Wing in ground effect – the Russians/Soviets made a few machines which flew at a height of about 4 or 5 metres above the sea. One machine they had could carry 100 tonnes at 550 km/h. Something like this:

(the tubes on the back are missile launchers, forget about them for the moment)

Would it be possible to build a vehicle that used WIG effect along a cleared land corridor as an alternative to long distance/high speed railways? I imagine some kind of guidance system would need to be installed to keep it on the correct path, but it might be less hassle than building rails or maglev tracks.

Probably, but it’d use a shitload of fuel I reckon.

party_pants said:

Wing in ground effect – the Russians/Soviets made a few machines which flew at a height of about 4 or 5 metres above the sea. One machine they had could carry 100 tonnes at 550 km/h. Something like this:

(the tubes on the back are missile launchers, forget about them for the moment)

Would it be possible to build a vehicle that used WIG effect along a cleared land corridor as an alternative to long distance/high speed railways? I imagine some kind of guidance system would need to be installed to keep it on the correct path, but it might be less hassle than building rails or maglev tracks.

Whew, what an idea. I’ll give it some thought. A few things that immediately come to mind are:

• The fuel consumption of aeroplanes is not all that different to the fuel consumption of road vehicles.
• Trains used diesel-electric (i.e. hybrid) and all-electric systems that are both superior in terms of fuel consumption to road vehicles.
• Cargo ships have bot the best and worst fuel consumption of all vehicles – worst in terms of fuel per km and best in terms of fuel per kg per km.
• Part of the low fuel consumption of planes is because of low drag at high altitude. Can that or can that not be traded against lift from ground effect?

Needs flat terrain I reckon.

Spruce Goose

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules

Ground-effect vehicle
Had to look it up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle

A ground-effect vehicle (GEV) is a vehicle that is designed to attain sustained flight over a level surface (usually over the sea) by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface. Among the best known are the Soviet ekranoplans, but names like wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), flarecraft, sea skimmer, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE) are also used.

In recent years a large number of different GEV types have been developed for both civilian and military use. However, these craft have yet to enter widespread use.

Although they may look and have related technical characteristics similar to seaplanes, ground-effect vehicles are generally not designed to fly out of ground effect. They are also dissimilar from hovercraft or hydrofoils, as they do not have any contact with the surface of the water when in “flight”. Ground-effect vehicles constitute a unique class of transportation.

Interesting.

AirFish 8 (AF8) – product video | Wing-in-Ground Effect (WIG) craft | flying boat | Wigetworks

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ground-effect vehicle
Had to look it up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle

A ground-effect vehicle (GEV) is a vehicle that is designed to attain sustained flight over a level surface (usually over the sea) by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface. Among the best known are the Soviet ekranoplans, but names like wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), flarecraft, sea skimmer, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE) are also used.

In recent years a large number of different GEV types have been developed for both civilian and military use. However, these craft have yet to enter widespread use.

Although they may look and have related technical characteristics similar to seaplanes, ground-effect vehicles are generally not designed to fly out of ground effect. They are also dissimilar from hovercraft or hydrofoils, as they do not have any contact with the surface of the water when in “flight”. Ground-effect vehicles constitute a unique class of transportation.

Interesting.

I was told by a reliable source that a lightly loaded 747 could be safely landed if it were flown to within 30 feet above the runway & the power cut. Ground effect did the rest.

Ian said:

Needs flat terrain I reckon.

Yeah. We got lots of flat-ish land in the outback. I guess you’d need to clear the trees out the way, possibly the shrubs up to say 1m could stay. I guess they’d get hammered by the blast of these giant vehicles going over them which would decide if they survive or not.

Could different shapes be tested in a computer simulated wind tunnel ?

Then once an ideal shape has been found, test the real thing in a real wind tunnel, then over water.

the only thing I’m not sure about is making an emergency landing if they get engine trouble or something.

WIG’s use less fuel than a comparable boat doing the same trip.

party_pants said:

the only thing I’m not sure about is making an emergency landing if they get engine trouble or something.

Inflatable air bags of some kind?

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

the only thing I’m not sure about is making an emergency landing if they get engine trouble or something.

Inflatable air bags of some kind?

the youtube video say they can land safely

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

the only thing I’m not sure about is making an emergency landing if they get engine trouble or something.

