons that can sink aircraft carriers with a single shot. There are no practical defenses against hypersonic weapons, you just have to hope your carriers can out range their hypersonic weapons.
But ekranoplans are different, their high speed makes them much harder to hit, even with hypersonic weapons. If its entire fleet are drones, the ekranoplan could "shoot and scoot", launch drones while on the move, and remaining evasive enough to be effectively immune to traditional hypersonic or anti-ship missiles in combination with hard-kill active protection systems. They might also be capable of having a stealth design.
It seems like Russia found the perfect search and rescue vehicle. Much faster than boats, and able to loiter much longer than planes or choppers. Maybe Russia should start marketing and production as such.
I mean we want to but the world is kinda completely rusophobic and shits on us every second so idk
They tried that with a "Spasatel" ("rescuer") version of the airframe used in the "Lun", but it could fly and could help fight fires and evacuate crew. They dropped it.
I had no problem with the wig (despite thinking about the headgear). But I'm always slightly amused by the "wotah" (water)... 🤪😁
Nick, I think you just beat everyone in this video, just WOW!
I mean almost nobody knew about it
Why? Everyone has known for a long time. I have known from the mid-90s approximately. Who does not know the designer Alekseev And his ships on hydrofoils and his ekranoplanes? It seemed to me this world name.
In the USSR there was a PROJECT of an ekranoplan-AIRCARRIER.ALEXEEV was not given access to aviation materials, otherwise he would have created a giant ekranoplan-aircraft carrier, but unfortunately he only had access to ship steel. Alekseev designed and tested more than 5,000 different versions and today almost all ekranoplanes, including Chinese ones, are Alekseev’s brainchild.This is nonsense! Ekranoplanes can operate without problems in oceans and seas, even in ice. the lifting force on the screen in some ekranoplanes was maintained up to 15 meters inclusive, then they could break away from the screen and fly like airplanes up to 5 kilometers.Ekranoplans could be ideal high-speed transporters, the larger the ekranoplan, the greater the height of the screen effect, so it would be possible to create Ekranoplans of 200 meters or more, while the ekranoplan lifts three to four times more payload than an airplane.at the same time it is much safer than an airplane..Alekseev wanted to build ports for ekranoplanes around the world and develop them in the civilian sphere
1:15
An aircraft actually needs 4 things to fly safely, not 3......
1: Lift.
2: Propulsion.
3: Control.
4: PILOT 👩✈️
🌌🔭
There are two issues with the propulsion, as fanjets doesn't work very well at zero air altitude, nor do they take collision with seabirds very well. And considering these WIGs flew very fast they were very difficult to avoid colliding with whatever came in their way, like flocks of birds, shipping, or small islets. Modern hovercraft have mostly changed to diesels and props!
Решили копировать разработки СССР 😂 может своё придумаете или мозга не хватает ?
That's because you look at it as a plane, change your view and you see great potential.
Considering that the ekranoplan (and other similar projects) require to be in the air for their forward motion, I'd also consider them a plane (of some kind). If they had a propeller that gave them forwards propulsion, I'd consider them a boat of some kind. I doubt there'll ever be a solution to it tho.
No they had to get up to speed while in the water first, and also the soviets designed an ekranoplan that had a propeller
В СССР был такой " Лунь"- назывался, еще в 80-е годы....
30 годы разработки Германии.
How do these ground effect crafts handle big waves in stormy weather when the waves are taller than the heights the crafts fly?
@Ruby Laser - not very well. They were useless in heavy weather. This old, dead end technology.
Yeah the first russian ekranoplan got lost in water like that i think
Not good imagine how well that design would be in the high waves🤮
It could touch down and navigate the waves like a boat, perhaps. But there's a reason why the new hotness for ekranoplane design is for conventional airplanes that can also harness the ground effect for efficiency.
They should build a pier and open the museum in situ.
A WIG does not require the engines in front of the wing, the engines infrastructure are only used to get into ground effect. The caspian Sea monster idled the front engines after getting into ground effect, reason they are so fuel efficient. Also you have your wing physics incorrect. Also the Russians are not the only ones that have done Ekranoplans or are doing them currently. Please check the facts of those who add to your channel.
Downward tilted, aka, anhedral. That’s the word you were looking for. The symbol for it looks like a capital T with the left top chopped off. It’s either +T, T or -T.
WIG has nothing to do with the engines. It's ALL about the wing being close to the ground. Using engines to enhance the concept is ok, but not required to be a WIG. The exhaust of the engines doesn't magically change direction and deflect downward as depicted. And if you're going to augment lift of a wing with engine exhaust, you want the higher velocity air moving over the Top of the wing, not the Bottom.
В самом начале показан экраноплан Орленок , Ту-144 и Конкорд внешне тоже почти одинаковы . Законы физики ещё никто не отменял )))
There was also the Boeing "Pelican" which frankly made all WIG aircraft before it look like Cessna's it was Massive.
I notice you keep calling it 'The Caspin Sea Monster' I think you find it is 'Caspian Sea Monster' like the Caspian Sea
Love the collab with paper skies 😁
New physics? Uhhh, no. Ground effect had been known for decades.
Anhedral is not used to trap high pressure under the wing. Anhedral is the opposite of dihedral (wings angled upward) Anhedral is for stability. Need to do better research or contact someone with aerodynamic experience before you publish.
It really needs to be saved it's nice and very cool craft.
Мультик американский, а реальный экраноплан - ещё советский, ржавеет сейчас на Каспии. Этот секрет, как сыр - с плесенью.
Реальные разработки 30 годов Германии.
