Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Beriev-style Jet Amphibs In The West?  
User currently offlineHappy-flier From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 299 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

The Beriev amphibious jets are truly unique aircraft - and they represent a genre that is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent in the West today.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitriy Pichugin - Russian AviaPhoto Team



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fyodor Borisov - Russian AviaPhoto Team


Is there any reason why this genre - jet-powered amphibious transports, whether for cargo or passengers - could not be popularized across much of North America? I'm thinking that this would be an ideal type of aircraft for quickly linking lakeside communities: there's no need to build full-fledged airports per se. Also, with the advent of composite materials, I'm sure that aircraft like the Beriev and any potential extensions of the general concept can be built so as to largely resist water-based corrosion.

Does anyone foresee a potential future expansion of the market for jet-powered amphibs, not as fire-fighting aircraft, but as transports?

Another aspect of this design that probably isn't taken into account much is its inherent attractiveness for overwater operations in general: If you have a dual engine failure, you can actually land the aircraft in a way that its design supports - never mind "ditching", which has less attractive connotations . . . Surely, this fact should be weighed against the inherent drag disincentives of the design.


May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

And there's probably a type of system that could allow visibility at night for landings...

Andrea Kent


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

There are so many airports in the US. And so many cars and roads. The infrastructure is there. That makes it economically unattractive.

Quoting Happy-flier (Thread starter):

Another aspect of this design that probably isn't taken into account much is its inherent attractiveness for overwater operations in general: If you have a dual engine failure, you can actually land the aircraft in a way that its design supports - never mind "ditching", which has less attractive connotations . . . Surely, this fact should be weighed against the inherent drag disincentives of the design.

It's an attractive idea. Engine failure, land on the water. But in practice it has issues. The drag penalties are pretty bad. Measured against the very small probability of dual engine failure it's just not worth it.

Also if you over the open sea, landing an amphib is far from easy. They do require pretty calm waters.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

What contributes to the drag penalties?

Andrea Kent


User currently offlineSoku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3190 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 3):
What contributes to the drag penalties?

The the shape used for the keel of a boat (that many flying planes use for the bottom of the fuesalage, think Grumman Goose or Widgeon) is far less aerodynamic, than the round tube shape of your normal jetliner. A keel is not completely smooth and there are more places for the air to be disturbed than on a flat tube, and as mentioned the probability of both engines conking out over smooth, landable, and navagable water is next to nothing.



The Ohio Player
User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

Hate to be a party pooper, but I think the real question is why anyone would build a jet powered flying boat. Turboprop power results in much better field performance, generally, and that's where flying boats are weak. Also, with higher drag the advantage of flying another 100kts or so faster is a lot less.

User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3107 times:

These things can only reliably land in calm seas (so oceanfront is usually out) in larger bodies of water. The number of places that could use these is probably very limited.

If the place is remote enough not to have a road, then there probably isn't a need for taking large numbers of people or cargo. At some point a road becomes a practical alternative. A few km of one lane dirt road for trucks or cars isn't that expensive.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 2):

It's an attractive idea. Engine failure, land on the water. But in practice it has issues. The drag penalties are pretty bad. Measured against the very small probability of dual engine failure it's just not worth it.

I'd imagine there are weight penalties too, as the fuselage has to be reinforced for water landings. You don't save the weight of the landing gear, as you still generally keep those.

Quoting Happy-flier (Thread starter):

Another aspect of this design that probably isn't taken into account much is its inherent attractiveness for overwater operations in general: If you have a dual engine failure, you can actually land the aircraft in a way that its design supports - never mind "ditching", which has less attractive connotations . . . Surely, this fact should be weighed against the inherent drag disincentives of the design.

It happens, but how often would this be helpful? Most of the fuel starvation, etc. incidents would probably not have ended better (the Ethiopian, maybe).

Ditching in rough seas, even in one of these things, is probably a very bad idea.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Such a plane could have a good military use as some kind of aphibious assault craft.

Andrea Kent


User currently offlineDhhornet From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

It is also amphibious so the emergency issues are no different to any other aircraft.

There must be a pax or cargo market for it in places like the Med, Alaska,Canada, Scandinavia etc... It's versatility must be a bonus?

What is like for getting spares and support for this aircraft. Probably like most others from this part of the world - poor!

Still a fine aircraft and I for one would love to fly on it to some greek Island. One day maybe?

Why no are CL215/415s in regular passinger service?


User currently offlineHappy-flier From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3043 times:



Quoting Analog (Reply 6):
Ditching in rough seas, even in one of these things, is probably a very bad idea.

It's interesting how often this point has come up. I admit my ignorance ... but how large, in terms of distance from crest to trough, do waves on the open ocean typically get? And - more importantly - while a headwind landing smack dab onto a big ocean wave wouldn't be a good idea, what about landing crosswind, that is to say, parallel to, or lengthwise, along a wave?

It's all fanciful speculation at this point, but I am curious how practical the ideas actually are.

Thanks.



May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3027 times:

Well, Russia is a huge country, with population centers often not connected by roads or railways (especially in Siberia). Big rivers and lakes exist though. Permafrost makes it hard to build runways, but often the isolated towns are small. The distances are so big that it will be better to use a jet instead of a turboprop due to higher cruising speed.
I can imagine a market though in countries which consist of many islands, like the Philippines, Indonesia or the South Pacific (where there exist sheltered baysand lagoons, but not enough land space to build an airport).

Jan


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3001 times:



Quoting Happy-flier (Reply 9):
It's interesting how often this point has come up. I admit my ignorance ... but how large, in terms of distance from crest to trough, do waves on the open ocean typically get?

3-5 meters in not unusual at all.

Quoting Happy-flier (Reply 9):
And - more importantly - while a headwind landing smack dab onto a big ocean wave wouldn't be a good idea, what about landing crosswind, that is to say, parallel to, or lengthwise, along a wave?

The waves aren't far enough apart for that I think. I don't think there's a neat solution unfortunately.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2963 times:

Because there´s no money in it. Easy as that, none Be-210 is operating today.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2904 times:



Quoting Dhhornet (Reply 8):
Why no are CL215/415s in regular passinger service?

If not mistaken they were designed for their primary water-bomber role. I doubt their economics as passneger aircraft would be very competitive.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No Beriev-style Jet Amphibs In The West?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Single Engine Jet? posted Wed Jul 31 2002 14:54:36 by Rabenschlag
Why No Main Landing Gear Doors On The 737? posted Sat Sep 23 2000 22:57:00 by Starship
Why No Windows In The Restrooms? posted Wed Oct 1 2003 17:53:32 by Gopal
Why No Winglets On The A380 posted Thu Dec 20 2007 12:14:58 by DL767captain
Why No Over Wing Exits On The Tupolev Tu-214 posted Mon May 7 2007 06:32:21 by Jumbojim747
Aviation Headsets: Why Not In The Ear? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 18:29:13 by Analog
Why No Douglas Competitor To The Boeing 727? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 21:51:50 by 747400sp
Why Not The Fuel Dump Option In The B6 A320? posted Thu Sep 22 2005 17:37:21 by Bongo
Why No V2500 On The A318 posted Sat May 28 2005 13:52:30 by HAWK21M
Paint In The Wings...why Not? posted Mon Feb 14 2005 17:36:41 by Bongo

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format