Inflatable air bags of some kind?

the youtube video say they can land safely

I guess it means that the cleared ground corridor would have to be made quite smooth and unobstructed. Probably adding to the cost.

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

the only thing I’m not sure about is making an emergency landing if they get engine trouble or something.

Inflatable air bags of some kind?

Parachutes first, then eject the chute and backshell and come down on rockets.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Inflatable air bags of some kind?

the youtube video say they can land safely

I guess it means that the cleared ground corridor would have to be made quite smooth and unobstructed. Probably adding to the cost.

Drones carrying padded pot plants is the only way.

https://newatlas.com/wigetworks-airfish-8-ground-effect-vehicle/56184/

“A Singaporean company has resurrected a post-WW2 German design to commercialize a beautiful reverse-delta ground effect vehicle as a high-speed, high-efficiency ferry for six to eight passengers. The Airfish 8 hovers serenely between 0.6 to 7 m over the water and hits speeds of 190 km/h.”

Tau.Neutrino said:

Could different shapes be tested in a computer simulated wind tunnel ?

Then once an ideal shape has been found, test the real thing in a real wind tunnel, then over water.

Yes, they can be tested in a real or computer-simulated wind tunnel. I probably know enough to do the simulation, I’ve computed the aerodynamic drag and lift forces on bridges, which is a bit the same.

All I can comment on best shape is to put the training edge of the wing as close to the bottom of the craft as possible.

It’s more the wing span that worries me for flight over land. Ground effect vehicles have a much narrower wingspan than airplanes (sort of like 1/3 of the wingspan) but they’re still a great deal wider than trucks and trains. Being much faster than hovercraft they could overfly mine fields easily in battle situations.

Over water, they’re fine for lakes, but not for open ocean where the waves can be much higher. … Unless (giggle) you fit a hydrofoil to the ground effect vehicle. Like an America’s cup yacht but without the sail.

Over land, a ground effect vehicle would use less fuel than over water. Because over water it would tend to lose energy in deforming the water surface. In addition, better height measurement (as used in quadcopters) would make a ground effect vehicle more feasible over land these days than ever before.

I do wonder also how bumpy the ride would be over land, and what sort of gradients it could work with. There’s bound to be a few hills and bumps along the way. Concerned that the ride inside might be a be vomity for the passengers if it goes up and down following the terrain too much.

party_pants said:

I do wonder also how bumpy the ride would be over land, and what sort of gradients it could work with. There’s bound to be a few hills and bumps along the way. Concerned that the ride inside might be a be vomity for the passengers if it goes up and down following the terrain too much.

Less so than on a hovercraft. Much less. And faster.

AFAIK the soviets gave up on it as a fast means of moving troops across water because it was so susceptible to weather and required calm conditions.

If you are going to clear a corridor for a land based WIG you would have an unreliable service that couldn’t do anything a train long could do more reliably and cheaper.

AwesomeO said:

AFAIK the soviets gave up on it as a fast means of moving troops across water because it was so susceptible to weather and required calm conditions.

If you are going to clear a corridor for a land based WIG you would have an unreliable service that couldn’t do anything a train long could do more reliably and cheaper.

I was thinking it might be relatively cheap to just clear and maintain a strip of land. No need for bridges, tunnels, cuttings, embankments and ballast and sleepers and rails and all that. A few sealed landing strips along the way with a taxiway leading off, for as many towns you want to service along the route.

Weather might be a problem.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

AFAIK the soviets gave up on it as a fast means of moving troops across water because it was so susceptible to weather and required calm conditions.

If you are going to clear a corridor for a land based WIG you would have an unreliable service that couldn’t do anything a train long could do more reliably and cheaper.

I was thinking it might be relatively cheap to just clear and maintain a strip of land. No need for bridges, tunnels, cuttings, embankments and ballast and sleepers and rails and all that. A few sealed landing strips along the way with a taxiway leading off, for as many towns you want to service along the route.

Weather might be a problem.

Yeah, fair point, my cheaper was based on running costs per Kg. The infrastructure of tracks would cost a motza.

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

AFAIK the soviets gave up on it as a fast means of moving troops across water because it was so susceptible to weather and required calm conditions.

If you are going to clear a corridor for a land based WIG you would have an unreliable service that couldn’t do anything a train long could do more reliably and cheaper.

