Now is this a warbird? It flies... technically

[Scott Rose]

The is a an age old discussion about what is a warbird. My general definition is a aircraft that was in military service and has since been retired. This gets a little murky when a long lived platform is still active but early models are retired and on display. For example, and F-15A Eagle on display is a warbird, but a F-15C is not,,, unless its on display.

However, the vehicle below is definitely a warbird since it was a military "aircraft" and flies and is no longer in service, hence, it is a warbird... or is it? Discuss.



The Lun-class ekranoplan (also called Project 903) is a ground effect vehicle (GEV) designed by Rostislav Alexeyev in 1975 and used by the Soviet and Russian navies from 1987 until sometime in the late 1990s.

It flew using lift generated by the ground effect acting on its large wings when within about four meters (13 ft) above the surface of the water. Although they might look similar to traditional aircraft, ekranoplans like the Lun are not classified as aircraft, seaplanes, hovercraft, or hydrofoils. Rather, crafts like the Lun-class ekranoplan are classified as maritime ships by the International Maritime Organization due to their use of the ground effect, in which the craft glides just above the surface of the water.

The ground effect occurs when flying at an altitude of only a few meters above the ocean or ground, the wings push air downwards where it is compressed between the wings and ocean surface. This causes higher pressure under the wings and creates lift. This effect does not occur at high altitude.

The name Lun comes from the Russian word for the harrier.

Source: Wikipedia

[junkman9096]

Having seen somewhat recent photos of the Ekranoplan's current condition, I think its not an issue that need be dwelt upon. Museum piece: maybe-if they could drag it out of the water without it crumbling. (Update: I guess it stayed mostly intact when they did drag it out. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/casp ... index.html) Warbird: that's pushing the definition out of all recognition. Especially since its not an aircraft, which I think is the criteria. A proper and correct discussion for a Saturday morning.

[Scott Rose]

I must admit to a bit of trolling with this one. But you have to admit, it is a flying boat

[Craig59]

Warbird: that's pushing the definition out of all recognition. Especially since its not an aircraft, which I think is the criteria. A proper and correct discussion for a Saturday morning.

Agreed. Hovering in ground effect is not “flying” and does not make this an aircraft by any stretch of the imagination. I certainly wouldn’t want to initiate a 30 degree banked turn to avoid another boat!

[junkman9096]

I must admit to a bit of trolling with this one. But you have to admit, it is a flying boat

Personally, and my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it, I'd put it more on par with a hydrofoil.

[old iron]

It is further off the ground than the Wright Brothers got in 1903. That is certainly a definition of flight.

And it can shoot a missile while being off the ground; ie, it can be used in war.

I do not know how you can say that this is not a warbird.

More a hydrfoil? Are we not including helicopters and zeppelins as warbirds? Any hydrofoil that fire a missile while moving at speed above the earth's surface, particularly with a human pilot is a warbird. Does not have to have been actually used in war, only needs to have been designed for the purpose of war.

[Lon Moer]

I also don't agree with the "retirement" condition.

A F-15C is very much a warbird, that's its whole purpose.

[Clifford Bossie]

I am torn between describing it as an airplane, or a ship. However, if it was still in service it would be taken out by a Neptune missile. I guess that makes it a ship.

[dhfan]

A hydrofoil technically does not move above the earth's surface as the foils themselves are still very much in or on the surface.

[sandiego89]

Not a warbird, is classified as a Ground Effect Vehicle, and recognized by the International Maritime Organization as a ship/vessel. But still cool to discuss here.

Bit like trying to classify the MV-22 as a helicopter or an airplane. It is neither, it is a tilt rotor- but is an "aircraft", and the retired ones would be considered warbirds for the definition we use on this site.

[Larry Kraus]

The idea of wing in ground effect not quite aircraft is still alive. Here are a couple of recent items from Aviation Week’s Daily Briefing

This is from March 30th

817B1878-09BB-4DC5-B004-141631DA77E1 by tanker622001, on Flickr

Another from April 14th

AD65442E-11C6-45B7-924C-58AF47340145 by tanker622001, on Flickr

[Scott Rose]

I think the first commercial electric planes will be this type. Safety will be a huge concern when they hit the market.

[Archer]

We've got two discussions here:
1. Is it an aircraft? The definition of the term (from legislative documents) is ‘aircraft’ means any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than reactions of the air against the earth's surface. As this craft is heavily dependant on those reactions of the air against the earth's surface, I would say that it is not an aircraft. Equally you could argue that it derives support from its wings, and that fits within the first part of the definition. I think 'Ground-effect vehicle' is a better name. The fact that other such types have been classed as marine vessels supports this.
2. Is it a warbird? That term is not as clearly defined as the one above. It is a type meant for war, but never used as such. You could argue that it was never used in an operational capacity... so I would be hesitant to class it as a warbird. But that is just my opinion.

It is an interesting piece of technology though.

[phil65]

I think the first commercial electric planes will be this type. Safety will be a huge concern when they hit the market.

People want to fly over roads, not lakes..

Phil

[bdk]

Agreed. Hovering in ground effect is not “flying” and does not make this an aircraft by any stretch of the imagination.

Please allow me to disagree. It uses the same aerodynamic and physics principles as an aircraft. I'm guessing it routinely flew higher than the Wright Flyer did on its first flight.