Talk:Beriev Be-2500

Who's disputing it?

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)

Well. I can dispute it. It was in design phase as far as in 1994 [1] - so where is news about prototype and other development phases ? All that we can see on constructors website is plastic model only [2]. --TAG 06:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

An obvious solution is to note that it has been in the design phase for the last 12 years (though I couldn't find that info in the article you linked to). That should provide enough facts to cast doubt on whether it will actually fly without breaking our obligation to neutrality. Karl Dickman ^talk 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I've got year wrong - but here is clear text [3] that NO works currently in progress (only conception development) because of luck of funding (estimate is 12-13 billions of USD). I can accept comparing Mriya to non-existing Boeing 747-8 in Giant Aircraft box simply because it's evolution of existing models and Boeing already getting orders for it and for sure will try hard to produce 747-8. But I can not accept small plastic model. Even more - there are announced technical issues for projects - like new powerful engines [4] as no existing engines will suit current 2500 tons design. Maybe in far-far future this project will see light - but now it's nothing but promotional material. --TAG 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is really nothing in the text that is in dispute, other than its status. The {future products} tag seems sufficient warning to me, esp the statement "It may contain unverified or unreliable information", along with the {citation needed} within the text. Therefore I am removing the {In dispute} tag, as they are somewhat overlapping. In addition, the tag ought to have been placed above, not below, the Infobox, so as not to cause a large gap in the text (such as there is). However, if proof cannot be found that it is an ongoing project, it should probably be reclassed as a "cancelled project", rather than slapping the "dispute" tag back on. - BillCJ 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Two versions being studied

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.

Egads!

(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)

Yeah. Only after this - as company is short of 15 billions of USD to produce first one. --TAG 09:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

powerplant thrust

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.

Ground effect vs full-flight efficiency questions

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)

I'll second that. The ground effect is supposed to reduce drag; surely range should increase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcateer (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone seems to get there information from the same English translated Russian site. Translation mistake or just human error. Either way I have to agree with you, something is wrong. My first guess that the longer air range was empty and shorter ground range was fully loaded, but couldn't find any other sources to verify against.--85.197.248.132 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That with the shorter air range flying in ground effect is correct. It has to do with the engines. Due to different factors jet engines are much more fuel efficient (and can reach higher speeds) at greater altitude (thats why passenger planes cruise at altitudes of 9000m+). The ground effect only reduces the lift-induced drag and generates more lift, hence allowing one to build airplanes with smaller wings (see Ekranoplans). When flighing in ground effect the air is much thicker, which leads to more drag imposed by friction. New pictures of the project see here : http://www.beriev.com/eng/core_e.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.168.180 (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2008 (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)

I suspect that arguing that ground effect should have longer range the high altitude flight and if not is redundant seems a bit wrong. What if ground effect is the method for take off? I don't see a 2,500mt aircraft finding many suitable landing strips. I also don't see short trips being very effecient if you spend almost all of it ascending and descending, hence perhaps using ground effect for a trip like a channel crossing (except for during poor weather). The duality of the systems though might make this aircraft less effecient overall compared to a similar weight 'pure' aircraft because you have to use certain kinds of paints & materials to protect an GEV against the ground.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2009 (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)

Flying in Ground-effect will dramatically increase the efficiencty OF FLYING AT SEA LEVEL!! To make an aircraft that would also fly efficiently in the stratosphere is a very big challenge!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

thrust/weight-ratio??

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)

Thrust-to-weight is one of those things that can be WP:BOLDly edited, since, as it's a simple calculation based on numbers already in the article that can be done by anyone, it's not WP:OR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• What's the weight for the Be-2500? The stated figure here of 1,500,000 kg is enormous.

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH still apply to calculating thrust/weight ratios. In particular, are the starting figures sourced (and credible)? Secondly, how is the thrust/weight ratio calculated? Is it reasonable (in the particular case) to base it on sea level thrust (sensible for an ekranoplan) and MTOW? That's not always a reasonable and appropriate set of conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)