Soviet Union's Giant Ekranoplane (Ground Effect Vehicle)

[cwerdna]

Ok... in the tradition of posting whacky Soviet era stuff...
The Ekanoplane Is The Biggest Ground Effect Vehicle Ever

In the thick of the Cold War, the Soviet Union built an immense vessel to carry their troops across the seas and into Western Europe.

Equipped with nuclear warheads and able to blast across the sea at 340 mph, the Lun-class Ekranoplane; part plane, part boat, and part hovercraft — is a Ground Effect Vehicle (GEV)...

I'd seen a documentary about this many years ago, possibly on PBS or Discovery Channel.

Until someone posted

Tribute to Soviet Ekranoplane - YouTube

Tribute to Soviet Ekranoplane - YouTube

, I'd never seen it fire anything.

[Rokeby]

How do you say, Holy crap! in Russian?

A real dinosaur; I suspect high vulnerability in today's stealth
air warfare environment.

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by Rokeby

How do you say, Holy crap! in Russian?

A real dinosaur; I suspect high vulnerability in today's stealth
air warfare environment.

No more so than most ships; in fact less so given their speed.

The key thing to understand is that these were designed and built as a fast replacement for boats, not as low flying aircraft. Getting the hull out of the water made them less susceptible to attack by submarine. Speed was an overall advantage. Ground effect made them more like a hovercraft. In fact it is best to think of them as very high speed hovercraft.

Tom

[hyo silver]

'Caspian sea monster' is a great nickname for those. I can't imagine the fuel consumption. Still, an interesting idea and a historical curiosity.

Following a similar theme, Germany had some amazing planes near the end of the second world war.

Here's more information on a variety of Russian sea monsters.

[cyclopathic]

Originally Posted by hyo silver

'Caspian sea monster' is a great nickname for those. I can't imagine the fuel consumption.

Boeing worked on similar concept project "Pelican". Per calculations due to ground effect ekranoplan (ekran means screen in russian) would consume ~50% less fuel then similar sized airplane. It would be capable carrying 17 M1 tanks and fly 10,000mi missions with 1.5million pound payload

Boeing Pelican - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boeing_Pelican

also
Future Combat, Part 2: Scientific American





But let's wait when and if this one is built for commercial cargo. If it ever built it (enjoy the segway) reduce carbon footprint of cross-oceanic air shipments.

Beriev Be-2500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[airportkid]

Contender for title of World's Ugliest Airplane was the Bartini-Beriev VVA-14, a monstrosity that was built only once, and left to rot. Looks more like something the Klingons would have slapped together while drunk -

SOVIET AIRCRAFT-ITALIAN DESIGN Beriev VVA-14 Bartini . - YouTube

SOVIET AIRCRAFT-ITALIAN DESIGN Beriev VVA-14 Bartini . - YouTube

[milkman44]

Originally Posted by Rokeby

How do you say, Holy crap! in Russian?

A real dinosaur; I suspect high vulnerability in today's stealth
air warfare environment.

Here you go. Святое дерьмо

[fuzzy1]

Originally Posted by Rokeby

... I suspect high vulnerability in today's stealth
air warfare environment.

I also suspect vulnerability to storm waves and

rogue waves

Rogue_wave

.

[hyo silver]

Originally Posted by cyclopathic

Boeing worked on similar concept project "Pelican". Per calculations due to ground effect ekranoplan (ekran means screen in russian) would consume ~50% less fuel then similar sized airplane...

Interesting. I thought it would have been more, not half. Obviously climbing to altitude, and maintaining it, takes more fuel than pushing through the thicker air at lower elevations. In this case, an elevation so low the craft 'planes' on a cushion of air just above the waves.

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by hyo silver

Interesting. I thought it would have been more, not half. Obviously climbing to altitude, and maintaining it, takes more fuel than pushing through the thicker air at lower elevations. In this case, an elevation so low the craft 'planes' on a cushion of air just above the waves.

If airplanes didn't need to constantly create lift you would be correct, but aerodynamic lift comes at a steep cost. Pushing against a fixed surface generates a lot more lift. In this case the fixed surface is the earth or water. In the case of a ducted fan or turbine the surface is the duct. It's a very similar aerodynamic phenomenon.

Tom