Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Ground Effect Flying Boat 182

Posted by michael from the miami-vice dept.
Stalke writes "A company called Flightship has produced the worlds first commercial flying boat that operates on the principle of ground-effect. I first saw these types of craft on TLC when they showed a huge soviet landing craft based upon the same principle. The first commercial version of this craft has a capacity of only 6 passengers, but a larger version called the Dragon Clipper will seat 40! Check out the videos on the site, this thing really is a sight to see."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ground Effect Flying Boat More

Ground Effect Flying Boat

Comments Filter:

  • FAA? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by doubtless ( 267357 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @03:30AM (#3461981) Homepage
    If this gets to the stetes, would it be under the FAA? Will the pilot be required to have an aircraft pilot's license? The article is short on details, I was just curious if anybody has an answer.

    • Re:FAA? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ceejayoz ( 567949 )
      If this gets to the stetes, would it be under the FAA? Will the pilot be required to have an aircraft pilot's license?

      Doubtful - it's more like a hydrofoil or a hovercraft, doesn't go more than a few feet off the water.

      • Re:FAA? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        When hovercrafts were introduced to the UK military, there was a lot of argument about whether they should be controlled by the Navy or RAF. Political of course, but they go so much faster than boats that the skills required are possibly more like a pilot's than a sailors... anyway AFAIK commercial hovercraft pilots in the UK still need a private pilot's license! Can anyone correct me on this?

        • No its changed (Score:3, Informative)

          by DABANSHEE ( 154661 )
          Yep up until a few years ago channel hovercraft were regulated by the civil aviation people, but they eventually saw sense & now they are regulated by the maritime authority.

    • No Certification needed (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sergeant Beavis ( 558225 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @07:17AM (#3462242) Homepage
      Ground effect craft are not new. They've been around for decades. The primaraly work by traping air underneath the "wing" and using that to create lift. As a result, they cannot "fly" very far off the ground. The FAA ruled quite a while ago that a craft that has to stay in "ground effect" to create lift is not an aircraft and thus isn't regulated by them. A hovercraft actually falls in the same catagory because it to flys in ground effect, it just does it in a completely different way.

      • Re:No Certification needed (Score:4, Interesting)

        by lrichardson ( 220639 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @07:52AM (#3462303) Homepage
        > The FAA ruled quite a while ago that a craft that has to stay in "ground effect" to create lift is not an aircraft and thus isn't regulated by them. A hovercraft actually falls in the same catagory because it to flys in ground effect, it just does it in a completely different way.

        The key word is 'has'. Some GE vehicles are just underpowered planes ... they can exceed the GE limit, but fly like a drunk duck.

        The first real application of GE was WWII, when certain bombers found that they could ride the effect over water, decreasing fuel consumption, and, if rumours can be believed, allowing one of the first autopilots - just blocking the stick in the direction they wanted, altitude takes care of itself. Which works well over water, not so good over land ... and is one of the reasons why a lot of the designers (Fischer leaps to mind) don't want to see these in the hands of the civil populace ... a vehicle that can drive itself 99% is going to crash an awful lot when the driver/pilot needs to add that last 1% .

    • I don't know why we haven't developed the WIG (Wing in Ground) effect vehicles more. They are faster and more fuel efficient than hovercrafts. WIGs,travelling 300 mph, can fill in the middle ground between planes and ships.

      The Russian ekranoplan was the largest WIG ever built. It could seat 1000 troops. WIGs could ever.

      For those not in the know, a WIG is very simple. They fly close to the ground and take advantage of an air cushion created by the compression of air between the plane's wing and ground. Birds use the wing in ground effect all the time. That's why you always see birds fly just above the surface of a lake. Also, landing planes can sometimes experience the WIG effect also.

  • The Physics of the matter... (Score:3, Informative)

    by _bobs.pizza_ ( 452394 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @03:37AM (#3461991)
    flightship.net/technology [flightship.net] has information on how this thing works...

