jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) (07/16/90)
From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) A couple of years ago, a rather intriguing drawing appeared in "Soviet Military Power". It was a picture of a Soviet Wing-In-Ground (WIG) effects machine given the NATO code name "Orlan". It looked like a gigantic seaplane, but with a low-mounted stubby "wing" and a high-mounted tail with a large turboprop at the top. This thing seems to be intended primarily for antisubmarine warfare and is supposedly armed with antiship missiles. Subsequent to the publication of this drawing, I haven't heard anything further about this craft. Does anyone who reads sci.military know anything more about "Orlan", or even if it actually exists? Joe Baugher ************************************* AT&T Bell Laboratories * "Make it so, Mister Crusher! * 200 Park Plaza ************************************* Naperville, Illinois 60566-7050 (708) 713 4548 ihlpm!jfb jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com Who, me? Speak for AT&T? Surely you jest!
bash@ihlpb.att.com (Thomas W Basham) (07/17/90)
From: bash@ihlpb.att.com (Thomas W Basham) >From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) > Does anyone who reads sci.military know anything more about "Orlan", >or even if it actually exists? I've read [brief] references to it in several places, such as Aviation Week. I think there was something about it in Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review, but I'm not sure. The first reference I saw stated the plane was primarily for ASW, however, a year or so ago, when that Soviet sub caught fire in the Atlantic, I read that this plane was a naval search/rescue craft and was used in that rescue operation. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue where I read this. I realize there aren't many hard facts here, but it's all that I can remember off the top of my head. Tom -- Tom Basham AT&T Bell Laboratories bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM I'm the NRA. I also vote. I can't say what AT&T does.
mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (07/17/90)
From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu In article <1990Jul16.030959.5705@cbnews.att.com>, jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) writes: > A couple of years ago, a rather intriguing drawing appeared in "Soviet Military > Power". It was a picture of a Soviet Wing-In-Ground (WIG) effects machine > given the NATO code name "Orlan". It looked like a gigantic seaplane, but with > a low-mounted stubby "wing" and a high-mounted tail with a large turboprop > at the top. This thing seems to be intended primarily for antisubmarine > warfare and is supposedly armed with antiship missiles. Subsequent to the > publication of this drawing, I haven't heard anything further about this > craft. Does anyone who reads sci.military know anything more about "Orlan", > or even if it actually exists? Yes it exists. My 1988 "Soviet Military Power" is the first UNCLAS mention of the WIG craft that I have seen. An interesting concept that the Soviets have had a few problems with. My UNCLAS source says that "they [the Soviets] are expected to deploy operationally the first of a new class of `wing-in-ground' effect (WIG) craft for which there is no US counterpart." No hint as to when the WIG will become operational. Mike
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) (07/18/90)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <1990Jul16.030959.5705@cbnews.att.com> jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) writes: >A couple of years ago, a rather intriguing drawing appeared in >"Soviet Military Power". It was a picture of a Soviet Wing-In-Ground >(WIG) effects machine given the NATO code name "Orlan". It looked >like a gigantic seaplane, but with a low-mounted stubby "wing" and a >high-mounted tail with a large turboprop at the top. This thing seems >to be intended primarily for antisubmarine warfare and is supposedly >armed with antiship missiles. Subsequent to the publication of this >drawing, I haven't heard anything further about this craft. Does >anyone who reads sci.military know anything more about "Orlan", or >even if it actually exists? The October 1988 USNI Proceedings had an article about these WIG craft, which are also known as "CASP-A" (or more informally as the "Caspian Sea Monster"), because they were tested on the Caspian Sea. They described at least two different models. Both looked like gigantic seaplanes. One had a turboprop on top. That model was supposed to be used for ASW or maybe as a high speed assault transport. The other model had what looked like a row of jet engines mounted on a low wing in front. The thrust from the engines was supposed to blow over the main wing to provide more lift. That model was portrayed as being a fast attack craft with six SS-N-22s. The article speculated that the craft might be able to pop-up for a short period to do the necessary OTH targeting. The article seemed to imply these things were close to deployment, but I have not heard anything since. -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696
root@uunet.UU.NET (rb duc) (07/19/90)
