On Sep 29, 7:36?pm, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:52 pm, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
Not at all similar.
The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
Graham
A technicality at best.
Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
type of seaplane.
You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
Rob
Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So how would you define an Ekronoplan? Seacraft? It is piloted and
flies. I believe ti has a/c controls as well...

How about a separate category of WIG, xenia? Using your "logic" a
hovercraft is a helicopter.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most people consider the failed Avrocar (which was a propaganda tool
to deceive the public and Soviets) an "aircraft" even w/o the "flying
saucer" or "disc aircraft" stigma... and yet it was never meant to fly
very far off the ground as it was supposed to be a flying jeep armed
with a bazooka or recoilless gun on the rear deck. It was a GETOL
(Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft. Hint: joint US Army/Avro
project.

But everyone considers it an aircraft and in every aviation book it is
in, it is referenced as an aircraft

Rob