    Any additional info on why it works would be good to read.
    • Google for 'Wing in Ground Effect', There's a ton of stuff available. It's pretty old technology, and at the prices these guys are charging, I don't think it will be too successful. I don't know if there are any kits available for 'wig's, but there are plans available for the homebuilder. The major problem with these things is the extreme difference in ground speed between them and surface ships. Since there are very few highways laid out on the water, and sail craft would have the right of way, you would be hard put to find a place to make them practical. They are only able to handle 6 foot waves, would eliminate real open water use. Perhaps in the Caribean, or similar waters.
      • It's pretty old technology, and at the prices these guys are charging, I don't think it will be too successful.

        Yeah. The aerodynamics for these things are already known. Development shouldn't cost too much. They are just underpowered planes that can't fly out of ground effect.
    • Ok this explanation may be too siplistic, or just wrong but thats how i always explained this to myself:

      It works because there is high pressure air between the ground (water) and the wing that pushes the plane up, just like it would if it were a hovercraft.

      But while hovercrafts use fans to compress that air and keep it under pressure with skirts, the ground effect crafts use their speed and the shape of their wings to compress air under them.

  • gratuitious karma whoring (Score:3, Informative)

    by Wakkow ( 52585 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @03:39AM (#3461996) Homepage
    What is ground effect, you ask? Karma Whore to the rescue!

    From the company [flightship.net] (might be slashdotted sooner or later)
    A good site [mira.net]
    More info, no pics. [geocities.com]

    • gratuitious karma whoring (Score:2)
      by Wakkow on Saturday May 04, @09:39AM (#3461996)
      (User #52585 Info | http://trigeek.net/)
      What is ground effect, you ask? Karma Whore to the rescue!

      I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to convert Wakkow to Karma Whore but just couldn't do it - i've even tried a couple of other languages ("Puta de Karma", "Putain De Karma", "Karma Dirne") but to no avail.

      So ... what's the secret?

  • Ground efect boats already 'comercialy' available (Score:4, Informative)

    by barberio ( 42711 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @03:42AM (#3462003) Homepage
    There have been WIGs for 'comercial sale', on a per customer design and build scale. Some companies such as Airfoil [airfoil.de] have standard designs for airfoil types and construct them for sale.

    At the moment Flightship dont apear to be offering anything for imediate sale. And you have to register with them just to get a sales inquiry aplication form.

    At the moment, I'm going to class Flightship as intresting vapourware.

  • A good site on how ground effect works (Score:5, Informative)

    by Saturn49 ( 536831 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @03:44AM (#3462006)
    Here's a good site on how the ground effect works: Ground Effect [mira.net]

  • WGI vehicles (Score:3, Informative)

    by Elaine_r ( 577688 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @03:45AM (#3462008) Homepage
    These things have been around for years see here [infinity21.co.kr] dataing back to around 1920 or so, but have never really become commercially viable at least not for mass transportation. and usually are aimed at people (with a fair amount of money) who have to travel relativly larg distances witha a small amount of cargo or passengers where conventional aircraft cannot be used.
    (they have been used to go over land as well - deserts or anywhere large and relativly flat.)

    I do wonder about the site though it does seem odd to have comments like
    " ...Since the current tends to drag scuba divers at the end of the dive out to the open water, each team should take along a parachute. It is only in this manner that the crew of the boat can be certain of finding lost divers. "

    now to me that doesn't sound to promotional. Elaine R.

    • There is a reason they aren't commercially viable (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Scroll down to Freak waves [uwgb.edu].

      The fundamental issue is this. The vehicle has to be close to the water. As a result, running into a single large wave is a problem. The larger the vehicle is, the larger a wave it can handle. But the larger the vehicle is, the more it costs to build and the more it needs to transport to be profitable.

      So you need quiet water which a lot of people want to cross fast. But the water has to be a lot quieter than you think. You see every so often several different waves of different frequencies fall into sync, and form one really large wave. This may only happen to you once per year, but even once per year is far too often if it happens under a vehicle that you needs several years to pay off.

      So you make a bigger craft. Fine, but now it is going to take you even longer to pay off. There is no practical limit to the size of a freak wave. Bigger ones happen more rarely, but they still happen.