I was thinking it might be relatively cheap to just clear and maintain a strip of land. No need for bridges, tunnels, cuttings, embankments and ballast and sleepers and rails and all that. A few sealed landing strips along the way with a taxiway leading off, for as many towns you want to service along the route.

Weather might be a problem.

Yeah, fair point, my cheaper was based on running costs per Kg. The infrastructure of tracks would cost a motza.

Trouble is, we already ave plenty cleared strips that are roads, railways, canals. Not much bush left to clear. I suppose it could be done across already cleared farmland.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

I was thinking it might be relatively cheap to just clear and maintain a strip of land. No need for bridges, tunnels, cuttings, embankments and ballast and sleepers and rails and all that. A few sealed landing strips along the way with a taxiway leading off, for as many towns you want to service along the route.

Weather might be a problem.

Yeah, fair point, my cheaper was based on running costs per Kg. The infrastructure of tracks would cost a motza.

Trouble is, we already ave plenty cleared strips that are roads, railways, canals. Not much bush left to clear. I suppose it could be done across already cleared farmland.

Look, I haven’t really thought it through. There are probably lots of reasons why it would not work.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

Yeah, fair point, my cheaper was based on running costs per Kg. The infrastructure of tracks would cost a motza.

Trouble is, we already ave plenty cleared strips that are roads, railways, canals. Not much bush left to clear. I suppose it could be done across already cleared farmland.

Look, I haven’t really thought it through. There are probably lots of reasons why it would not work.

It does work, but needs fine tuning by the looks of it.

could probably look into automating them too

the caspian sea monster

you’ll smash into crap flying around the land at low level, bats, birds

dust will get sucked into the engines, the russians use jet fighters that close their frontal intakes meaning in war or peace , runway debris is less likely to be sucked into the fragile compressors, slats on the top of the air intake are opened instead.

vandals will throw bricks and other stuff at these things

I can visualize one using both lanes on the Hume freeway.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

Yeah, fair point, my cheaper was based on running costs per Kg. The infrastructure of tracks would cost a motza.

Trouble is, we already ave plenty cleared strips that are roads, railways, canals. Not much bush left to clear. I suppose it could be done across already cleared farmland.

Look, I haven’t really thought it through. There are probably lots of reasons why it would not work.

Ideal for crossing cleared farmland, as well as places with low vegetation such as desert, tundra, veldt, heathland, possibly boggy areas with mangroves. It wouldn’t be troubled by low wire or stone fences or low hedges.

What about noise? An aeroplane noise at ground level could be a bit obnoxious.

any kind of bad weather sends it straight into the dirt

terrorists could set up a pole along the route and the thing smashes into it

you could set up cable between poles to make sure

or a kind of barrage balloon

or…. just someone sat patiently with a gun

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Trouble is, we already ave plenty cleared strips that are roads, railways, canals. Not much bush left to clear. I suppose it could be done across already cleared farmland.

Look, I haven’t really thought it through. There are probably lots of reasons why it would not work.

Ideal for crossing cleared farmland, as well as places with low vegetation such as desert, tundra, veldt, heathland, possibly boggy areas with mangroves. It wouldn’t be troubled by low wire or stone fences or low hedges.

What about noise? An aeroplane noise at ground level could be a bit obnoxious.

Could the ground effect be enhanced in any way while also cutting down on noise ?

Like in a submerged circular trench in the ground?

assuming these aircraft would take similar routes you could set up a land mine triggered by the aircraft passing overhead

a computer malfunction or bad input send the thing nose down

wookiemeister said:

any kind of bad weather sends it straight into the dirt

No. The flight is more stable than that. And as for the other possibilities, it’s less vulnerable than a train.

mollwollfumble said:

wookiemeister said:

any kind of bad weather sends it straight into the dirt

No. The flight is more stable than that. And as for the other possibilities, it’s less vulnerable than a train.

A microburst is an intense small-scale downdraft produced by a thunderstorm or rain shower. There are two types of microbursts: wet microbursts and dry microbursts. They go through three stages in their cycle, the downburst, outburst, and cushion stages also called “Suriano’s Stroke”.

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

wookiemeister said:

any kind of bad weather sends it straight into the dirt

No. The flight is more stable than that. And as for the other possibilities, it’s less vulnerable than a train.