KM was biggest ekranoplan. But it was one prototype KM ( Корабль Макет translated as ship layout). In ussr was serial ekranoplan Лунь ( Lun`)
It's interesting this video just came out now the pentagon has put out a listing looking for people to design a wig with a 100 tonne payload for quick relief missions.
How does it operate under conditions of rough sea and stormy weather ?
The German DoX that flew across the Atlantic is said to have flown low enough to use this effect
they automatically added one main problem about maintenance: the contact with sea water, and rust.
You are wrong!
It\s NOT easier to fly the further up you are; there is a reason every airplane has a service cealing, and that is because the higher up, the thinner the air, so the plane must fly faster to maintain lift!
Every plane experience the ground effect when landing, that is how they got the damn idea for the Ecranoplane in the first place!
5:30 When the British say it's not a boat, remember who conquered a quarter of the globe with boats and why they're right.
US never made this, stop it 😂😂
twas only designed,not made
СССР навсегда ✌️👍🤝😂
I think Found&Explain & Mustard are using SkillShare for animation
10,225ft² are NOT 3000m², but 950m²... each square foot is a ninth of a square meter as it is 3 times 3 times (as it is a square) smaller.
So basically acronym planes they fill the military capability gap between Naval warships and aircraft if anyone catches the metal gear reference in that you deserve a cookie button reality they probably would being somewhat more maneuverable and faster than regular Naval vessels but more durable than regular aircraft because they don't need to go as fast as an aircraft you can stick loads of armour on them end point defenses or stick nuclear or conventional missiles on them they would be kind of vulnerable to Air Attack but what Naval unit is it these days and they're somewhat less vulnerable than regular Naval units so basically or capability that maybe we should be looking into the NATO Powers I mean by we it sounds decent but also make a pretty nice troop deployment platform being a lot longer range than swifter than amphibious armored vehicles and a lot longer range than hovercraft
Alone on the beach. Dreaming of days when it once flew.
That's A Cool Flying Hammerhead Shark eh
More survivable and faster than carriers. Fly by wire computers can automate handling.
У СССР был Каспийский монстр!
Secret weapon ? Apparently not after you spilled the beans :) 😜😎
The Caspian sea monster is not an aircraft, it is a boat that looks like an aircraft
So what's a float plane? If this is a boat so is a float plane or bush plane.plane is in its name in both cases.
I just can not believe that this technology has not implemented this for shipping and even to some traveling destinations.
У нас в России есть экранопланы, только маленькие гражданские, у нас по Волге передвигаются! В этом видео про "Каспийский монстр" говорят, это военный экраноплан для десанта
Наконец то творения Ростислава Алексеева получили жизнь и развитие, пусть даже далеко от его родины!
Какое развитие?анимашку сделали в америке и всё! ))))
Причём тут Алексеев если это трофейное спиженное из Германии.
@@alexanderjung7361 Ты хоть на один вопрос ответь, умник! А то написал во всех ветках, а конкретики ноль!
Well,it's true-Australia and the US ARE two countries separated by a common language!/jk
But i wonder just how "invisible" the Ekranoplan would actually be to radar?Sepending on sea conditions and the radars tune,it would probably be pretty easy to pick up.Using a 3CM set common on most OSV's we could easily pick up small craft such as pleasure fishing boats-again,depending on sea condition.And often were able to track helos flying at 500 to 1000 feet at 150 knots.So I figure something as big as an Ekranoplan would'nt be too hard to spot.And that's not taking CAP into account.
A ram-wing GEV is nothing at all like a skirted hovercraft.
A ram-wing GEV does not "hover", ever.
The Aleksyev type is not at all the only sort of ram-wing GEV you could mention, or talk about it as if it's the norm of such craft.
A Lippisch (as in the Lippisch/Collins X-113 or the RFB X-114) inverse delta has none of the design features of the Aleksyev, the Jorg sort has few if any. A Lippisch type can actually fly, like an airplane, and none of them are limited to "only a few feet" above the water if designed properly. The KM and Lun were not designed to fly, as they were one-off, or the Orlyonok type as limited production test craft.
The second Lun airframe was suggested to be fished as the "Spasatel" ("Rescuer"), to fly, as a SAR/firefighter.
Many WIG craft are on video banking for turns, dipping a wing-tip in to even help that yaw. It is not a disaster, it is not a limitation.
If anybody expects an aircraft of 400+ tons and 400 kts speed to turn quickly, don't listen to them about anything, because they have no idea what they're on about.
If they object that a big ship can't turn around in a harbor, tell them about underwater thrusters and show them ships that can maneuver very precisely in port, and ask them if any big ship will be moving at highest speed while in port, thereby limiting its turning radius. If they still think this is a problem, again you probably shouldn't listen to them about anything. A GEV could turn in its own length in port, if designed and handled properly.
The last supposed risk or disadvantage of a WIG is made up, so it may be safely ignored. Show that it's endemic to the type and all sub-types.
Beriev bought back from the Russian navy some Be-12 "Mail" seaplanes for conversion to test the systems for the Be-200 firefighter seaplanes. With regular Navy servicing, they found very little or no corrosion issues.
So all these supposed disadvantages are overblown or entirely imaginary.
If it doesn't touch the ground while in operation, it's an aircraft.
Alexeev - super 🛥️+✈️=acranoplane
Junkers.
Considered there are waves in the ocean. How would an Ekranoplan with an altitude of 3 meters deal with tall waves?
We have a similar ship in New Zealand called a Waka and it fires meat seaking tiahars.
สวยเก๋ทุกรุ่นอย่างแจ๋วมาก.อีกทั้งอาวุธในแนวรบครับ