En el Brasil, tenemos necesidad de un avión, como es principalmente para guardar los equipos de combate de incendios forestales y las instalaciones de gran importancia como depósitos de combustible y estaciones generar electricidad etc. YO soy el presidente de la asociación de ingenieros forestales de Brasilia, Distrito Federal, Brasil.
@johnpravinking if they ask nicely they could of get it =) but since they're all anti-russian for about 60 years now i doubt they'll ever see it over USA :)
Be-200 is one of the best amphibian aircraft... but it's a reduction copy of more advanced amphibian aircraft: A40/42 - Albatross (by NATO) or Russian name: "Русалочка" (Mermaid).
Be-200 can take only 6x2 (12) tons of water.
A40 (by project) should take near 40 tons of water.
Both aircrafts have unique ability: scoop water from river/lake/see/ocean. But A40 is bigger, so it's required much more space for scooping water.
it's a nice plane. good for mid-sized water/chemical drops from +500 ft mins. i don't think it can get down low and dirty in a tight environment for wildfires though (eg +50 - +150), cause it's take off speed is faster then most air drop speeds required. good though for commercial/cargo transport into remote area's, like siberia, alaska, canada, nw u.s., south america. But range...?... Video doesn't say, but 1,200nm is required at least.
In russia we have only 3 models of lincoln and 4 models of dodge to buy. Oh and hummer's but. Some jonson's boat engins and whiskey with marlboro. That's all. May be some tools. That's all american you can buy in RUssia. All another is a small import.
The US needs some of these airplanes, they are still stuck using 50's era propeller airplanes to fight wildfires in california, but I guess that won't happen since they don't like Russia.
You guys better to eat your own cap to buy something in Russia.. You all think that Russia can make only chains for home bears. Between our countryes no free market becose US have special low (Artur-Venik) wich maks veto to buy russian stuff. NASA always ask for congress to buy our space engins, and spacesuits. The same thing with boeing spares wich made in Russia (boeing dreemlaner i maen). That's so funny including the fact US hav't any possibility to fly to space by themself now.
99% of what you just said isn't even close to truth. boeing is trying to manufacture in china, not russia. and as usual, china is screwing up. north america, uses a lot of prop, because jets can't get down into the terrain like that. which, they already have large jets for massive drops 10 times the size you think. and for space, retiring the shuttle... and only catching a ride. no buying rockets, not buying suits... sheesh, if you're gonna talk shit, at least get your facts straight... cheerio.
shuttle is a shit. It's ald and not solid and safe. NASA hav't more money to create a new ship. But NASA can do unmanned spaceships, but with russian engins. Suits NASA buy in Russia. You may be d't know that ISS made of rus. moduls on 65%? The titanium speares boeing buys in Russia, more to say Dreemlainer was statical tested in CAGI labs in Russia. You can see it on boeingdotcom. 100% what i've said is true. And i don't need to prove it to someone. That's fact. Sorry for my bad english.
it appears i know more about russian aviation then you. btw, politics is why nasa hasn't built the next shuttle yet. shuttle is old yes, older then you, but russia tried to copy it. didn't work out well. you need to check your information though. it is grossly twisted. and as for trying to go into the import/export, check your russian laws. $4,000 import fee of all vehicles coming in with non russian papers/plates. Yes, I know more about your laws then you as well. cheers
Russia don't need to copy shuttle. Russia did Buran in 80th. And what about CLIPPER the spaceship wich ROSKOSMOS is creating now it can't be a copy of shutle becose this ship can be construct sucsesfully only in space. You can see it on buranru. Hummer2 - 100000 $. You must pay 3,75 euro for each 1 sm3 + fee + transport to Russia and in it + ... and more. Have you ever seen Russia on map? You're clever, but i live in Russia and have some import cars in my family, and know more than you about it.
i dont know why you brainwashed sheep try to bash me. you don't know much at all anyways to back up what you say, you just fall for the standard quo of hate everyone as much as you can. buran is clone of shuttle. what you call the Clipper, is actually just a lifting body aircraft, that america was flying back in the 60's. look it up: Google, Lifting Body. And have I seen russia on a map, um ya, lived in Moscow for 3 yrs. Lived in Helsinki for 2. Back in america temporarily.