From: grumbly!root@uunet.UU.NET (rb duc) ->>From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) ->> Does anyone who reads sci.military know anything more about "Orlan", ->>or even if it actually exists? ========== There was a good size article about WIGs several years back in "Defense Electronics". I wish I could be more specific about the issue. Defense Electronics is published by Cardiff Publishing Co. 6300 S. Syracuse Way Suite 650 Englewood, CO 80111 (303) 220-0600 You might be able to get the issue from them ?? They are a very interesting class of transport/attack craft. -- \\\ - - Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root _] Capitola, California root@grumbly.com
jeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (JEFF NANIS ) (07/24/90)
From: jeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (JEFF NANIS ) >From: bash@ihlpb.att.com (Thomas W Basham) >>From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) >> Does anyone who reads sci.military know anything more about "Orlan", >>or even if it actually exists? >I've read [brief] references to it in several places, such as Aviation >Week. I think there was something about it in Jane's Soviet Intelligence >Review, but I'm not sure. Well, campers, here goes with a relatively complete OPEN-SOURCE bibliography for Wing-In-Ground Effect (WIG) vehicles. First of all, check out the 1982-1986 Janes' Sea Skimmers books in your nearby well-stocked library. There are descriptions of WIGs (not just Soviet, either) in the Surface Effect sections. One of the years has an article by Stephan Hooker called "Wingships: A Prospect for High-Speed Ocean Transport". I can't remember what year it's from. The June 1987 issue of Defense Electronics has an article entitled "Soviet Surface Effect Vehicles May Challenge Western Forces" on pp. 133-148. A literature search through NTIS and DTIC came up with several WIG-related reports. The fol- lowing represent some of the more applicable documents: AIAA Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, April 1988, "Slender Wing in Ground Effect", A. Plotkin and S.S. Dodbele AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 25, N0. 4, April 1988, "Stability of Airplanes in Ground Effect", R.W. Staufenbiel and U.-J. Schlichting David Taylor Research Center Report ASED-380, March 1977, "Effect of Configuration on the Measured Performance of a Power Augmented Wing in Ground Efect", George H. Kidwell, Jr. and Roger W. Gallington USAF Foreign Technology Division Translation FTD-MT-24-2792-74, 20 November 1974, "Criteria of the Longitudinal Stability of the Ekranoplan", R.D. Irodov AIAA Report 89-1497-CP, "A Review of Current Technical Knowledge Necessary to Develop Large Scale Wing-In-Surface Effect Craft", Stephan Hooker These documents should provide a thorough understanding of the mechanism for the wing-in-ground effect as well as an unclassified survey of Soviet developments in the area. I'd tell you more, but then... well, you know my .sig. As Mary mentioned, once you have access to this stuff from certain sources, your knowledge base becomes "tainted" and it becomes very difficult to differentiate between stuff you read open- source and stuff obtained through other "sources and methods". -- -- Jeff Nanis "If I told you, I'd have to kill you." Not an official opinion which might get me put in jail.
dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) (07/24/90)
From: dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) / otter:sci.military / tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) / 5:09 am Jul 18, 1990 / >The other model had what looked like a row of jet engines >mounted on a low wing in front. The thrust from the engines was >supposed to blow over the main wing to provide more lift. This sounds to me like trying to blow a sailboat along with a fan mounted on the stern, pointing forward ... The wing could never rise through the engines' jetstreams, could it? Am I missing something here? I've heard of diverted thrust (blown flaps?), as in the YC-14, but this doesn't seem to be the same principle. >-ted Duncan
bxr307@csc.anu.oz (07/24/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz In article <1990Jul18.040954.14575@cbnews.att.com>, tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) writes: : : In article <1990Jul16.030959.5705@cbnews.att.com> jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) writes: :>A couple of years ago, a rather intriguing drawing appeared in :>"Soviet Military Power". It was a picture of a Soviet Wing-In-Ground :>(WIG) effects machine given the NATO code name "Orlan". : : The October 1988 USNI Proceedings had an article about these WIG : craft, which are also known as "CASP-A" (or more informally as the : "Caspian Sea Monster"), because they were tested on the Caspian Sea. : : : The article seemed to imply these things were close to deployment, but : I have not heard anything since. There was a report in a recent Jane's Soviet Intelligence that suggested that the new Soviet seaplane which was displayed at the last Moscow airshow might be intended as either a competitor or will be deployed instead of the WIG effect machines (they said they reports that the WIG machines were too difficult to fly and that the seaplane offerred an easier alternative and was cheaper. It also possessed a better range). Brian Ross
kiravuo@hila.hut.fi (Timo Kiravuo) (07/24/90)
From: kiravuo@hila.hut.fi (Timo Kiravuo)
>->> Does anyone who reads sci.military know anything more about "Orlan",
I finally found the magazine I was looking for. It is March 1990
issue of "Rannikon Puolustaja", magazine for Finnish coastal
artillery. On pages 35-37 there is an article about the
development in landing capabilities of the big powers, by
lieutenant-colonel Timo Sario.