A microburst is an intense small-scale downdraft produced by a thunderstorm or rain shower. There are two types of microbursts: wet microbursts and dry microbursts. They go through three stages in their cycle, the downburst, outburst, and cushion stages also called “Suriano’s Stroke”.

I used to study microbursts. Did a computer simulation of one in the bad old days.

About as rare as tornados. Both would cause havoc. A microburst is more of a danger to a plane 100 to 200 metres up where the vertical wind strength is a maximum.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Trouble is, we already ave plenty cleared strips that are roads, railways, canals. Not much bush left to clear. I suppose it could be done across already cleared farmland.

Look, I haven’t really thought it through. There are probably lots of reasons why it would not work.

Ideal for crossing cleared farmland, as well as places with low vegetation such as desert, tundra, veldt, heathland, possibly boggy areas with mangroves. It wouldn’t be troubled by low wire or stone fences or low hedges.

What about noise? An aeroplane noise at ground level could be a bit obnoxious.

That’s kind of what I was thinking.

I can’t see them being used inside major urban centres because most of the land is already taken for roads and other buildings. It would need a fairly wide corridor of land, probably a bit more than a freeway. I don’t think any major city has enough corridors like that left.

Noise would be a factor against it too. I guess you could go down the same route as aircraft and insist on newer engines that meet noise requirements. I wonder how it would compare to living alongside a freight railway or a major highway.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ground-effect vehicle
Had to look it up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle

A ground-effect vehicle (GEV) is a vehicle that is designed to attain sustained flight over a level surface (usually over the sea) by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface. Among the best known are the Soviet ekranoplans, but names like wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), flarecraft, sea skimmer, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE) are also used.

In recent years a large number of different GEV types have been developed for both civilian and military use. However, these craft have yet to enter widespread use.

Although they may look and have related technical characteristics similar to seaplanes, ground-effect vehicles are generally not designed to fly out of ground effect. They are also dissimilar from hovercraft or hydrofoils, as they do not have any contact with the surface of the water when in “flight”. Ground-effect vehicles constitute a unique class of transportation.

Interesting.

I was told by a reliable source that a lightly loaded 747 could be safely landed if it were flown to within 30 feet above the runway & the power cut. Ground effect did the rest.

Was it me?
FWIW a normal descent in a 747 has you going to idle power all the way down to the area around the airport, where you start to have to vary your speed as the controllers tell you to. However, if you have little wind & traffic, it’s possible to go all the way down to the last little bit of the approach without using any more than idle thrust. Once you have more than about 10° of flap (there’s 20°, 25°, and the final 30° to go) the flaps generate a fair bit of drag so you often need a bit of thrust to keep the speed where you want it.
A normal landing at maximum weight (~285 tonnes for the ones I flew) has you pitching the nose up at about 30’ above the runway and then going to idle on the throttles. A lightweight landing (say 200 tonnes) has you simultaneously going to idle and pitching up (about 2°) at about 20’.

Another FWIW – at about 200’ above the ground you have to pitch down slightly as that’s where the big wing (195’ or ~60 m span) starts to get more lift from ground effect and the plane will start to shallow the descent, thus making it land much further down the runway and also make the landing more difficult.

Here’s a landing I did in Dubai

The second option is to build a high speed “maglev” type train that uses aerodynamics to achieve lift-off rather than magnets. Running inside a U-shaped track with some kind of guidance system to stop it bumping into the walls. This would be more expensive in terms of installing the track, but possibly still cheaper than having the full maglev set-up. Would need a smaller footprint in terms of land the wide corridor needed for a WIG vehicle.

party_pants said:

The second option is to build a high speed “maglev” type train that uses aerodynamics to achieve lift-off rather than magnets. Running inside a U-shaped track with some kind of guidance system to stop it bumping into the walls. This would be more expensive in terms of installing the track, but possibly still cheaper than having the full maglev set-up. Would need a smaller footprint in terms of land the wide corridor needed for a WIG vehicle.

Well. It’d be a lot cheaper than an aqueduct. That also uses a U-shaped track.

Lion Air pilots struggled to maintain control of their Boeing jet as an automatic safety system repeatedly pushed the plane’s nose down, according to a draft of a preliminary report that has been published by Indonesian officials looking into last month’s deadly crash.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/lion-air-report-pilots-struggled-to-control-plane-that-crashed/10561804

just imagine if something like that happened, nahh i’m sure everything will be fine.

