Talk:Beriev Be-2500

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 Who's disputing it? 2 Two versions being studied 3 Egads! 4 powerplant thrust 5 Ground effect range less than full-flight range?

[edit] 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 Aircrafts 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Ground effect range less than full-flight range?

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)