I know that buran is clone of shuttle. It's not secret becose crazy Brezhnev thought that US can bomb USSR from space. In 4 years USSR had copyed Shuttle. That project was named Buran-Energia. Later Buran was launched without rocket tu space with An-225. And one more time: i don't hate anyone, including you.
and do note this. i only go by facts. i fly aircraft for a living, and u mindless sheep come bashing me for providing a technical comment about an airplane. dang, you got to be dumb for doing that, since you don't even know what the word technical means. caio. ps, sipa
I'am not a pilot. I'am a doctor. But i know something about. I've never say something technical mean wich i did't know. What are you talking about? You must see that i speak english, not you speak russian. May be that was the translation mistake. Try to prove me something on russian.
snap. i figure since you will probably say i am a liar, about the clipper. Here is just 1 model of well over a thousand different aircraft america built for lifting bodies. this one was the HL-10, from yr 1969... yes, long before you were born. wikipedia [dot] org /wiki/ Northrop_HL-10
and all i can say is, since russia is using american design for aircraft, the clipper will probably workout just fine. cheers
Who is a brainwashed ship? You? Or me? There is a quastion! =)))) The planes and helicopters look like to each other too. What Sikorsky copy Leonardo Davinci? =))) Oh yes. I've born in 1980 why you're always talk about that? Try to say i'am a kid? )))) I know about HL-10
What are you talkin about idiot? Our techs is more superior than yours in that materials. Noone russian ship never burned in autmosphere (only one 37 yrs ago) unlike your stupid bucket. Look on fith generation air engins in US and Russian jets for example. Our tech is 12-th time better endurance then yours becose YOU STILL use ceramics in all you need to protect. Russians use special nanomaterial with 12 nm thickness. Buran had modification with hedrargirum engins wich US did more later.
That's why our jets for example can fly so maneuribale with it's engins. Look on Su-37 or Mig 29 OVT last one created in later 70th. Russian helis can stand in angars during 2 years without any care, and then can be ready in 2 hours. You're noob by yourself. =) Russias did more than five orbital stations before US, you think without computers? =)) idiot. Kill yourself =)))
My friend worked with NASA and Roskosmos in project sea start. The efect of nasa work is 70% of roskosmos to compeare. The work wich in roskosmos can do 3 men in nasa do 10. And all that with your such effective computers. If you need to mix Russia with shit try to do it in something else. Civil cars, civil air, fleet. But all you say here is only funny.Any russian space or military stuff is superior or compeareble with us. But computers in US is more beter. just look on this video and realise.
man...I would love to fly this bird. Great job on russian engineering. Hats off for make such a multi purpose aircraft. I bet it's far cheaper to operate than the USA 747 tanker version(or DC-10).
Agreed,BE-200 is much more versatile,this is a multi-role aircraft that can not only assist in putting the fires out but also deliver fire crew and supplies as well as evacuate wounded.
I've got to say I'm impressed and I hope we have something similar to the BE here in the US someday.Nice job Russians!You've done it again^^
какие нафинг бобмардировшищи, какие файтеры, вы вообще о чем говорите, это мирный самолет, предназначеный для тушения пожаров, эвакуции с воды и так далее, я не разбириюсь, я знаю, что аналогов нету и еще слвов у меня не хватет.... )))
@DMazos I do not think so, and it takes for ever to refill. I think its not a good design, It is a panic rush to make something as big as the Russians have. When cali was burning, USA refused to use russian bombers. Idiots. To much pride. So many homes could of been saved.
Max Capacity (Water or Retardant): 12,000 kg (26,450 lb)
747 Supertanker = 20,000lb
Be-200 drops 6,450lbs more then the 747. Better luck next time Bubba. Try going off facts and not speculation. I know it hard for a dumbass dreamland american halfwit.