Spiny Norman said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ground-effect vehicle
Had to look it up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle

A ground-effect vehicle (GEV) is a vehicle that is designed to attain sustained flight over a level surface (usually over the sea) by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface. Among the best known are the Soviet ekranoplans, but names like wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), flarecraft, sea skimmer, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE) are also used.

In recent years a large number of different GEV types have been developed for both civilian and military use. However, these craft have yet to enter widespread use.

Although they may look and have related technical characteristics similar to seaplanes, ground-effect vehicles are generally not designed to fly out of ground effect. They are also dissimilar from hovercraft or hydrofoils, as they do not have any contact with the surface of the water when in “flight”. Ground-effect vehicles constitute a unique class of transportation.

Interesting.

I was told by a reliable source that a lightly loaded 747 could be safely landed if it were flown to within 30 feet above the runway & the power cut. Ground effect did the rest.

Was it me?
FWIW a normal descent in a 747 has you going to idle power all the way down to the area around the airport, where you start to have to vary your speed as the controllers tell you to. However, if you have little wind & traffic, it’s possible to go all the way down to the last little bit of the approach without using any more than idle thrust. Once you have more than about 10° of flap (there’s 20°, 25°, and the final 30° to go) the flaps generate a fair bit of drag so you often need a bit of thrust to keep the speed where you want it.
A normal landing at maximum weight (~285 tonnes for the ones I flew) has you pitching the nose up at about 30’ above the runway and then going to idle on the throttles. A lightweight landing (say 200 tonnes) has you simultaneously going to idle and pitching up (about 2°) at about 20’.

Another FWIW – at about 200’ above the ground you have to pitch down slightly as that’s where the big wing (195’ or ~60 m span) starts to get more lift from ground effect and the plane will start to shallow the descent, thus making it land much further down the runway and also make the landing more difficult.

Here’s a landing I did in Dubai

Once this column of air reaches the ground (or body of water) and fans outward, it produces straight winds that can reach up to 100 mph, equivalent in speed to an EF1 tornado on the Enhanced Fujita scale, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Strong microbursts are capable of creating havoc for miles, knocking down trees, power lines and fences and causing extreme damage to buildings. Microbursts can occur all over the United States but are more common east of the Rocky Mountains, simply because there are more thunderstorms on this side.

https://www.livescience.com/55912-microbursts.html

………….note the flattened trees………………..

wookiemeister said:

Lion Air pilots struggled to maintain control of their Boeing jet as an automatic safety system repeatedly pushed the plane’s nose down, according to a draft of a preliminary report that has been published by Indonesian officials looking into last month’s deadly crash.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/lion-air-report-pilots-struggled-to-control-plane-that-crashed/10561804

just imagine if something like that happened, nahh i’m sure everything will be fine.

Angle of attack and stall would not be an issue for WiG vehicles. Any automated height monitoring would use radar or something else.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Lion Air pilots struggled to maintain control of their Boeing jet as an automatic safety system repeatedly pushed the plane’s nose down, according to a draft of a preliminary report that has been published by Indonesian officials looking into last month’s deadly crash.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/lion-air-report-pilots-struggled-to-control-plane-that-crashed/10561804

just imagine if something like that happened, nahh i’m sure everything will be fine.

Angle of attack and stall would not be an issue for WiG vehicles. Any automated height monitoring would use radar or something else.

And I’m sure the writers of the Boeing’s software thought that the ‘safety features’ they were designing in could never have a detrimental affect.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Lion Air pilots struggled to maintain control of their Boeing jet as an automatic safety system repeatedly pushed the plane’s nose down, according to a draft of a preliminary report that has been published by Indonesian officials looking into last month’s deadly crash.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/lion-air-report-pilots-struggled-to-control-plane-that-crashed/10561804

just imagine if something like that happened, nahh i’m sure everything will be fine.

Angle of attack and stall would not be an issue for WiG vehicles. Any automated height monitoring would use radar or something else.

And I’m sure the writers of the Boeing’s software thought that the ‘safety features’ they were designing in could never have a detrimental affect.

