Caspian Sea Monsters
Bartini's VVA-14 ASW |
"Caspian Sea Monsters" are WIGs (wing in the ground effect) vehicles designed by a number of Soviet experimental design bureaus. The WIG vehicles take advantage of an additional lift provided by cushion of dense air trapped between large wing of the craft and the surface. Induced drag (drag due to the lift) of wing is considerably reduced if the altitude of the aircraft is similar to the chord of the wing. Ground effect provides a considerable fuel economy and increase of range than convenient flight. WIG can operate over water, flat surfaces of Earth (shallows and wetlands), ice and snow. The major application of WIGs is anti-submarine warfare (ASW), search and rescue, sealift, amphibious assault and coastal defense.
This class of vehicles is commonly known as "ekranoplanes" in Russia. It is believed that Russia is far ahead of the West in air-cushion vehicle technology and in WIG in particular. Here are few (but not all) WIGs, build in Soviet Union/ Russia starting from 1960: |
| Name | OKB | TO Wght, tons | Propulsion | Crew/ Pssngrs | Pload (ton) | Spd (km/h) | Ceilng (m) | Rnge (km) | Size lg*spn*ht (m) | Function/Modifications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lun (Hen- harrier) | TGKB* | 400 | 8*NK-87 Kuznetsov four on each side of the fuselage aft of cockpit | 400 | - | 450 -550 | Cruse: 1-4 Search: 100-300 Max: 3,000 | 3,000 | 73,8*44*16 | Sealift, coastal defense (six canisters with AS missiles atop of the fuselage), search and rescue |
| Orlenok A.90.150 CASP-B (Eaglet) | TGKB + Sukhoi | 110- 125 | Main: NK-12 (two contra rotating props) on vertical stabilizer Lift: 2*NK-8 in the nose | 100- 150 | 15-28 | 400 | - | 2,000 | 58*31,5*16 | Multimission transport, accommodates small vehicles, swing-open nose to facilitate cargo loading, a gun turret mounted atop of the fuselage |
| VVA-14** 14MIP M-62 (Caspian Sea Monster) | Bartini + Beriev | 36 | Main: 4*D-30N Soloviev (two in rear + two in front for cushion) Lift:? | 2 man crew | - | 360 | 1- 3,000 | - | 28,12*30 | Anti-submarine warfare |
| Utka (Duck) | TGKB | 20 | Tail mounted main engine with single prop. Two lift eng in the nose | 15-20 (civilian version) | - | 350 | - | - | - | Light transport |
| Strizh PE-201 (Marlet) | Plast (TGKB) | - | Two wing mounted eng with single prop each | 2 man crew (student + instructor) | >1 | 220 | - | 1,500 | - | WIG trainer: dual control cockpits |
| Dingo*** | TGKB + AeroRIK | 3.6 | Main: P&W; PT6 Lift: TBA-200 | 2-4 | 0.84 | 275 | 3,500 | 850 | - | General aviation |
| MiG-TA4 *** "Explorer" Prototype "Finder" | TsAGI + MiG | - | Teledyne IO-550C and Nelson N-63CP | 4 | - | - | - | - | - | General aviation |
| ESKA-1 | CLLST **** | 0.45 | Pylon mounted MT-8 (30hp) | 2 seat | 0.22 | 110 | 40 | 200 | 7.75*6*? | Experimental rescue amphibian |
| Amphistar | Pacific Technique Develop ment, Moscow | - | 2 tilt-rotor Subaru powered props (220hp) | pilot + 5 | - | 80m/h | - | - | 10.4*?*? | Multipurpose amphibian, leisure |
| Volga-2 | Alekseev OKB | - | 2 tilt-rotor props | Similar to Amphistar | ||||||
| Name | OKB | TO Wght, tons | Propulsion | Crew/ Pssngrs | Pload (ton) | Spd (km/h) | Ceilng (m) | Rnge (km) | Size lg*spn*ht (m) | Function/Modifications |
From: jwsteel@unity.ncsu.edu (Jefferson W Steel) agretch@aeroweb.lucia.it wrote: > This a/c is believed to be a product of Beriev design bureau and is possibly > some kind of flying boat or WIG a/c. I took the picture this summer in Soviet > AF museum in Monino. It's the VVA-14. (If I'm remembering the designation right.) There was an article on it in Air International a while ago... If you can wait a few days, I can dig up the article for you. I've got a photo of it airborne scanned as well. If I can post it, I will. (If I can FIND it...)
From: ked@unixa.nerc-keyworth.ac.uk (Ken Duffey) Its the Bartini VVA-14 Wing-in-Ground-Effect Aircraft. There is also a piece about it in `Soviet X-Planes` by Yefin Gordon and Bill Sweetman. Bartini was an Italian emigre who set up his own design bureau in Russia. The aircraft had a central fuselage, short stub wings leading to large side sponsons on the bottoms of which were floats. Power was provided by four turbojet engines, two above the rear fuselage and two on either side of the nose to provide the air cushion. Wings were mounted outboard of the sponsons. I too photographed the VA-14 at Monino this summer. I obtained permission to cross the rope barrier and do a complete walk-around of the aircraft so I managed to get some shots of the rear end before I was shooed away by the museum staff. There is apparently the wreckage of another VA-14 at the Beriev site at Taganrog on the Black Sea.
