![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Please explain why you insert tags into the article here. Buckshot06 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't see anybody disputing it - what's going on?
Yeah, Nobody talking about this (November 25/2006)
In the Red star book about Berievs jet amphibians, they claim that Beriev only thinks this plane will become reality if several countries invest in this project. RGDS Alexmcfire
Today (Jan 3rd, 2007), the article shows a photo of one version being studied and a diagram of the second one.
Apparently, one version (the one currently with a diagram) is slightly more suitable for high altitude flights. The other seems to be much better suited for WIG effect flights.
(begins making Tim Taylor "More Power" noises) OK, when I'm named as the heir of Bill Gates, I'm gonna get me one of these babies. :-) - Aerobird 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
From the source of this information listed as ref 1 it states that the power of these engines are 105(t). This means that the thrust is the equivalent of 105(t) = 1030 kn(roughly) of thrust for each of the 6 engines.
Why is the range much less when flying in ground effect than when flying up in the sky? Is this a mistake? If not, it would bear explanation as I'm sure others too may wonder what the point of operating under ground effect would be, if it's less fuel-efficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.209.72 ( talk) 06:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
IMHO the benefits of flying in ground effect are: one is invisible to enemy radar, one can transport greater loads with the same plane (increase in lift). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.168.180 ( talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking that the pictures at the Be site has to make one wonder! Reading that the craft is meant as a sub-space delivery system for space launches may explain the the redundant T-tails, but I also see redundant tails on the similar, and also Soviet, Bartini VVA-14, which also seems to be a hybrid. Be, as a Soviet artifact is probably even more arrogant than your average major aircraft firm, as it was not just liberally funded by, but was a component of, the Soviet empire. An earlier large-sized Be cushion-effect craft lost its tail by hitting a wave, and yet the firm survives to design even bigger models! I think the only way to analyze the design is independently: build an RC version (which of course is OR, and so would have to happen here on the Wikiversity.)-- John Bessa ( talk) 14:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
in the article it says: 0.025. when I do the maths I arrive at 0.25 roughly - which is a much more plausible dimension, since it corresponds to the antonov 225 mriya (see wiki-article)... can somebody verify this? thanx! -- HilmarHansWerner ( talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Please explain why you insert tags into the article here. Buckshot06 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't see anybody disputing it - what's going on?
Yeah, Nobody talking about this (November 25/2006)
In the Red star book about Berievs jet amphibians, they claim that Beriev only thinks this plane will become reality if several countries invest in this project. RGDS Alexmcfire
Today (Jan 3rd, 2007), the article shows a photo of one version being studied and a diagram of the second one.
Apparently, one version (the one currently with a diagram) is slightly more suitable for high altitude flights. The other seems to be much better suited for WIG effect flights.
(begins making Tim Taylor "More Power" noises) OK, when I'm named as the heir of Bill Gates, I'm gonna get me one of these babies. :-) - Aerobird 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
From the source of this information listed as ref 1 it states that the power of these engines are 105(t). This means that the thrust is the equivalent of 105(t) = 1030 kn(roughly) of thrust for each of the 6 engines.
Why is the range much less when flying in ground effect than when flying up in the sky? Is this a mistake? If not, it would bear explanation as I'm sure others too may wonder what the point of operating under ground effect would be, if it's less fuel-efficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.209.72 ( talk) 06:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
IMHO the benefits of flying in ground effect are: one is invisible to enemy radar, one can transport greater loads with the same plane (increase in lift). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.168.180 ( talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking that the pictures at the Be site has to make one wonder! Reading that the craft is meant as a sub-space delivery system for space launches may explain the the redundant T-tails, but I also see redundant tails on the similar, and also Soviet, Bartini VVA-14, which also seems to be a hybrid. Be, as a Soviet artifact is probably even more arrogant than your average major aircraft firm, as it was not just liberally funded by, but was a component of, the Soviet empire. An earlier large-sized Be cushion-effect craft lost its tail by hitting a wave, and yet the firm survives to design even bigger models! I think the only way to analyze the design is independently: build an RC version (which of course is OR, and so would have to happen here on the Wikiversity.)-- John Bessa ( talk) 14:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
in the article it says: 0.025. when I do the maths I arrive at 0.25 roughly - which is a much more plausible dimension, since it corresponds to the antonov 225 mriya (see wiki-article)... can somebody verify this? thanx! -- HilmarHansWerner ( talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)