Yeah, it is a bit of a worry. that Boeing’s attempts at additional safety can lead to such a disaster.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Lion Air pilots struggled to maintain control of their Boeing jet as an automatic safety system repeatedly pushed the plane’s nose down, according to a draft of a preliminary report that has been published by Indonesian officials looking into last month’s deadly crash.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/lion-air-report-pilots-struggled-to-control-plane-that-crashed/10561804

just imagine if something like that happened, nahh i’m sure everything will be fine.

Angle of attack and stall would not be an issue for WiG vehicles. Any automated height monitoring would use radar or something else.

no

if the electronic brain is getting the wrong input or simply making an error laden output you’ll have about 0.5 seconds to realise and correct

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Lion Air pilots struggled to maintain control of their Boeing jet as an automatic safety system repeatedly pushed the plane’s nose down, according to a draft of a preliminary report that has been published by Indonesian officials looking into last month’s deadly crash.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/lion-air-report-pilots-struggled-to-control-plane-that-crashed/10561804

just imagine if something like that happened, nahh i’m sure everything will be fine.

Angle of attack and stall would not be an issue for WiG vehicles. Any automated height monitoring would use radar or something else.

And I’m sure the writers of the Boeing’s software thought that the ‘safety features’ they were designing in could never have a detrimental affect.

famous last words

never trust the computer

Microbursts still pose an incredible danger to aircraft, particularly during a take-off or landing. With winds up to 100 mph, trying to maneuver through a strong microburst is about as difficult as flying through a tornado. And like tornadoes, microburst development can be difficult to detect on radar and seem to come out of nowhere.
https://www.livescience.com/55912-microbursts.html

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Lion Air pilots struggled to maintain control of their Boeing jet as an automatic safety system repeatedly pushed the plane’s nose down, according to a draft of a preliminary report that has been published by Indonesian officials looking into last month’s deadly crash.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/lion-air-report-pilots-struggled-to-control-plane-that-crashed/10561804

just imagine if something like that happened, nahh i’m sure everything will be fine.

Angle of attack and stall would not be an issue for WiG vehicles. Any automated height monitoring would use radar or something else.

no

if the electronic brain is getting the wrong input or simply making an error laden output you’ll have about 0.5 seconds to realise and correct

The Boeing problem is that the problem was inferred by another sensor, not directly measured. It measured airspeed and from that inferred angle of attack and imminent stall. It did not directly measure AoA to know if the airspeed sensor was faulty.

You could design a system that directly measured the parameter you need information on. Anyway WiG is inherrently much more stable.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Angle of attack and stall would not be an issue for WiG vehicles. Any automated height monitoring would use radar or something else.

no

if the electronic brain is getting the wrong input or simply making an error laden output you’ll have about 0.5 seconds to realise and correct

The Boeing problem is that the problem was inferred by another sensor, not directly measured. It measured airspeed and from that inferred angle of attack and imminent stall. It did not directly measure AoA to know if the airspeed sensor was faulty.

You could design a system that directly measured the parameter you need information on. Anyway WiG is inherrently much more stable.

Engineers make mistakes. They make mistakes all the time. Many mistakes, especially in very complex software, can be very, very, very difficult to spot and and very, very, very difficult to diagnose if the problem is somehow recognised. It doesn’t even have to be an egregious mistake, sometimes a confluence of events lines up that no-one had even thought about and you’re then in ‘fucked’ mode.

The KM crashed in 1980, apparently due to the pilot ill-advisedly attempting to take off without giving it full throttle. An attempt to recover the leviathan from the depths was thwarted by its vast weight.

Four flying examples were built, one of which crashed in the Caspian in 1975 and was subsequently rebuilt. The aircraft entered military service in 1979 with three A-90s reportedly still operational in 1993. Thereafter, they were reportedly mothballed at the Kaspiysk naval base on the Caspian.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/22/caspian_sea_monster/

the only practical use of this kind of thing is a sea skimming missile to either be aimed at ship from great distances or ICBMs

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

no

if the electronic brain is getting the wrong input or simply making an error laden output you’ll have about 0.5 seconds to realise and correct

The Boeing problem is that the problem was inferred by another sensor, not directly measured. It measured airspeed and from that inferred angle of attack and imminent stall. It did not directly measure AoA to know if the airspeed sensor was faulty.

You could design a system that directly measured the parameter you need information on. Anyway WiG is inherrently much more stable.

