cool airplane

If you want to see a similar (smaller) plane in operation, watch this:

Interesting. Apparently it actually gets fairly good fuel economy, and = can=20 travel at speeds of about 350 MPH. I wonder how it compares to an = ordinary=20 jet aircraft of similar capacity, or a cruise ship? It may be a viable=20 alternative to both, allowing transatlantic travel in about 8 hours, and =

relatively crash-safe compared to falling into the sea from 30,000 feet. = But=20 if it only flies 16 feet above the water, what happens when it = encounters a=20

I like the "goose catcher" fan guard on one of the turbines. Maybe they=20 should have been installed on Captain Sully's aircraft.

Paul=20

Big hovercraft !

Here is the other end of the scale, this thing actually flies, not just in ground effect. And you could build one yourself.

It's not an aircraft, it is a hovercraft just happens to look like an airplane, were built by a shipyard, that should be a clue.

Looks a bit like the Spruce Goose, which didn't either.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

In article , P E Schoen wrote

The pilot calls in an emergency: "Moio sudno na vozdushnoy podushke polno ugrey".

(that's the best I can do for a Russian transcription of the classic Pythonesque "My hovercraft is full of eels").

I want one of thes *BAD* :)

H.

Obviously, it flies 14 feet below the water.

John

The tail gun mount appears to be nearly identical to the one on the Tu-16:

It probably used the same Nudelman 23mm cannon, which among its many applications in military aircraft was also mounted on the Almaz series space stations.

One has to wonder about what kind of threat a tail gun on a vehicle like the Ekranoplan would actually be effective in addressing. It's fast enough to outrun any surface threat, but at such a low altitude it doesn't look like the cannons could actually elevate enough to effectively counter aerial targets. It would have a gun-laying radar, but probably not a high enough rate of fire to deal with anti-ship missiles, either.

Better hope you fire your missiles before the enemy does!

Its not a hovercraft. Its an airplane but it is not intended to fly very high. Actually it offers a very good way to stay under the radar. Only obstacles are a bit of a problem.

I want a fully staffed Merlin ;-) ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

"P E Schoen" wrote in news:jfv2m4$eo7$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

cut

You have aircraft hamburger.

That's the way I want to go out.

:)

--Winston

The proper term, in this case, would be "surface effect".

"P E Schoen"

Interesting. Apparently it actually gets fairly good fuel economy,

and can travel at speeds of about 350 MPH. I wonder how it compares to an ordinary jet aircraft of similar capacity,

It may be a viable alternative to both, allowing transatlantic travel in about 8 hours, and relatively crash-safe compared to falling into the sea from 30,000 feet.

Bet that Soviet monstrosity never went near commercial shipping lanes.

Also, the ride would have been horrendous in all but the calmest weather.

... Phil

What about "altitude challenged seaplane"?:)

Perhaps only because you are unable to see the physics behind it.

The only thing you have stated correctly thus far.

You also have problems with your capacity to properly quote in Usenet.

No s*it, dumbfuck. Why would they deliberately fly it in a place where a collision would occur?

I think you have no grasp of the works.

The fUSSR was evidently quite into ground-effect aircraft.

DAGS: "Caspian Sea Monster".