      As a result this kind of vehicle, which by nature needs to be very delicate and very expensive, has always wound up on the wrong side of the cost curve. People have looked into them in several markets, but they are just too easy to sink in a freak accident to be commercially viable.

      Of course regular ships run into these, and occasionally sink [exn.ca] from them as well. But they don't need to be so light, nor do they hit waves as fast, and therefore ships cost less and can take more wave. this makes the risk acceptably small.
  • What happens if on a calm summers eve a freak storm arises. Now the waves are a staggering 3 meters. We all swim back or what.
    • those things are fast enough to avoid storms.
    • This particular vehicle relying on the wind ground effect would probably have to sit out the storm until the waves are under 2m, but thats the way it is designed.

      There are others which can cope temperarily with bigger disturbances with the ground effect (but gets very bumpy) then,

      there are also vehicles which are effectivly planes which can make use of the wind ground effect (because it has alot of advantages, such as energy efficient (not so obvious to radar)) which when it get too bumpy i.e. no ground effect, they revert to normal flight.

      Elaine R.

    • Now the waves are a staggering 3 meters.
      The "Ground Effect" seriously kicks in at about 1/2 the aircraft's wingspan above the water. So small WIG vehicles have to fly close to the surface and therefore require a pretty flat surface (unless you want to feel like a stone being skipped across a pond, anyhow). Bigger vehicles can fly higher, and are less fazed by things like waves.
    • How does the pilot maintain the necessary altitude? It seems like a very small range to stay in.
      • Well, lift falls off sharply once you get out of the ground effect cushion. So, if you trim into a gentle climb, you will constantly be just sitting on the top of GE.

        As to fog, you'll probably find that they are rated "Daytime VFR Only" - like most microlights. In the UK, you can fly aircraft on a "Permit to Fly", which is the equivalent of a "Certificate of Airworthiness". So Permit aircraft don't need a CoA, but you are restricted to Day VFR. It's a lot cheaper, and is more suitable for private pilots who fly for fun, since you're less likely to need or want sophisticated IFR equipment on a light plane...
        • They're not under the jurisdiction of the FAA, they're under the maritime authorities.
          • Ok, I suppose that puts them under the same rules as boats. I don't know much about them, but presumably they would use RADAR to find their way about?
            • They actually don't use "RaDAR" as you high-tech gurus like to call it. They use a string with a rock at the end of it. they throw it off the front (or "bow") of the boat, and if it makes a 'DONK' noise, then you know that something is in front of the boat. if it goes 'SPLASH', the front of the boat is clear. Now, when this thingy is traveling at 300 knots, you're going to need a longer string and a bigger rock, with a stronger guy throwing it, but those are just engineering details.

              :)
    • Many years ago, I took a hovercraft across the English channel in very choppy conditions. IIRC, it was so bad that day that normal ferries had to stay in port.

      I wouldn't want to repeat that experience. The trip was like a bad 90-minute carnival ride. This huge machine was plowing straight into towering waves at something like 50mph. My girlfriend had to work very hard to retain the contents of her stomach.

      As bad as that was, the hovercraft had the advantage of a huge rubber skirt to absorb the impacts. I'm sure there's no way an aircraft could handle the same conditions.

      • You might have noticed (had you read the flightship pages) that one curious thing is that they describe it as for "tropical" locations. I suspect that's specifically to avoid the high waves you commmonly find in and around North Sea and English Channel, for instance. This would work well in the predominantly calm tropical waters. (And, FWIW, big storms interfere with shipping schedules, too, so what's the difference? Higher speed and modern satellite weather info should pretty much eliminate all significant surprises to any reasonably prudent flightship master.)
  • From the article:
    After the trail period, where Sunland would sue the first four Flightships
    They just bought the boats and they're already seeking litigation. tsk

  • Uses? (Score:1)

    by neksys ( 87486 )
    I still don't see any real advantage of this design since I first heard about it. I can see its potential over, say, arctic snow fields, or over hard-packed desert, where conventional vehicles may encounter trouble, but low-level flight over water? What's the trouble with good old boats?