Engineers make mistakes. They make mistakes all the time. Many mistakes, especially in very complex software, can be very, very, very difficult to spot and and very, very, very difficult to diagnose if the problem is somehow recognised. It doesn’t even have to be an egregious mistake, sometimes a confluence of events lines up that no-one had even thought about and you’re then in ‘fucked’ mode.

Yeah I get that. But with these types of vehicles it should be easier than programming drones.

wookiemeister said:

the only practical use of this kind of thing is a sea skimming missile to either be aimed at ship from great distances or ICBMs

Too slow. Hypersonic cruise missiles is where it’s at.

you have an unmanned WIG missile that prowls around a carrier fleet picking off the lines of defence

the WIG missile uses its reserves of fuel wisely to approach ships slowly then hiding amongst the radar scatter of the waves it attacks of a night after being launched 1000 km away being guided to the target using satellites or high altitude aircraft. a satellite beams down a laser spot onto the hull of the ship so the missile isn’t confused by any ECM / flares, chaff being fired off by the ship (alltoo late). such a missile could fly up rivers to targets.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

the only practical use of this kind of thing is a sea skimming missile to either be aimed at ship from great distances or ICBMs

Too slow. Hypersonic cruise missiles is where it’s at.

no you fire the missile off 1000 km away and it cruises efficiently to the target without attracting too much attention

you could immobilise whole naval task forces with such missiles leisurely cruising around, they might even just land back at a base and then return out to sea in the absence of targets. as the target you’d never be sure if it will attack or not

something like this might drop a torpedo instead

unmanned WIG is the safest option given the nature of its cruising height.

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

the only practical use of this kind of thing is a sea skimming missile to either be aimed at ship from great distances or ICBMs

Too slow. Hypersonic cruise missiles is where it’s at.

no you fire the missile off 1000 km away and it cruises efficiently to the target without attracting too much attention

you could immobilise whole naval task forces with such missiles leisurely cruising around, they might even just land back at a base and then return out to sea in the absence of targets. as the target you’d never be sure if it will attack or not

nah, they are too slow on approach. will get shot down by any modern CIWS. If you are launching missiles 1000 km away it seems pointless using WiG as a launch platform.

you could have swarms of these things dropping hundreds of torpedoes at a large naval group

nothing would be safe

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Too slow. Hypersonic cruise missiles is where it’s at.

no you fire the missile off 1000 km away and it cruises efficiently to the target without attracting too much attention

you could immobilise whole naval task forces with such missiles leisurely cruising around, they might even just land back at a base and then return out to sea in the absence of targets. as the target you’d never be sure if it will attack or not

nah, they are too slow on approach. will get shot down by any modern CIWS. If you are launching missiles 1000 km away it seems pointless using WiG as a launch platform.

phlanx doesn’t stop torpedoes

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Too slow. Hypersonic cruise missiles is where it’s at.

no you fire the missile off 1000 km away and it cruises efficiently to the target without attracting too much attention

you could immobilise whole naval task forces with such missiles leisurely cruising around, they might even just land back at a base and then return out to sea in the absence of targets. as the target you’d never be sure if it will attack or not

nah, they are too slow on approach. will get shot down by any modern CIWS. If you are launching missiles 1000 km away it seems pointless using WiG as a launch platform.

of course you could always drop a hypersonic missile from the belly as well. you drop a torpedo and a hypersonic missile, the ship might know its out there and be on alert for HOURS

at around 2-5am thats when you strike

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

no you fire the missile off 1000 km away and it cruises efficiently to the target without attracting too much attention

you could immobilise whole naval task forces with such missiles leisurely cruising around, they might even just land back at a base and then return out to sea in the absence of targets. as the target you’d never be sure if it will attack or not

nah, they are too slow on approach. will get shot down by any modern CIWS. If you are launching missiles 1000 km away it seems pointless using WiG as a launch platform.

phlanx doesn’t stop torpedoes

Are you launching torpedoes at 1000 km range, or a more realistic 5 km? At 5 km range the WiG launch platform itself is in CIWS range.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

nah, they are too slow on approach. will get shot down by any modern CIWS. If you are launching missiles 1000 km away it seems pointless using WiG as a launch platform.

phlanx doesn’t stop torpedoes

Are you launching torpedoes at 1000 km range, or a more realistic 5 km? At 5 km range the WiG launch platform itself is in CIWS range.

no you are using the WIG as a launch platform for a torpedo

it could be a hypersonic missile at the last moment using rocket engines

as a further thought

the WIG carrier lands on the ocean like a seaplane , then submerges to just under the waves and lays in wait

you are using the efficiency of the WIG to cruise large distances discreetly, harass and deny portions of the ocean

I’m always rather stunned about people’s knowledge of military hardware, and I’m not having a go at anyone here on this, it’s just a general comment. Someone mentions a tank, or a plane, or a rifle on a website and invariably there’ll be someone who can jump in and correct even the slightest error in the post.