ACTUALLY the 747 Supertanker can hold up to 24,000 gallons of water SOOOOOOO with a little bit of conversion work that comes to about 200,280 lbs but nice try. The plane size comparisons aren't even close at all the thing that is special about the Beriev is that it can refill the tanks while flying
Actually, Ilyushin is no longer the biggest. A Douglas DC-10 has been converted into a fire tanker and it carries about 12,000 gallons; the IL-76 carries 11,000. By the way, how much does the Mi-26 carry?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Be-200 dumps all its water at once. The DC-10 can make a line of fire retardant up to a mile long. It can't scoop from lakes and stuff but it makes better use of its water than the Be-200. Not to mention, it is much cheaper to operate the DC-10 in the US than flying in a Be-200 all the way from Russia.
The U.S. Forest Service turned down Russian offers of assistance with its waterbombers, to fight raging wildfires in the western U.S., because of stupid politics.
We do not have these in the US because our governors like using aircraft from WWll and Korea to fight fires and kill pilots.
hpmacmurray 13 hours ago
If i where rich enoug i would buy a Be200RR movilhome so i could go almost any were, any time
Mad69sur 4 months ago
Do you have any official information about french test which occured this summer ? Is it going to be sold quickly ?
bingofioul 4 months ago
En el Brasil, tenemos necesidad de un avión, como es principalmente para guardar los equipos de combate de incendios forestales y las instalaciones de gran importancia como depósitos de combustible y estaciones generar electricidad etc. YO soy el presidente de la asociación de ingenieros forestales de Brasilia, Distrito Federal, Brasil.
Narciso3037 6 months ago
@theodoroscristou And firefighter!
911Investigate911 8 months ago
This is an extremely impressive design.
damaged01 8 months ago
чел в лодке на 27-й секунде получил нечаянно в носопырку локтем :)
MultiDimcha 9 months ago 3
Dude this is so fucking badass, I wonder if US has something like this
MultiAREE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IF U LIKE TO LAUGH CLICK MY NAME!
SMITHandDORTON 2 years ago
Its turnaround time must be remarkable compared to land-based firefighting planes.
monkeyman1140 2 years ago
Nice jet Ivan !!.....
SHRIKE427 2 years ago
@SHRIKE427 thanks, obambi...
Ura293 1 year ago
Ooh, ooh! I want one! Come on lotto!!!
azimuth361 2 years ago
damn im so impressed i will not sleep all night
strangerx1 2 years ago 3
Russian aircraft are realy great
but this1! 100000000 stars
marktimmer2212 2 years ago 12
the americans should use this for their firefight activities in california
johnpravinking 2 years ago 13
@johnpravinking if they ask nicely they could of get it =) but since they're all anti-russian for about 60 years now i doubt they'll ever see it over USA :)
Cnupoc 1 year ago
so cool !! the movies is excellent, thanks you, ★★★★★
vladimir2366fa 2 years ago 3
Be-200 is one of the best amphibian aircraft... but it's a reduction copy of more advanced amphibian aircraft: A40/42 - Albatross (by NATO) or Russian name: "Русалочка" (Mermaid).
Be-200 can take only 6x2 (12) tons of water.
A40 (by project) should take near 40 tons of water.
Both aircrafts have unique ability: scoop water from river/lake/see/ocean. But A40 is bigger, so it's required much more space for scooping water.
Beby173 2 years ago 3
i'm surprised such aircraft is equipped with impressive state of the art cockpit
Gforce000 2 years ago
v moem gorode taganroge on sozdan!!!!
andre29242 2 years ago 4
A JET POWERED AMPHIB?!?! I want one!!!!
azimuth361 2 years ago 5
it's a nice plane. good for mid-sized water/chemical drops from +500 ft mins. i don't think it can get down low and dirty in a tight environment for wildfires though (eg +50 - +150), cause it's take off speed is faster then most air drop speeds required. good though for commercial/cargo transport into remote area's, like siberia, alaska, canada, nw u.s., south america. But range...?... Video doesn't say, but 1,200nm is required at least.
b101aa2 3 years ago
In russia we have only 3 models of lincoln and 4 models of dodge to buy. Oh and hummer's but. Some jonson's boat engins and whiskey with marlboro. That's all. May be some tools. That's all american you can buy in RUssia. All another is a small import.