From: jcbowman@aol.com (JCBowman)
"I am trying to read up on [Wing in the] Ground Effect Vehicles and would appreciate it if someone can point to the relevant journals, papers, books or WWW URLs on this topic. Although the concept is sound, why isn't there any commercial application? What are the costs involved in designing such a vehicle? Similar to that of an aircraft? How would FAA look upon the cerfication issue?"
Actually, if you could get a ground effect fleet running, the cost per seat mile or cost per ton mile would actually be cheaper than a non ground effect plane. The performance equations tell you that it would be a slower trip, but that's why it's cheaper. It's a power relationship (currently supertankers are the most efficient in terms of power required and power used). You plot Transport Efficiency (product of weight and speed divided by power to operate) vs speed. For aircraft, Trans Eff is the Lift/Drag ratio in cruise. If you plot all forms of trans., you find a boundary beyond which nothing appears- it slopes down from left to right. This is the technology factor line. With time, it moves up and to the right. As for the FAA look up the FAR's. They would have to follow all altitude restrictions, but efficient ground effect flight can only occur over large expanses of flat land (Russia has lots of this) or water. It would most likely be a seaplane, so look up the seaplane stuff in the FAR's- I did. However, some of those flare craft don't fall under FAR's. They can't climb too high (maybe 10 feet) so they fall under Coast Guard Regulations.
My senior project a few years ago was a ground effect design inspired by the Russian Ekranoplan. I am posting these references for anyone who is interested. Some are not related to technical material but rather are economic reasons for such vehicles.
"Technical and Economic Assessment of Span-Distributed Loading Cargo Aircraft Concepts" Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. Contract NAS1-13963 June 76 Committee on Productivity of Marine Terminals, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. "Improving Productivity in US Marine Container Terminals." National Academy Press, Wash DC 1986 Keith-Lucas, D. "The Relative Effectiveness of Large Landplanes and Flying Boats" 2nd International Aeronautical Conference. New York May 24-27 1949 Dane, A. "Wingships" Pop Mech May 1992 Balow, F.A. et al "Design and Evaluation of a Midsize Wing-in- Ground Effect Transport" AIAA Aircraft Design, Systems, and Operations Meeting AIAA Paper 93-3952 Aug 11-13 1993 Fink, M, Lastinger, J. Aerodynamic Characterisitics of Low-Aspect Ratio Wing in Close proximity to the Ground" NASA Tech Note D-926 Reeves, J.M. Ram Wings- a future? Proceedings of the Ram Wing and Ground Effect Craft Conference May 19, 1987 Staufenbiel, R.W. "On the design of stable ram wing vehicles" Proceedings of the Ram wing and Ground Effect Conf May 19, 1987 Gallington, R.W. "Power Augmentation of Ram wings" Proceedings of the Ram Wing and Ground Effect Conf May 19, 1987 Papadales, B.S. Jr. An Evaluation of a 2D Power Augmented Wing in Ground Effect Model Under Static and Dynamic Freestream Conditions DTNSRCDC (David Taylor Naval Ship Research ...) ASED - 353 June 76 Ando, S. PARWIG performance prediction during acceleration from water-borne to airborne. Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences Vol 34, Number 105 Jan 1991 Woodward, J.B. "Marine Gas Turbines" Wiley-Interscience 1975 Moore, J.W. et al "Conceptual Design Study of Power Augmented Ram Wing-in-Ground Effect Aircraft" AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology Conf Los Angeles AIAA paper 78-1466 Aug 21-23 1978 Saarlas, M. Steam and Gas Turbines for Marine Propulsion. Naval Institute Press Annapolis 1978 Ando, S. Critical Review of Design Philosophies for Recent Transport WIG Effect Vehicles. Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences. Volume 33, number 99 may 1990 Carson B.H. Experimental Observations of the 2D, Power Augmented RAM WING operated statically over water. AIAA/ SNAME Advanced Marine Vehicles Conference AIAA paper 78-751 April 17-19 1978
I am an Aerospace engineer have spend several years working in the advance marine field.
The concept of Wing-in-Ground Effect have been around for many years. Tests back in the 1920 show the increased lift of a wing operating near the ground.
One general problem is the there is a reduction in control. Power increase for hill climbing with general have restricted them to over water operations. Also you have to operate very low. As with Seaplanes the hull must be strong (and therefore heavy)to land on water. While you may not need much power in operate in ground effect, you much more it to get up to speed on water to lift off.
The Russian have solved some problems, but not all of the problems. They have a high mounted large tail for control. They use thrust vectoring with a RAM effect under the wing to reduce the lift off power required. However, they are still heavy. In addition they have loss some craft due accidents.
Regulation is one of the big problems the Russian have trying to sell there craft. They are not airplanes or boats. If you read FAR you will find out that you can't get the certification for the a WIG. According to the US FAA if they don't meet the requirement for aircraft they don't FLY !!!
You will have to talk to the US Coast Guard. They have let some experiment WIG in the US.
By the way in the UK it is the CAA not FAA. They maybe deal with them, but not the US FAA.
I am sure that someday they will find a use in the West.
You need to make sure it can operate in the marine environment, but still be light enough to lift off. Not a easy thing to do. I have work on hovercraft other marine craft for many years and speak from personal experience. You also have to deal with lot of marine craft issue that most aircraft don't.
Unfortunately, Most of the Russian and Western work in this area has been classified until resently. Check out Jane's High Speed Marine Craft. They have some info on WIG. Look for my name in the back under consultant in the latest (94-95) edition.
RAP::News::FAQ::Museums::Movies::Archive::Features::Trivia::Links::Contact
Last modified on: Friday, July 11, 1997.