Sario writes that the Soviets have already built landing ships
and hoovercrafts, and now are developing a ground effect plane.
(My terminology is pretty weak, try to understand.) According to
him, this ORLAN-project has developed rather well.
There is also a drawing about the plane. Long body, stubby wings,
high tail with a turboprop on top and it seems to me like there
would be two jets directed back- and downwards at the front, in an
angle of about 30 deg. from the horizontal. Can't be quite sure
about the latter one.
The caption says (badly translated): "Newest new in amphibious
assault equipment, WIG (ground effect) -craft ORLAN. Speed 300
knots, capacity 900 men with their equipment. Bird or fish?"
There is also a picture of the hoovercraft Pomornik. Speed over
50 knots, estimated capability 300 men or three tanks. Powered by
three big turbojets.
--
Timo Kiravuo
Helsinki University of Technology, Computer Center, Finland
kiravuo@hut.fi sorvi::kiravuo kiravuo%hut.fi@uunet.uu.netjeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (JEFF NANIS ) (07/25/90)
From: jeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (JEFF NANIS ) In article <1990Jul23.203523.8039@cbnews.att.com> dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) writes: >From: dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) >/ otter:sci.military / tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) / 5:09 am Jul 18, 1990 / >>The other model had what looked like a row of jet engines >>mounted on a low wing in front. The thrust from the engines was >>supposed to blow over the main wing to provide more lift. >This sounds to me like trying to blow a sailboat along with a fan >mounted on the stern, pointing forward ... The wing could never rise >through the engines' jetstreams, could it? Am I missing something here? >I've heard of diverted thrust (blown flaps?), as in the YC-14, but this >doesn't seem to be the same principle. A normal WIG works by using low aspect ratio wings and low cruise altitude to fly in "ground effect", essentially riding on the cushion of air created by the forward motion of the wings. There are problems in getting fast enough to create that cushion, however, especially with large craft. Somw WIGs make use of the "Power Augmented Ram" (PAR) mode to blow air (such as engine exhaust) below the wings to create the initial cushion and then slowly vector the thrust rearwards to impart forward motion. -- -- Jeff Nanis "If I told you, I'd have to kill you." Not an official opinion which might get me put in jail.
wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll) (07/25/90)
From: jake!wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll) >From article <1990Jul23.203523.8039@cbnews.att.com>, by dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith): > / otter:sci.military / tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) / 5:09 am Jul 18, 1990 / >>The other model had what looked like a row of jet engines >>mounted on a low wing in front. The thrust from the engines was >>supposed to blow over the main wing to provide more lift. > > This sounds to me like trying to blow a sailboat along with a fan > mounted on the stern, pointing forward ... The wing could never rise > through the engines' jetstreams, could it? Am I missing something here? > I've heard of diverted thrust (blown flaps?), as in the YC-14, but this > doesn't seem to be the same principle. Its known as the Cuanda (sp?) effect. The air flowing over the wing wants to follow the trailing edge, getting curled down as it leaves the wing's surface. This results in a vertical force component. air ______________ ___ \ wing ------------- | | It is the same effect that causes the water to run down the glass and make a mess when you try to pour out a little bit. It was my impression that the USAF built a STOL prototype that employed this technique, but I my memory may be failing me there. I don't claim to understand this, fluid dynamics was one of those physics subjects I never really understood. Perhaps one of our aerodynamics types can shed more light on the subject. William R. Carroll (Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com uunet!gould!wcarroll "Dan Quayle gives underachievers a bad name." -- Bart Simpson
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (07/31/90)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
In article <1990Jul25.004935.7662@cbnews.att.com>, jake!wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
:
:
: From: jake!wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll)
: >From article <1990Jul23.203523.8039@cbnews.att.com>, by dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith):
: > / otter:sci.military / tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) / 5:09 am Jul 18, 1990 /
: > I've heard of diverted thrust (blown flaps?), as in the YC-14, but this
: > doesn't seem to be the same principle.
:
: Its known as the [Coanda] (sp?) effect. The air flowing over the wing wants
: to follow the trailing edge, getting curled down as it leaves the wing's
: surface. This results in a vertical force component.
:
: It was my impression that the USAF built a STOL prototype that employed
: this technique, but I my memory may be failing me there.
The NASA QSRA STOL demonstrator uses Coanda effect with its blown flaps to
get very low flying and takeoff speeds. (It's really quiet,too.)
I think that both the YC-14 and YC-15 used top-mounted jet engines to get
the fluid flow needed for the same effect.
------------
The only drawback with morning is that it comes
at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------