aktovegin 3 years ago
The US needs some of these airplanes, they are still stuck using 50's era propeller airplanes to fight wildfires in california, but I guess that won't happen since they don't like Russia.
bombarderoazul 3 years ago
You guys better to eat your own cap to buy something in Russia.. You all think that Russia can make only chains for home bears. Between our countryes no free market becose US have special low (Artur-Venik) wich maks veto to buy russian stuff. NASA always ask for congress to buy our space engins, and spacesuits. The same thing with boeing spares wich made in Russia (boeing dreemlaner i maen). That's so funny including the fact US hav't any possibility to fly to space by themself now.
aktovegin 3 years ago 3
99% of what you just said isn't even close to truth. boeing is trying to manufacture in china, not russia. and as usual, china is screwing up. north america, uses a lot of prop, because jets can't get down into the terrain like that. which, they already have large jets for massive drops 10 times the size you think. and for space, retiring the shuttle... and only catching a ride. no buying rockets, not buying suits... sheesh, if you're gonna talk shit, at least get your facts straight... cheerio.
b101aa2 3 years ago
shuttle is a shit. It's ald and not solid and safe. NASA hav't more money to create a new ship. But NASA can do unmanned spaceships, but with russian engins. Suits NASA buy in Russia. You may be d't know that ISS made of rus. moduls on 65%? The titanium speares boeing buys in Russia, more to say Dreemlainer was statical tested in CAGI labs in Russia. You can see it on boeingdotcom. 100% what i've said is true. And i don't need to prove it to someone. That's fact. Sorry for my bad english.
aktovegin 3 years ago
it appears i know more about russian aviation then you. btw, politics is why nasa hasn't built the next shuttle yet. shuttle is old yes, older then you, but russia tried to copy it. didn't work out well. you need to check your information though. it is grossly twisted. and as for trying to go into the import/export, check your russian laws. $4,000 import fee of all vehicles coming in with non russian papers/plates. Yes, I know more about your laws then you as well. cheers
b101aa2 3 years ago
Russia don't need to copy shuttle. Russia did Buran in 80th. And what about CLIPPER the spaceship wich ROSKOSMOS is creating now it can't be a copy of shutle becose this ship can be construct sucsesfully only in space. You can see it on buranru. Hummer2 - 100000 $. You must pay 3,75 euro for each 1 sm3 + fee + transport to Russia and in it + ... and more. Have you ever seen Russia on map? You're clever, but i live in Russia and have some import cars in my family, and know more than you about it.
aktovegin 3 years ago
i dont know why you brainwashed sheep try to bash me. you don't know much at all anyways to back up what you say, you just fall for the standard quo of hate everyone as much as you can. buran is clone of shuttle. what you call the Clipper, is actually just a lifting body aircraft, that america was flying back in the 60's. look it up: Google, Lifting Body. And have I seen russia on a map, um ya, lived in Moscow for 3 yrs. Lived in Helsinki for 2. Back in america temporarily.
b101aa2 3 years ago
I know that buran is clone of shuttle. It's not secret becose crazy Brezhnev thought that US can bomb USSR from space. In 4 years USSR had copyed Shuttle. That project was named Buran-Energia. Later Buran was launched without rocket tu space with An-225. And one more time: i don't hate anyone, including you.
aktovegin 3 years ago
and do note this. i only go by facts. i fly aircraft for a living, and u mindless sheep come bashing me for providing a technical comment about an airplane. dang, you got to be dumb for doing that, since you don't even know what the word technical means. caio. ps, sipa
b101aa2 3 years ago
I'am not a pilot. I'am a doctor. But i know something about. I've never say something technical mean wich i did't know. What are you talking about? You must see that i speak english, not you speak russian. May be that was the translation mistake. Try to prove me something on russian.
aktovegin 3 years ago 5
Buran is a copy of shuttle. But buran can get to space without rocket launch.
