Ground Effect Flying Boat 182
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."
FAA? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:FAA? (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
No its changed (Score:3, Informative)
No Certification needed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No Certification needed (Score:4, Interesting)
The key word is 'has'. Some GE vehicles are just underpowered planes
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% .
Re:FAA? (Score:3)
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)
Any additional info on why it works would be good to read.
Re:The Physics of the matter... (Score:1)
Re:The Physics of the matter... (Score:2)
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.
Re:The Physics of the matter... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
What is Ground Effect (Score:1)
gratuitious karma whoring (Score:3, Informative)
From the company [flightship.net] (might be slashdotted sooner or later)
A good site [mira.net]
More info, no pics. [geocities.com]
Re:gratuitious karma whoring (Score:1)
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
Ground efect boats already 'comercialy' available (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Ground efect boats already 'comercialy' availab (Score:2)
Re:Ground efect boats already 'comercialy' availab (Score:2)
A good site on how ground effect works (Score:5, Informative)
WGI vehicles (Score:3, Informative)
(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)
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 in a storm. (Score:1)
Re:What happens in a storm. (Score:2)
Re:What happens in a storm. (Score:1)
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.
Re:What happens in a storm. (Score:1)
What happens in fog? (Score:1)
Re:What happens in fog? (Score:2)
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...
Re:What happens in fog? (Score:2)
Re:What happens in fog? (Score:2)
Re:What happens in fog? (Score:2)
:)
Re:What happens in a storm. (Score:2)
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.
Re:What happens in a storm. (Score:2)
These guys' laywers work fast (Score:2, Funny)
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)
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)
The Soviets ignored this great idea (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, the designers of the Ekranoplan were too closely tied to Khruschev (sp?), and when Brenzhnev took over, the Ekranoplan idea died a quick and untimely death.
With the application of modern technology, an ekranoplan could be perfect for island-hopping operations in the Less Antillies in the Caribbean Sea.
They had a run of 124 Orlyonok troopships (Score:2)
Here's a good article on them [autospeed.com].
Here's a close up pic, notice the twin 23mm cannon dorsal turret [autospeed.com]
Here's a pic of 2 flying along side by side [autospeed.com]
Here's a rear 3.4 view [autospeed.com]
Top view [autospeed.com]
Front on, on its beaching bogies [autospeed.com]
Unloading a armoured fighting vehicle [autospeed.com]
On the tarmac [autospeed.com]
3 way drawing [autospeed.com]
Re:They had a run of 124 Orlyonok troopships (Score:2)
However, if we apply modern Western jet engine and turboprop technology, we could probably build an ekranoplan that wouldn't be a fuel hog and is much less noisy, too.
I still think the ekranoplan is perfect for island hopping travel in the eastern Caribbean Sea islands.
Re:Uses? (Score:1)
The Soviets (Score:1)
Re:The Soviets (Score:2)
Re:Uses? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Something fishy (Score:1)
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.
Re:Something fishy (Score:1)
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)
those things should have much bigger uses (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:those things should have much bigger uses (Score:2)
Re:those things should have much bigger uses (Score:2)
Re:those things should have much bigger uses (Score:1)
Re:those things should have much bigger uses (Score:2)
Eeeek. A power-on stall at 300kts. Ouch. Unhappy passengers indeed.
Re:those things should have much bigger uses (Score:2)
Which is in itself bad. But also you'd then need to get from an altitude where the craft can't fly well to one where it can slowly and smoothly. Pitching down sharply would be a very bad idea...
Re:those things should have much bigger uses (Score:2)
I said it was possible, but I didn't necessarily say it was a good idea...
Re:those things should have much bigger uses (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:those things should have much bigger uses (Score:2)
WIG as Stealth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WIG as Stealth (Score:1)
[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)
Re:WIG as Stealth (Score:2)
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.
Re:WIG as Stealth (Score:2)
Re:WIG as Stealth (Score:2)
Re:WIG as Stealth (Score:1)
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
Re:WIG as Stealth (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:More good resources on WIGS (Score:1)
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.
Re:More good resources on WIGS (Score:3)
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.
Not Quite... (Score:3)
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.
WIGs have LOUSY glide ratio - here's why (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:WIGs have LOUSY glide ratio - here's why (Score:2)
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.
Re:WIGs have LOUSY glide ratio - here's why (Score:2)
Ekranoplan history (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ekranoplan history (Score:1)
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)
I read this, still don't understand how it works.. (Score:3, Funny)
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
Cool. (Score:2)
Summer waves never touch skin
it is not a plane
In other news (Score:1)
Google Mirror (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7cg6pQsh69
Sigh, If no else is gonna... (Score:2)
If no-one else is gonna say it then I will.
<Jonny Bravo>
WIGGY
</Jonny Bravo>
Seen Them (Score:4, Informative)
Are we getting closer? (Score:1)
Re:Are we getting closer? (Score:2)
Old hat, again. (Score:2)
FS8 / FS40 (Score:2)
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
-
Orlyonoks available (Score:1)
"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!"
uhm.. (Score:1)
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)
http://www.amphistar.com/
Alright., am I missing something? (Score:1)
And the only thing gained is...it can go fast! Wow, just like a real airplane!
For the do-it-yourselfers out there... (Score:2, Informative)
I dont think this is all that new (Score:1)
Site Down (Score:1)
Ummm... ancient news? (Score:1)
How will they safely avoid smaller craft? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Flightship - slashdotted already ? (Score:1)
Re:Flightship - slashdotted already ? (Score:1)
Re:Flightship - slashdotted already ? (Score:2)
Re:Wham! (Score:1)
Not PWS, I'm afraid... (Score:1)
The site www.mondaytimes.com.mv is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) FrontPage/4.0.4.3 on Linux.
Re:Not PWS, I'm afraid... (Score:1)
I am now waiting 20 seconds.
Re:Not PWS, I'm afraid... (Score:1)
http://slashdot.org/faq/tech.shtml#te050 [slashdot.org]
The relevant bit in the FAQ
A quality IE message... (Score:1)
The web site you are trying to access is experiencing an extremely high volume of traffic.
Please try the following:
Click the Refresh button, or try again later.
If the situation persists, you may want to contact the webmaster of this site and advise them to upgrade to a dedicated hosting plan.
Slashdot Effect (Score:1)
Google cache? (Score:2)