    I suspect that the primary use for this is simply to set new records - The Worlds Fastest Ground Effect Vehicle and the like. Commercially... well, I don't know about you, but as someone who enjoys spending time on the open water, I don't know if I want a bunch of pseudo-aircraft zipping all over the place - the water is an inherently "slow" transportation medium, and there are just too many accidents as is with traditional watercraft, without any rich fool flying along at just the right height to decapitate me and my passengers.

    • Re:Uses? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by blufive ( 573081 )
      low-level flight over water? What's the trouble with good old boats?
      Speed. A fast ship does about 30-40 knots, a big Wing In Ground Effect vehicle can do 300+. While carrying a coupla hundred tons of cargo. It's kind of a mid-way point between a cargo ship and air freight. Whether such things are commercially viable given the incredible conservatism of the world's aviation industry is another matter entirely.
      The Worlds Fastest Ground Effect Vehicle
      At the 85 knots quoted in the article, it's still a loooong way short of the old soviet Ekranoplans (the 550 ton KM model did 500 km/h - about 300 mph )
      I still don't see any real advantage of this design since I first heard about it.
      The soviet military wanted to use them as landing craft. Think about it. One vehicle, that can carry two main battle tanks and a few dozen troops, at 300 mph, across a few hundred miles of water. A few dozen of them, and presto! instant amphibious assault force.
    • Faster than a boat, cheaper than a plane.

    • Thought it was a damn good idea. They built a huge one for troop and cargo transport. It has actually flown too. It was featured on WINGS a while back as I recall. However the fall of the Soviet Union and lack of Russian capitol killed the program. These vessels can be built to very large proportions and cost much less to operate than a plane such as the C-5 Galaxy. They could be used to ship very large cargos across the oceans in very short times.
      • The ekranoplan idea died not because of the fall of the Soviet Union, but because the designer was too friendly to Nikita Khrushchev. When Leonid Brezhnev came to power in 1964, most of the ekranoplan ideas were shelved for political reasons, though one smaller ekranoplan design did make to small scale production.

    • Re:Uses? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mpe ( 36238 )
      but low-level flight over water? What's the trouble with good old boats?

      WIGs are a lot faster than boats. Very useful if you are shipping perishable cargo. Or how about transporting passengers or livestock, where you also need to carry food and water for the journey?

      I suspect that the primary use for this is simply to set new records - The Worlds Fastest Ground Effect Vehicle and the like. Commercially... well, I don't know about you, but as someone who enjoys spending time on the open water, I don't know if I want a bunch of pseudo-aircraft zipping all over the place - the water is an inherently "slow" transportation medium,

      If water is inherently for slow transportation then why do ships like the Stenna Discovery exist. Let alone such things as powerboat racing?
  • "It is the same principle as hovercraft but the height of a Flightship above waves is much greater and less engine power is needed" [from page]


    Hrmmm.... um, well, maybe, but if so, the main picture [mondaytimes.com.mv] on the featured site is NOT what the site is talking about.

    A hovercraft has a plenum chamber, i.e. a cushion of air created by a vacuum or fan blowing DOWN into an enclosed, flexible area, usually called the "skirt". See this picture [globalinternet.co.uk] or these [scat.com.sg] for the typical setup.

    What this seems to be is simply an airplane [umd.edu] without landing gear. Wow.

    note: you can read more about hovercrafts here [howstuffworks.com] - though it's aimed for a younger audience.

    • I think you missed the point

      no skirt is needed the cussion of air is created by the craft traveling fast enough to create pressuried area under the craft large enough to give it lift, sometimes the engines will be directed under the wings in order to increase the effect thus enableing lower "flight" speeds, but alot of energy is wasted in pushing the craft off the ground but rather forward - see some of the other posts referencing how this works....

  • The russians did this a long time ago - Ekranoplan (Score:5, Informative)

    by neonstz ( 79215 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @04:00AM (#3462036) Homepage
    Check out this [compuserve.com] site for more info. I've also seen Discovery shows about this.
  • I think ground effect craft are the perfect cargo planes/boats of the future.

    They are faster than boats and much more efficiant than planes. They do not need runaways. they can have wide bodies and large volume cargo holds.