aktovegin 3 years ago
snap. i figure since you will probably say i am a liar, about the clipper. Here is just 1 model of well over a thousand different aircraft america built for lifting bodies. this one was the HL-10, from yr 1969... yes, long before you were born. wikipedia [dot] org /wiki/ Northrop_HL-10
and all i can say is, since russia is using american design for aircraft, the clipper will probably workout just fine. cheers
b101aa2 3 years ago
Who is a brainwashed ship? You? Or me? There is a quastion! =)))) The planes and helicopters look like to each other too. What Sikorsky copy Leonardo Davinci? =))) Oh yes. I've born in 1980 why you're always talk about that? Try to say i'am a kid? )))) I know about HL-10
aktovegin 3 years ago 4
Buran isnt a copy of Shuttle noob.
You simply cannot make a copy of such technology. You may copy a gun, a simple tech car or anything else.
But you cant copy an extra complicated machine with thousands of devices, electronic, hidraulics, computers.
Not mentioning hundreds of unique sorts of Tutanium, Steel, Ceramics, Rubber, Aluminium used in these machines.
Your just an illiterate dumbfucck.
mograf1 3 years ago 3
What are you talkin about idiot? Our techs is more superior than yours in that materials. Noone russian ship never burned in autmosphere (only one 37 yrs ago) unlike your stupid bucket. Look on fith generation air engins in US and Russian jets for example. Our tech is 12-th time better endurance then yours becose YOU STILL use ceramics in all you need to protect. Russians use special nanomaterial with 12 nm thickness. Buran had modification with hedrargirum engins wich US did more later.
aktovegin 3 years ago
That's why our jets for example can fly so maneuribale with it's engins. Look on Su-37 or Mig 29 OVT last one created in later 70th. Russian helis can stand in angars during 2 years without any care, and then can be ready in 2 hours. You're noob by yourself. =) Russias did more than five orbital stations before US, you think without computers? =)) idiot. Kill yourself =)))
aktovegin 3 years ago 5
My friend worked with NASA and Roskosmos in project sea start. The efect of nasa work is 70% of roskosmos to compeare. The work wich in roskosmos can do 3 men in nasa do 10. And all that with your such effective computers. If you need to mix Russia with shit try to do it in something else. Civil cars, civil air, fleet. But all you say here is only funny.Any russian space or military stuff is superior or compeareble with us. But computers in US is more beter. just look on this video and realise.
aktovegin 3 years ago
сори за минус, случайно поставил не то, что
хотел
aktovegin, you are right
loki4145 3 years ago
Is this not the coolest plane in the world?
Laraircraft 3 years ago 4
Bulgaria needs some of these!
bgsolicitor 3 years ago
Croatia to!
croatale 3 years ago
Salt water cycles?? and/or years??
Blogengezer 3 years ago
awsome plane kinda reminds me of that plane from metal gear 3
skatetolive101 3 years ago 2
Amazing work... brilliant.
MrOmniscient 3 years ago
ok......I'll have one
czdavid1 3 years ago 2
man...I would love to fly this bird. Great job on russian engineering. Hats off for make such a multi purpose aircraft. I bet it's far cheaper to operate than the USA 747 tanker version(or DC-10).
A20havoc 4 years ago 21
This comment has received too many negative votes show
CL-415 "Super Scooper" is the best of all!
kevinkeay0382 3 years ago
CL-415 sucks
kibabiba 3 years ago
Agreed,BE-200 is much more versatile,this is a multi-role aircraft that can not only assist in putting the fires out but also deliver fire crew and supplies as well as evacuate wounded.
I've got to say I'm impressed and I hope we have something similar to the BE here in the US someday.Nice job Russians!You've done it again^^
Caboos4e 4 years ago 6
какие нафинг бобмардировшищи, какие файтеры, вы вообще о чем говорите, это мирный самолет, предназначеный для тушения пожаров, эвакуции с воды и так далее, я не разбириюсь, я знаю, что аналогов нету и еще слвов у меня не хватет.... )))
immimm1 4 years ago 6
Читать научись. Речь идёт о "waterbombers" и "fire-fighters", бгг.
