Talk:Lun-class ekranoplan

image shows another ekranoplan

The craft shown on image isn't Lun and it may mislead readers. (did to me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.94.230 (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The craft pictured in the image is the Korabl-maket, or KM (NATO codename: Caspian Sea Monster), not a Lun. The KM is powered by 10x Dobryin VD-7 turbojets. 8 mounted on stub wings at the bow or nose and 2 mounted on either side of the vertical stabilizer at the rear of the craft.[1][2] The Lun is powered by 8 turbofans and has a radome where the remaining two engines are mounted on the KM.[3] The KM was designed in the 60s and was about 20 m longer than the Lun which was developed during the 70s. --155.215.21.2 (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While the craft may well have been equipped for ASW, the SS-N-22 is a surface-to-surface missile usually used in the anti-shipping role. In the absence of any other information, it's presence as the main armament makes the Lun look like a fast missile craft intended for attacking surface targets. Is there any confirmation that a) it was equipped for ASW or b) that the missiles carried were SS-N-22? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.250.164 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ground effect" or "wing-in-ground effect" - which term to use

The page for Orlyonok uses the phrase "ground effect", and "wing-in-ground effect" redirects to "ground effect": with this in mind, I've changed the terminology on this page to match Dom Kaos (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed the image

Since the image shown was actually of Kaspian Monster, not that of Lun, i did change it to the real Lun. I uploaded a screenshot apparently taken from an old Soviet Navy documentary.

Best

LiveGo 23:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Satellite Photo

Google maps has an image of what I believe is the Lun at [4]. Can this article refer to it?

Simon Marchese (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the co-ordinates in the link now. Murkygrom (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Defensive armament?

The article (and some other sources) indicate there was a twin 23mm turret facing towards the rear under the tail. However, there is another turret just underneath the forward missile tubes, and can be seen in the image as well as in other locations. The other day I saw recent pictures taken of the remaining example, laid up in a dry dock. It seems to me that the forward turret was configured as a gun emplacement, with a gunsight, a swiveling gimbal mount, and slots where the guns would protrude. Dziban303 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Service Cieling?

Is the information under Service cieling correct, it says the Lun was only able to obtain 16ft? Galinkin (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's probably correct. The Lun is a wing-in-ground-effect vehicle; if it flew any higher, it would be rising out of ground effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

In russian Wikipedia range of Lun is 2000 km. I think, that this information is more correct. Sceler (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Armament:

Corrected the "Armament" section from "SS-22N Sunburn" to "P-270 Moskit", as the latter was the weapons system operated on the Lun Class, whereas the first is just a NATO reporting code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.184.42 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the overview says that three were built and retired, whereas the main body says only one.Graham Clark (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Scrapped?

The german wiki says that the Lun vanished in 2013 - but there is no source, no picture, nothing. Has anyone an evidence?

Satellite imagery from April 2014 shows the Lun still in Kaspiysk. 207.118.13.67 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Google Earth satellite images from 2017-05-05 still show it at Kaspiysk. It appears to be on some kind of platform that has allowed it to be jacked up out of the water. Except for other small boats moored around it, the Lun and it's platform don't seem to have changed much since the 2005-10-15 images, which is as far back as Google Earth's historical images currently go.Gcronau (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

not Aircraft

Although they may look and have related technical characteristics similar to seaplanes, ground effect vehicles are not aircraft, as they are unable to fly freely in the air. They are also dissimilar from hovercraft or hydrofoils. Ground effect vehicles constitute a separate category of transport. Daiyusha (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lun-class ekranoplan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814161738/http://igor113.livejournal.com/51213.html to http://igor113.livejournal.com/51213.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lun-class ekranoplan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614202700/http://www.se-technology.com/wig/index.php to http://www.se-technology.com/wig/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Black Sea Fleet?

The only model of this class ever built, the MD-160, entered service with the Black Sea Fleet in 1987. It was retired in the late 1990s and is now sitting unused at a naval station in Kaspiysk.

So it was in service in the Black Sea? How did this huge airplane cross to the Caspian Sea? This should be clarified in the article. -Rolypolyman (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That should probably read Caspian Flotilla. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Caspian Sea Monster"

I feel like this might be relevant to work into the story, the only completed Lun-class ekranoplan is being pulled from the Caspian Sea and moved to Derbent, Dagestan to be converted into a display at a theme park. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/caspian-sea-monster-ekranoplan/index.html IHateAccounts (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

But did it actually get there? https://www.rferl.org/a/photographer-sneaks-inside-the-legendary-soviet-ekranoplan/30777774.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.183.50 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, apparently it did not reach it's destination when towed. Here's a video where bald and bankrupt finds it stranded on a beach a "few hours south" of the Russian city of Derbent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbthomsen (talk • contribs) 04:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Caspian Sea Monster was an earlier model, not a Lun-Class, see the page for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster Liferocks (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)