3 ms·

Cars are too slow, airplanes too inconvenient, long-distance high-speed rail too expensive. Why not all three? Ground-effect airplanes should only take about

Cars are too slow, airplanes too inconvenient, long-distance high-speed rail too expensive. Why not all three? Ground-effect airplanes should only take about 4x more energy than a car at the same speed, the track is just cement or even dirt, they're not useful for terrorism, no pilot needed, and they could even be powered electrically if they make stops every hour or two. You could drive onto a carrier and fly at 200 mph to your destination. Basically a slow hyperloop, but you don't need a vaccuum or anything high tech at all. I've asked about this before and nobody has explained why it wouldn't work - maybe it's so obvious it goes without saying. edit: hills could be made more flat but surely would be less problematic than for a train where the track must be almost totally flat, any small object or animal could be flown over maybe even trading speed for height, more energy intensive than high speed rail but construction and maintenance far less so. We can make a computer control system for F-117 but we can't control ground effect? These don't sound like carefully considered objections.

bluGill 5y ago
Wind resistance. Airplanes at altitude get a lot less wind resistance. Tracks also need a lot less right of way (width) vs ground effect airplanes which need wings. Rolling resistance is not a big deal for trains (or even cars). It exists, but it is small. The real issues for going faster for both is wind resistance. (maglev is better more for maintenance cost than rolling resistance - at least until we get to hyperloop speeds - if we ever do)
darksaints 5y ago
It can and has worked in the past, but only over water. Ground effect planes over land have the problem that land isn't really flat, and ground effect doesn't buffer as well as you might imagine. Even small mounds of dirt can cause an extremely uncomfortable ride. You can think of it like riding in a massive monster truck, but without shock absorbers. You're basically guaranteed to get sick.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Basically a slow hyperloop, but you don't need a vaccuum or anything high tech at all. I've asked about this before and nobody has explained why it wouldn't work Ground effect is unstable and hard to control, incursions on the track would be very dangerous, but most obvious measures to mitigate intrusions interfere with ground effect flight or require bigger rights of way. It would be a slow hyperloop with a much bigger ground footprint (like classical high speed rail), less efficiency than classical high-speed rail, control/safety issues not present in high-speed rail, etc.
whats_a_quasar 5y ago
If you have already have a track dedicated to the ground-effect airplane, seems to me that it'd always be more cost effective to build a railroad on that track and move more people. The track is the hard part. Ground-effect vehicles might make sense over water, though, building effectively a very fast ferry. There's a startup from the last YC Batch trying it. Regent: https://www.regentcraft.com/ https://www.regentcraft.com/

bluGill 5y ago

Wind resistance. Airplanes at altitude get a lot less wind resistance. Tracks also need a lot less right of way (width) vs ground effect airplanes which need wings. Rolling resistance is not a big deal for trains (or even cars). It exists, but it is small. The real issues for going faster for both is wind resistance. (maglev is better more for maintenance cost than rolling resistance - at least until we get to hyperloop speeds - if we ever do)

darksaints 5y ago

It can and has worked in the past, but only over water. Ground effect planes over land have the problem that land isn't really flat, and ground effect doesn't buffer as well as you might imagine. Even small mounds of dirt can cause an extremely uncomfortable ride. You can think of it like riding in a massive monster truck, but without shock absorbers. You're basically guaranteed to get sick.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Basically a slow hyperloop, but you don't need a vaccuum or anything high tech at all. I've asked about this before and nobody has explained why it wouldn't work Ground effect is unstable and hard to control, incursions on the track would be very dangerous, but most obvious measures to mitigate intrusions interfere with ground effect flight or require bigger rights of way. It would be a slow hyperloop with a much bigger ground footprint (like classical high speed rail), less efficiency than classical high-speed rail, control/safety issues not present in high-speed rail, etc.

whats_a_quasar 5y ago

If you have already have a track dedicated to the ground-effect airplane, seems to me that it'd always be more cost effective to build a railroad on that track and move more people. The track is the hard part. Ground-effect vehicles might make sense over water, though, building effectively a very fast ferry. There's a startup from the last YC Batch trying it. Regent: https://www.regentcraft.com/ https://www.regentcraft.com/