    Of course they can only go trough water, but you should not be using cargo planes over land anyway, you should be using high speed trains.

    They say that Boeing and Airbus are both thinking of developing super large cargo planes, they should just stop and concentrate on ground effect craft.

    I guess one of the costs of ground effect craft would be that naval navigation will have to change to allow for large fast low flying things, but that can be done.

    Also maybe the flying boats can be made to fly higher to skip over things that are in the way.

    • Re:those things should have much bigger uses (Score:5, Informative)

      by cwebster ( 100824 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @04:21AM (#3462066)
      > Also maybe the flying boats can be made to fly higher to skip over things that are in the way.

      The point of this 'flying boat' is that it operates in ground effect, which allows the craft to produce more lift than it would normally be able. If you are going to give the craft enough power/lift to climb out of ground effect to "skip over things", you kind of defeat the whole point of the craft. It is more efficient for aircraft to fly at higher altitudes, air is less dense, and fuel burn is much less, and you can take advantage of winds aloft. Operating a long haul aircraft just above ground effect is probably the least efficient may to run, least range and greatest fuel burn, not to mention you cant go all that fast. As an example of that, take a theoritcal passenger jet. Aircraft measure speed in "Indicated Airspeed", which is the relative wind the skin of the aircraft is experiencing. At sea level, indicated and true airspeeds are about the same. Now take our jet, it has a Vne (Never exceed velocity) of 330 kts. So at sea level, (negating wind), i can only make around 300ish kts groundspeed (and only over sea, in the US below 18,000 ft, you cannot exceed 250 kts). Not bad you say? Consider that at altitude, you can operate an aircraft below the 330 kt limit, but because the less dense air (less wind == less indicated airspeed), your actual groundspeed can be 500 kts, and you are getting better fuel economy.

      These ground effect craft will probably due well for short haul stuff, but with the unpredictable nature of the ocean, i dont see them gaining wide use for trans oceanic operations. Much safer and efficient to be flying at FL330 :)

  • WIG as Stealth (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @04:06AM (#3462043) Homepage Journal
    A really neat page on WIGs [geocities.com] discusses a little-known fact: That the largest aircraft ever built, Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose, wasn't actually a failure -- it was just late for the WW II sky. It was built to rely on ground effect for rapid stealth delivery of troops. There is reason to believe it was never intended to fly outside of ground effect, despite the fact that Hughes took a reputational beating for failing to fly at high altitude. This may have been a ploy to keep the stealth characteristics of low-flying WIGs obscured. An entire WIG industry would render any nation with large populations quite formidable -- especially if WIG vehicles used carbon composite bodies rather tha metal skin.
    • The Spruce Goose, even regarded as a WIGE vehicle (which I agree was its intended purpose), still had one major problem: it was grossly underpowered, and needed a huge stretch of calm water to haul itself airborne. With WW2-era aeroengines, it just wasn't going to be viable.

      [nitpick] For most definitions of "largest", the Spruce Goose is NOT the largest aircraft ever built. I think it's still the largest wing-span (97.5m) vehicle to ever get airborne, but the Antonov An-225 Mriya is longer (84m v 67m), and WAY heavier (600 vs 180 Tonnes)
      • The Spruce Goose, even regarded as a WIGE vehicle (which I agree was its intended purpose), still had one major problem: it was grossly underpowered, and needed a huge stretch of calm water to haul itself airborne.

        KM (the Russian built "Caspian Seamonster") has similar issues. It has 10 turbojet engines and needs all of them to take off. Once flying it can manage with 2.
        Even if you were to use modern aeroengines you still have the problem that water generates a lot more drag than air.
        • While a communist bureaucracy is capable of any incompetence -- up to and including killing tens of millions through bad/corrupt central planning -- I find it very hard to believe Hughes would have made such an obvious error. Seaplanes of various designs had been flying for decades by the time Hughes designed the Spruce Goose. Further, Hughes' direct involvement in so many early variations of flight would render him aware that each required its own analysis regarding flight regimes from takeoff to landing. I can believe there may have been another launch mode involving external power of some kind. Since gliders had been used as stealth personnel carriers in WW II and gliders are totally dependent on external power, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that, like the "failure" to fly above ground effect, the "grossly under powered" story was meant to obscure the existence of a stealth military capability. If you can get to your destination, your plane is lighter not only by its cargo, but by its fuel and may therefore be in need of external power only during initial take off -- not during return takeoff.
        • They should use rocket engines... power to weight ratio is *much* better. Once up they can be shutdown and a prop could be used.
    • There's a book (fiction, pulp) called "Deep Lie" in which the russians had (among other fun things) a fleet of stealth WIG planes. At the time of reading that, last summer, i thought it was just nifty science fiction. Seems i was wrong :)

