![]() 03/10/2017 at 16:07 • Filed to: Beriev, Be 103 | ![]() | ![]() |
Time to take to the skies.
And the water.
And the land.
Meet the Beriev Be 103, or e-103 if you’re persuaded by Cyrillic.
No, it hasn’t ditched and started to sink. It has immersible wings.
![]() 03/10/2017 at 16:12 |
|
Honest question - can that thing land on water? That seems like it would be a tricky proposition - and even a takeoff would require no waves or swells whatsoever? EDIT - I googled pictures of it out of water, and I think I get it - the wing design accommodates water operations. I still think there isn’t much margin of error for dipping a wing in the flare, though—
![]() 03/10/2017 at 16:20 |
|
I love the idea of amphibious planes. If I had the monies I wouldn’t be chasing down hyper cars, it would be getting my toys that would take me places I can’t otherwise see. Something like the ICON a5 or this speaks to me big time.
![]() 03/10/2017 at 16:21 |
|
My old man showed me this thing back when I was fascinated with the Erkranoplan (which used to be an entire tag on Jalopnik). This thing takes off and lands using WIG (ground effect) principles, but is fundamentally a real plane. Such a weird proposition.
![]() 03/10/2017 at 16:28 |
|
Totally agree, I have a friend with an Icon A5 on order.
![]() 03/10/2017 at 16:28 |
|
many jelly.
![]() 03/10/2017 at 16:35 |
|
Sure can.
![]() 03/10/2017 at 16:43 |
|
Yours for a cool $400k
http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1330823/2003-beriev-be-103
![]() 03/10/2017 at 17:30 |
|
Everything about that airplane says, “Bad idea.”
![]() 03/10/2017 at 18:14 |
|
Nonetheless, it seems to work perfectly well. Plenty of videos of it.
Don’t think it would cope too well with landing on choppy water though.
![]() 03/10/2017 at 19:25 |
|
And landing in and of itself would create plenty of chop.