AntonBreusov 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
that 747 designed for firefighting is far better than this Be-200 is.
a2g6d4k8 4 years ago
not really, there are no amphibious 747. It is so much easier to refill Be-200 with water. you can make more refills with Be-200.
WhiteRa19 4 years ago 15
Very good video THX ;)
Migsu 4 years ago 3
BS meter is overheated. 747 was never amphibious.
zipacna1980 4 years ago 2
The Ilyushin Il-76 TD is the biggest waterbomber in the world and the Mi-26 is the biggest fire-fighting helicopter in the world.
DMazos 4 years ago 6
nah the 747 supertanker is :(
jimbo040404 4 years ago
Thanks for information. Is this Boeing already in service?
DMazos 4 years ago 2
@DMazos yes since 2009
TLVspotter 1 year ago
@DMazos I do not think so, and it takes for ever to refill. I think its not a good design, It is a panic rush to make something as big as the Russians have. When cali was burning, USA refused to use russian bombers. Idiots. To much pride. So many homes could of been saved.
fastcabrio 1 year ago 5
@DMazos those are the biggest but they deliver less water in a day cause they have to reload on an airport, not the beriev and the CL415.
For mediterranean fire small and agil aircraft are better to fly through the relief with heavy wind.
France is currently testing the beriev to replace the tracker and old CL 415.
bingofioul 7 months ago
AN-225
xnmnk 4 years ago 3
@jimbo040404
Be-200
Max Capacity (Water or Retardant): 12,000 kg (26,450 lb)
747 Supertanker = 20,000lb
Be-200 drops 6,450lbs more then the 747. Better luck next time Bubba. Try going off facts and not speculation. I know it hard for a dumbass dreamland american halfwit.
ThirdRomeAquilo 1 year ago 4
@ThirdRomeAquilo
ACTUALLY the 747 Supertanker can hold up to 24,000 gallons of water SOOOOOOO with a little bit of conversion work that comes to about 200,280 lbs but nice try. The plane size comparisons aren't even close at all the thing that is special about the Beriev is that it can refill the tanks while flying
Dabrebe 1 year ago
@jimbo040404 wiki says there is only one 747 supertanker in existence
hard to compare a one off to a fleet of IL 76 that can be converted with an add on tank kit
xxxmikeyjock 8 months ago
Actually, Ilyushin is no longer the biggest. A Douglas DC-10 has been converted into a fire tanker and it carries about 12,000 gallons; the IL-76 carries 11,000. By the way, how much does the Mi-26 carry?
lmsasquatch 4 years ago
can it land on water or collect some water for fire extinguishing?
NOOOOOOOOOOO
you makin no sence here
sirhalyavshik 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Be-200 dumps all its water at once. The DC-10 can make a line of fire retardant up to a mile long. It can't scoop from lakes and stuff but it makes better use of its water than the Be-200. Not to mention, it is much cheaper to operate the DC-10 in the US than flying in a Be-200 all the way from Russia.
lmsasquatch 3 years ago
Oo
Do you really think that planes which was bought still basing in thier homeland?
After purchasing plane moving to new field
Be-200 can dump water in several ways
And collecting water from the lake without stoping makes this plane very usefull . Because it can drop water several times
sirhalyavshik 3 years ago 3
you have no idea re bushfires and how to put them out quickly, we have monster bushfires in AUSTRALIA with super strong north winds
which change directions in an instant, the
dc10 would be useless here, this russian
aircraft would be ideal, by the way all fire fighting aircraft can waste water incl the dc10
pizzmire2005 3 years ago 8
sorry, what do you mean?
lmsasquatch 3 years ago
The U.S. Forest Service turned down Russian offers of assistance with its waterbombers, to fight raging wildfires in the western U.S., because of stupid politics.
PaulRevere000 4 years ago
they don't want to admit themselves, although it is obvious, that civilian air force of russian federation is far better and more versatile than US.
PashaGolikov 4 years ago 3
I would be PISSED if all my possessions were burned up because someone didnt WANT the BE-200s flying!
GAWD!
escueladeleyi 3 years ago 8