8 ms·
Commercial wing in ground effect plane (2018)
- Simon_ORourke 3y agoJust looking at the turns it's making in the promotional video, it seems like the near side wingtip could easily make some pretty hard contact with the sea surface and cause all sorts of bother.
- defrost 3y agoThe promotional video has the look of computer generated graphics to be honest. The Mud Skipper is a home garage build that's not CG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILbQHnHPnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILbQHnHPnY
- animal531 3y agoYeah, I don't really see the use case for it. You'll need near perfectly calm water at all times and it's not as if it can scale up too big.
- goodcanadian 3y agoYou might be surprised by how big you can scale up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster That said, no one seems to have found a practical use for the technology.
- jnsaff2 3y agoSo according to their stated information it consumes about 6L of gasoline per passenger per 100km. Which is: - much higher than a car - much lower than a power-boat - about 25% lower than a Cessna Caravan (which is faster tho).
- cassepipe 3y agoI was surprised to learn that in a Plane it was around half that : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Airlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Airli... Then I remember that it was kerosene but it seems that kerosene has a close energy density to gasoline... I am lost. Can someone help ?
- goodcanadian 3y agoAir resistance. Commercial aircraft fly as high as they reasonably can in order to reduce the amount of atmosphere they have to push through. The ground effect craft operates at sea level.
- HPsquared 3y agoSee also why suborbital rockets could actually be competitive for passenger travel over very long distances: no air resistance in space.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- t0mas88 3y agoIt's very small so the per seat usage is higher than a high density airliner. The comparison to a Cessna Caravan makes some sense, that's similar sized turbine powered.
- usrusr 3y agoThe environmental issue with air travel is not high fuel consumption per passenger mile, but the number of miles per passenger. A coast to coast trip by car might burn just as much fuel as coast to coast by plane, but people simply wouldn't to that all that often in a lifetime. That's for medium and long distance travel, short distance fuel consumption per passenger mile goes up dramatically. OT: this is actually a point where I see a big, unserved gap in the market of climate-aware air travel. A feeder plane (from regional to intercontinental airport) dedicated to the market segment of "going by road or train might be roughly as fast, but I need to go to the airport and I can't risk missing my connection due to the unpredictable nature of ground travel". So you'd want a something the size of a CRJ or even just a dash-8, but ruthlessly optimized for fuel consumption. That would imply going slower (no issue at all when the time for bording etc greatly outweighs the time spent in the air!) which would imply moving the deep point in that induced vs parasitic drag diagram as far left as possible, which would imply going wild with wingspan, something sleek, carbon, like a performance glider, as wide as a 737 or beyond. One reason I've heard suggested for why this doesn't yet exist is that on those short hops (little time spent in the air), fuel cost is actually outweighed by crew cost so much that all the cost saving from lower fuel consumption would be eaten by getting less trips per crew-day. So it's an automaton problem in disguise? Or a regulatory problem?
- cassepipe 3y agoHow reasonable would be it be to cross the Atlantic Ocean in such a aircraft ? Would it be more efficient ? How much slower ? How would it fare in turbulent seas ?
- denton-scratch 3y ago> How reasonable would be it be to cross the Atlantic Ocean in such a aircraft ? Range : ~ 300 nautical miles
- imglorp 3y agoAnd at 90 knots and 3462 nm (NY to London) it would be 38 hours, if you could carry enough fuel.
- Retric 3y agoIt’s far less efficient crossing the Atlantic than modern jets. The advantage of something like this is it doesn’t need to gain altitude to become efficient so it’s decent for very shorter distances.
- t0mas88 3y agoIt's more efficient than a low flying aircraft, due to reduced drag from ground effect. But it's not more efficient than a high flying airplane getting reduced drag from lower air density. So it works on short distances where the airplane would use a lot of fuel to get to high altitude, but on longer distances it wouldn't be more efficient.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- goodcanadian 3y agoGround effect vehicles are not a new idea at all. Like many others, I think they are pretty cool, but it seems like they have never found a practical use: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle
- larodi 3y agoa comment from YT reads: another decade another ground effect vehicle. this' been going for 60 years now. of course it is quite unclear how is this applicable for harsh conditions in open seas where waves can be scary high (or deep if u prefer).
- AlexMuir 3y agoDoesn’t need to go in the ocean to be useful. You wouldn’t want to take a Rib across the Atlantic but they’re still highly useful craft.
- larodi 3y agoI actually hope this becomes real vehicle, although it seems, and my comment perhaps amplified it, that there’s a sentiment reflecting doubts about the feasibility of the technology at all. Maybe it works for large lakes and hot seas at all.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gumby 3y agoSupposedly a Singapore company has some orders: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/st-engineering-joint-venture-airx-secures-first-order-for-wing-in-ground-craft-at-singapore-airshow https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/st-engineer...
- wizardforhire 3y agoYoutuber rctestflight has been experimenting a lot with ground effect. Spoiler alert: its hard, but a lot of fun to watch https://youtube.com/@rctestflight https://youtube.com/@rctestflight
- tjpnz 3y agoThey were talking about running this in New Zealand between Wellington and Christchurch. The idea sounded batshit insane to begin with given how rough the waters are in the Cook Strait, which is also one of the reasons why there's no bridge connecting the North and South islands. I haven't heard anything about it in years and assume it will never get off the ground (if you pardon the pun).
- Beijinger 3y agoAnd then. Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster
- dutchmartin 3y agoI would be interested to see this concept go in rougher conditions, since most seas aren’t so calm as in the video.
- J_Sherz 3y agoI would too. I believe the Sea Glider built by Regent Craft solves the take off in rough water component to some extent with hydrofoils. So you "taxi" on the hull in rough water up to a speed where you can get up on foil. Then with the reduced hull drag and clearance over (presumably low) rough water you can hit a higher speed when the wing creates lift, at which point the foils retract. This seems like an optimal solution for takeoff, but I don't know how it lands in rough seas.
- aghastnj 3y agoThe linked website looks ... buggy or fake. (Or both, since I'm able to notice!) Maybe we should build a monorail, instead.
- whycome 3y agoThere used to be boat service between Toronto and Buffalo. That lake could be a good candidate as it connects two sizeable cities. Even if just used for goods transport? Heck, Toronto to Niagara or Hamilton could be a thing. Even better if there was good transport to get to one of the international airports on the last leg. Water shuttle from Toronto to Hamilton and some other quick transport to the airport there.
- wthalheimer 3y agoREGENT is building wave-tolerant, all-electric WIGs called “seagliders”! https://www.regentcraft.com https://www.regentcraft.com