Beriev gets to build Be-2500!

[chornedsnorkack]

See
http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_sep4.html#28sep
Although I have seen different numbers for Be-2500 wingspan, namely 156 m.

The Caspian Sea Monster is different.

The biggest Caspian Sea Monster had 106 m fuselage length, 540 ton MTOW - and only 44 m wingspan.

Whereas Be-2500 has pretty conventionally shaped wing - 156 m span and 3400 square metres wing reference area compared to 79,8 m span and 845 square metres area of Airbus 380 show Be-2500 has about twice the span, 4 times the area and roughly the same aspect ratio as the Airbus 380 wing. The wing loading is also similar. Be-2500 is perfectly capable of flying as a conventional, free-air plane.

[Boomtown Rat]

This has a picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be-2500

Very very cool looking plane, nice choice of name too (Neptun).  I'd love to see it in real life.  ;D

[SkyNoz]

Sure is a Monster, just hope it doesn't turn out to be another Spruce Goose!

[Ivan]

Sure is a Monster, just hope it doesn't turn out to be another Spruce Goose!

Combo of Alexeyev and Beriev design... not a bad start.

[flyboy 28]

Looks like another version of the Boeing Clipper.

[chornedsnorkack]

Looks like another version of the Boeing Clipper.

Let

[beaky]

Sure is a Monster, just hope it doesn't turn out to be another Spruce Goose!

There was nothing inherently wrong with the H-10, or the Saunders-Roe Princess, or all of the more successful flying-boat airliners... but for some reason, these things have never been able to compete with land-based airliners despite the enormous amount of coastline and number of large lakes available globally.

[Woodlouse2002]

There was nothing inherently wrong with the H-10, or the Sunders-Roe Princess, or all of the more successful flying-boat airliners... but for some reason, these things have never been able to compete with land-based airliners despite the enormous amount of coastline and number of large lakes available globally.

None before though have been able to carry 2,500 tons before though. With that sort of capacity it should be able to compete with pretty much anything.

Though I'm pretty sure that the 2,500 limit will only be achieveable while the aircraft is within ground effect.

[Hagar]

Though I'm pretty sure that the 2,500 limit will only be achieveable while the aircraft is within ground effect.

I'm pretty certain that's how it's intended to be operated. The Ekranoplan does not fly in the conventional sense. The WIG (Wing in Ground Effect) concept is more like a hi-tech ship than a conventional flying boat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6HQSNERadQ

[C]

Just a small point...



...who's paying for it?

[beaky]

Just a small point...



...who's paying for it?

Russian mafia?  ;)

Seriously, though, I'm curious, too- I haven't exactly studied current russian economics, but I can't quite figure out where the money's coming from for things like this.

[Boomtown Rat]

[quote]

Russian mafia?

[cheesegrater]

I doubt that the Be-2500 will ever be built. Although it looks interesting.

Also, I doubt that any work has been done on the second An-225.

[Boomtown Rat]

Also, I doubt that any work has been done on the second An-225.

According to both the Ukrainian Minister of Transportation and Communications Nikolay Rud'kovskiy, http://www.flightlevel350.com/Antonov_A ... facts.html as well as wikipedia.org , the second An-225 is being completed, with most construction completion dates being set for 2008.

[chornedsnorkack]

I'm pretty certain that's how it's intended to be operated. The Ekranoplan does not fly in the conventional sense. The WIG (Wing in Ground Effect) concept is more like a hi-tech ship than a conventional flying boat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6HQSNERadQ

See above for the difference between Ekranoplan and Be-2500. Basically, the Ekranoplan has short, stubby wings - 44 m span for a 540 ton MTOW. Whereas Be-2500 has wide, 156 m wingspan. Thus, the wing loading is similar with a conventional large jet, like C-5, An-225 or Airbus 380. 2500 toms should be doable in free air.

An advantage of flying boats over landplanes is that a landplane requires a runway sized for it. Airbus 380 was developed for a 80 m box. Whereas a seaplane is not constrained by airport infrastructure - where a small seaplane can fly, a big seaplane also can.