      The book is light summer reading. Especially fun if you're from coastal Sweden, Finland or Estonia, which is where much of the stuff in the book takes place.

      What i don't see is why a WIG plane couldn't be adapted for ground use.

      ~llauren
      • There's a book (fiction, pulp) called "Deep Lie" in which the russians had (among other fun things) a fleet of stealth WIG planes. At the time of reading that, last summer, i thought it was just nifty science fiction. Seems i was wrong :)

        They can be quite stealthy, especially if you have some kind of "pathfinder" aircraft so that the ekranoplans don't need to use their own radar. Unfortunatly the pathfinder plane then is a very obvious target.

        What i don't see is why a WIG plane couldn't be adapted for ground use.

        The ground needs to be smooth, otherwise you are in trouble if the flight controls can't operate fast enough. (Or if the topography from a radar POV does not correspond with the topography from an aerodynamic POV. Thus the autopilot is incapable of compensating anyway.)

  • More good resources on WIGS (Score:5, Informative)

    by Talkischeap ( 306364 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @04:21AM (#3462064) Homepage

    I heard of this kind of thing many years ago.

    The Soviets were way ahead of the game in this area as long ago as the 60's, they were called Caspian Sea Monsters because they were tested in the Caspian Sea, and looked like neither plane, nor boat.

    This web site [autospeed.com] has a very nice detailed article complete with many photos.

    They were quite the strange beasties back then, heres another [vlewis.net] look at them.

    And heres the WIG [se-technology.com] site (WIG is an abbreviation of Wing In Ground-effect), which is also a nice comprehensive resource about these interesting vehicles.

    The model maker Revell even made a plastic model [fsnet.co.uk] kit of one, some years ago.

    Apparently, this type of aircraft hasn't found it's commercial niche yet, but it looks like this new application might work.

    • One of the problems of winged vehicles is the effect of catestrophic propulsion failure. In a train or a truck if your engine fails you stop moving but the cargo is still in tact. In a winged vehicle a power failure will result in a loss of cargo, if not at the bottom of the ocean then almost certainly all over the surface of it.

      Whilst the same is true for passenger flights, to some extent the econmics of cargo (particulalry if one increases the size of a WIG vehicle to make it cargo viable) mean that suxh failures (or the risk thereof) make it impossible to use as a platform.
      • One of the problems of winged vehicles is the effect of catestrophic propulsion failure. In a train or a truck if your engine fails you stop moving but the cargo is still in tact. In a winged vehicle a power failure will result in a loss of cargo, if not at the bottom of the ocean then almost certainly all over the surface of it.

        In a conventional aircraft this is the case. With a WIG craft so long as the flight controls work (if needs be from an APU or RAT) it can easily be landed. Though it will most likely be capable of gliding considerable distance with no engine power.
        • Though it will most likely be capable of gliding considerable distance with no engine power.

          Not exactly. Don't forget that it is only a few feet above the water in most cases. Thus, without engine power, it may have the best glide ratio on the planet... but you can't glide far when the water is only 10 feet below you.
        • Actually a WIG has LOUSY glide ratio.

          First off, IAAAE - I am an Aero Engineer. Glide ratio is largely a function of the wing's efficiency - and that is almost entirely a function of the ratio of wingspan to wing "chord" - in otherwords, the ratio of width to length of the wing. (Ever wonder why a sailplane has such long thin wings?) But to get a good ground effect, you need a short stubby wing, not a long thin one - you need a longer surface to "trap" the cushion of air underneath. So wing efficiency and ground effect are actually mutually exclusive. That's the main reason that you cannot get far off the ground in a WIG vehicle. The ONLY reason it gets up is the ground effect - you simply don't have enough lift otherwise. (You can zoom for brief distances, but there is so much drag due to the lousy efficiency that you cannot sustain high flight.)

