ATTN: CORKY SCOTT

Here is another link to the airplane you were wondering about.

http://www.beriev-usa.com/main/index.html

Some really nice photos and mpegs here as well as all
the technical details.

Enjoy.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:25:20 GMT, Shiver Me Timbers
wrote:

Here is another link to the airplane you were wondering about.

http://www.beriev-usa.com/main/index.html

Some really nice photos and mpegs here as well as all
the technical details.

Enjoy.

I think that's probably what I did see. By the time I'd sighted it,
it was past and flying away which gave me a good view of the engines
on pods.

I thought it might be a turboprop because of the engine noise but I
guess that's just an oddity of having the engines on pylons like that.

Corky Scott

In a previous article, Shiver Me Timbers said:
http://www.beriev-usa.com/main/index.html

Some really nice photos and mpegs here as well as all
the technical details.

The thing has two engines and six seats, but has less payload than my
club's (P28B-236) Dakota (a four seater). Doesn't cruise any faster,
either. That kind of sucks. But then again, the Lake Renegade 2 is
worse. I guess that boat hull gives a huge weight penalty?


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
In fact, it's surprising that any sort of hardware works. When it works, it
is just biding its time waiting for a more inconvenient time for it to fail.
-- Joe Moore

I had the opportunity to ride in this airplane. What is really strange
is the water spray over the wings as you start the takeoff "roll/run".
The trailing edges are in the water. I believe the pilot said it would
handle about two foot waves. Fun flight. I would be concerned about all
the hidden places for water and corrosion.

Ross

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, Shiver Me Timbers said:
http://www.beriev-usa.com/main/index.html

Some really nice photos and mpegs here as well as all
the technical details.

The thing has two engines and six seats, but has less payload than my
club's (P28B-236) Dakota (a four seater). Doesn't cruise any faster,
either. That kind of sucks. But then again, the Lake Renegade 2 is
worse. I guess that boat hull gives a huge weight penalty?

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
In fact, it's surprising that any sort of hardware works. When it works, it
is just biding its time waiting for a more inconvenient time for it to fail.
-- Joe Moore

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
The thing has two engines and six seats, but has less payload than my
club's (P28B-236) Dakota (a four seater). Doesn't cruise any faster,
either. That kind of sucks.

How many times can your club's Dakota land on the water and take off again?

I haven't looked at this new Russian design closely. But all other
seaplanes sacrifice performance to the boat-nature of the airplane. Engines
have to be placed in non-optimal positions to keep them out of the water,
some form of stabilization is necessary to keep the wings from digging into
the water, and extra structure is required to deal with the massive forces
created when crashing from one wave to the next during take off and landing.

All of this adds up to extra weight and drag and performance suffers. But,
the airplane is capable of something most others are not. I hardly think
that necessary and reasonable compromises justify an opinion that an
airplane "sucks".

Pete

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
The thing has two engines and six seats, but has less payload than my
club's (P28B-236) Dakota (a four seater). Doesn't cruise any faster,
either. That kind of sucks.

All of this adds up to extra weight and drag and performance suffers. But,
the airplane is capable of something most others are not. I hardly think
that necessary and reasonable compromises justify an opinion that an
airplane "sucks".

I guess you snipped my last two sentences because otherwise your whole
rant would be redundant?


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Alt.sysadmin.recovery: You will not soon find a more wretched hive of
ranting and pedantry. We aim to please, so duck.
-- ADB

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
I guess you snipped my last two sentences because otherwise your whole
rant would be redundant?

I don't see how. All you did was say that one plane was "worse" than
another that you had already said "sucked". Expressing an opinion of why
you think the planes "suck" or "worse" doesn't negate the negative opinion
you expressed in the first place.

IMHO, neither plane sucks and your statement that they do was idiotic. The
planes do what they were designed to do. It just happens that task requires
different characteristics than the plane to which you compared them. It
doesn't mean they suck (or worse).

Pete

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
I guess you snipped my last two sentences because otherwise your whole
rant would be redundant?

I don't see how. All you did was say that one plane was "worse" than
another that you had already said "sucked". Expressing an opinion of why

And once again you leave off a sentence to make a point that I'd already
made. Which part of "I guess that boat hull gives a huge weight penalty?"
didn't you understand?

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Females cannot be colour-blind; that would involve them being wrong.
-- Scott Morris

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
And once again you leave off a sentence to make a point that I'd already
made.

You must be on drugs. I quoted your post in its entirety.

Which part of "I guess that boat hull gives a huge weight penalty?"
didn't you understand?

No part. Why do you ask?

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
And once again you leave off a sentence to make a point that I'd already
made.

You must be on drugs. I quoted your post in its entirety.

No, you didn't. You deleted " But then again, the Lake Renegade 2 is worse. I guess
that boat hull gives a huge weight penalty?"

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.