          So if you remember that glide ratio is related to wing efficiency, and that wing efficiency is awful in a WIG, you get a lousy glide ratio in these things.

          But as "mpe" mentions, you can easily settle down on the water and slow down to become a boat.

          One other interesting fact about these things is worth mentioning. If you see the pics of the Russian monster WIG (sometimes called the "Caspian Sea Monster", due to its extreme size), you'll notice the engines at the FRONT, up high on a winglike structure. Why? Well, to get "airborne", you have to get up to speed. But water drag is so high, and the plane is so big, that they cannot simply accelerate up to flying speed. So the only way to get enough air under the wings to get out of the water is to blow it directly there - so they mount the engines in front of the wing, so that the airstream can be directed under the wing to boost the plane off the water at a relatively low speed - after which they can start really accelerating.
          • First off, IAAAE - I am an Aero Engineer. Glide ratio is largely a function of the wing's efficiency - and that is almost entirely a function of the ratio of wingspan to wing "chord" - in otherwords, the ratio of width to length of the wing. (Ever wonder why a sailplane has such long thin wings?)

            One thing ground effect does is to increase the effective length of the wing. So as long as the craft stays in ground effect it's glide ratio is larger than you'd otherwise expect it to be. Most likely a WIG will glide rather further than people (especially those familiar with more conventional aircraft) would expect.

            One other interesting fact about these things is worth mentioning. If you see the pics of the Russian monster WIG (sometimes called the "Caspian Sea Monster", due to its extreme size), you'll notice the engines at the FRONT, up high on a winglike structure. Why? Well, to get "airborne", you have to get up to speed. But water drag is so high, and the plane is so big, that they cannot simply accelerate up to flying speed. So the only way to get enough air under the wings to get out of the water is to blow it directly there - so they mount the engines in front of the wing, so that the airstream can be directed under the wing to boost the plane off the water at a relatively low speed

            I'm not sure KM actually works this way. It looks more as though the Russians simply followed the "brute force" school of engineering. With the engines being up high to avoid ingesting water.
            • Actually they DO blow under the wing. I've seen footage of it lifting off and flying. Also a WIG vehicle was demonstrated on the river near where I work, and it too had front-mounted propulsion (props instead of jets, for this small version) with exactly the same purpose. The props were pivoted, rather like a V-22 engine pod.

    • I think the main difference between the old Russian Ekranoplans (which were *amazing* to see in action) and this is that the Ekranoplans were inherently unstable. They had to have immensely sophisticated electronics to avoid crashing straight into the water.

      I believe the reason why this reincarnation of them has been so long coming (since the technology was bought off the Russians well over a decade ago) was creating an entirely new design that was inherently stable. My hat goes off to them for managing it...

  • Life imitates art? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @04:37AM (#3462079) Homepage
    Maybe it's because I just got back from the movies, but the first thing I thought of when I saw this was a guy in a green mask flying around on it, cackling wildly and throwing fire extinguisher balls [slashdot.org] at people.
  • There once was a craft from the Maldives
    that could seat three men and their wives
    have some advice for free
    don't be one of the three,
    or you'll regret it the rest of your lives
  • It is not a boat
    Summer waves never touch skin
    it is not a plane
  • Enterpreuner Dean Kamen announced his new personal transporter known only as "Git" and Genger which works by Ground Effect. This follows the massive failure of the Segway Human Transporter
  • The first URL is already rejecting me because of high traffic. Here's [google.com] a Google mirror.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7cg6pQsh69I C: www.flightship.net/+flightship&hl=en

  • If no-one else is gonna say it then I will.


    &#60Jonny Bravo&#62

    WIGGY

    &#60&#47Jonny Bravo&#62


  • Seen Them (Score:4, Informative)

    by mlknowle ( 175506 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @05:50AM (#3462147) Homepage Journal
    There is one of these that operates on Narrahgansett Bay, where I live in Rhode Island. I should say, operated, because last summer it hit a wave and crashed. The pilot and passenger were bruised, but OK - the Coast Guard managed to pull them out before the thing sank.
  • All these advancements are neat, from printable LCD monitors ..to flying boats, to things connecting to things ...but Where are the flying cars? How come they haven't come up with a safe/efficient way of allowing having cars to fly ..I'd love to flying in to work and avoid some traffic !
  • This is an old technology. more information here [aernav.free.fr].
  • The Flightship FS8 is a craft that carries 6 passengers and luggage (plus 2 crew)
    6+2=8. FS8. Ok, makes sense.

    the FS40 aircraft, which has a 40-passenger capacity
    Ummm, does that mean zero crew? Maybe they only plan to fly the SF40 in the bermuda triangle :)

    -
  • Order your Soviet-era WIG ship today (from autospeed.com):

    "Now called the Volga Shipyard, the Orlyonok is apparently still being developed as a commercial search and rescue craft. In fact, it appears that the Orlyonok can be ordered in either cargo-carrying (50 tons with a 1500km range) or in passenger carrying (30 people and a 3000km range) versions - the yard lists it as a production model!"
  • so what happens when seas are rough, according to the article it can take like 6 foot waves.. what happens with hurricane winds and 35 foot waves?

    seems like they're spending an aweful lot of money to send some rich tourists off as guinea pigs during "peak season"

    although they do look cool, like the ornithopters from Dune, if they were sturdy
    they seem in-expensive at $800,000 (although i could never afford one,e ven if i saved all my change for 3,000 years) considering a harrier is like a billion or so (ask Pepsi, they would know ;))

  • XtremeXplorer Ground Effect Vehicle (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A similar product is being offered by Amphistar. I drive by their hangar everyday in Norfolk, VA. But I have only seen an XtremeXplorer outside once. The XtremeXplorer is in regular use in the Bahamas (according to the web site). And it looks like a lot of their pilots are Russian. They even claim to have the pilot of the "Caspian Sea Monster" (the 747 sized plane as seen on TLC). He even gives operator instruction classes, so bring your Visa card.

    http://www.amphistar.com/
  • So, basically, this combines all the deficits of a hovercraft (can't handle large waves or land variations) with the deficits of an aircraft (needs a landing strip), with a few new deficits (I'm having trouble visualizing how this thing is going to turn at more than a 10 degree slope and not hit the water).

    And the only thing gained is...it can go fast! Wow, just like a real airplane!

  • Here [mhtc.net] is a WIG (wing in ground effect) craft built by a hovercraft hobbyist. It sure looks like a lot of fun. Also, I found out a while back that the FAA doesn't regulate WIG craft, so you don't need a pilots license as long as it can only fly in ground effect and not as a regular aircraft.
  • When I was little I used to ride on these a lot of the time. I'm not sure if it was a proper WIG craft but it's basically like a normal boat with three fins sticking downward that can do something like 50 mph. I was told they worked on some sort of aerodynamic principle anyway. I thik they were called 'Rocket' (well, ok in rus that's raketta or close enough in roman characters)
  • Slashdot effect does it again. I just see the MS IIS "web site is busy" page. I hope they don't run the ship's computers on any MS product.
  • These are even more commonly called hydroplanes. You take a plane and create a method in which it can coast over or land on water. This has been done already using a variety of methods.
  • There is a high-speed catamaran ferry ("The Cat" [catferry.com]) that operates from Bar Harbor, Maine, USA to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada at about 55 miles per hour. Local fishermen are scared to death of it, because of an accident back in September 1998 [s-t.com]. In spite of all reasonable precautions, it collided with a fishing boat, killing the captain. The timetables and routes are well publicized, the two vessels had been in radio contact, and The Cat is equipped with state-of-the-art radar equipment.

    So, if it's this difficult to operate a ship safely at 55 mph, what additional precautions need to be taken to go to several hundred mph over the water?

Slashdot Top Deals

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe

Close