I spent 9 years wearing a funny uniform, albeit many years ago, and could not for the life of me correctly identify one single piece of current military equipment :)

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

phlanx doesn’t stop torpedoes

Are you launching torpedoes at 1000 km range, or a more realistic 5 km? At 5 km range the WiG launch platform itself is in CIWS range.

no you are using the WIG as a launch platform for a torpedo

it could be a hypersonic missile at the last moment using rocket engines

as a further thought

the WIG carrier lands on the ocean like a seaplane , then submerges to just under the waves and lays in wait

you’re all over the place on this one Wookie.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Are you launching torpedoes at 1000 km range, or a more realistic 5 km? At 5 km range the WiG launch platform itself is in CIWS range.

no you are using the WIG as a launch platform for a torpedo

it could be a hypersonic missile at the last moment using rocket engines

as a further thought

the WIG carrier lands on the ocean like a seaplane , then submerges to just under the waves and lays in wait

you’re all over the place on this one Wookie.

no its called brainstorming

its a launch platform

its a missile

its a hybrid sub

either way it takes off and leisurely stalks a naval taskforce

the iranians might have similar ideas, hence their weird little and“harmless” WIGs they use. they are obviously used to launch much faster missiles after creeping up on american carriers, ships.

you could use them to fell supply ships to the taskforce

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

no you are using the WIG as a launch platform for a torpedo

it could be a hypersonic missile at the last moment using rocket engines

as a further thought

the WIG carrier lands on the ocean like a seaplane , then submerges to just under the waves and lays in wait

you’re all over the place on this one Wookie.

no its called brainstorming

its a launch platform

its a missile

its a hybrid sub

either way it takes off and leisurely stalks a naval taskforce

the iranians might have similar ideas, hence their weird little and“harmless” WIGs they use. they are obviously used to launch much faster missiles after creeping up on american carriers, ships.

you could use them to fell supply ships to the taskforce

It’s not really brainstorming as such. The brainstorm question was how they’d go carrying passengers and freight over land. Sinking American carriers in the Hormuz is not really part of the equation.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Are you launching torpedoes at 1000 km range, or a more realistic 5 km? At 5 km range the WiG launch platform itself is in CIWS range.

no you are using the WIG as a launch platform for a torpedo

it could be a hypersonic missile at the last moment using rocket engines

as a further thought

the WIG carrier lands on the ocean like a seaplane , then submerges to just under the waves and lays in wait

you’re all over the place on this one Wookie.

welcome to wookieworld the land of the shifting goalposts.

i thought the whole idea was that the roads we have already are cleared
and everyone gets a personal ground effect flyer

JudgeMental said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

no you are using the WIG as a launch platform for a torpedo

it could be a hypersonic missile at the last moment using rocket engines

as a further thought

the WIG carrier lands on the ocean like a seaplane , then submerges to just under the waves and lays in wait

you’re all over the place on this one Wookie.

welcome to wookieworld the land of the shifting goalposts.

We now seem to have a weapon launched as a torpedo from a low and slow (compared to a conventional fighter-bomber aircraft) WiG effect vessel, which travels under water for a distance and then somehow turns into a hypersonic (by definition above water) missile, with a 1000 km range.

That’s how I read it anyway.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

you’re all over the place on this one Wookie.

no its called brainstorming

its a launch platform

its a missile

its a hybrid sub

either way it takes off and leisurely stalks a naval taskforce

the iranians might have similar ideas, hence their weird little and“harmless” WIGs they use. they are obviously used to launch much faster missiles after creeping up on american carriers, ships.

you could use them to fell supply ships to the taskforce

It’s not really brainstorming as such. The brainstorm question was how they’d go carrying passengers and freight over land. Sinking American carriers in the Hormuz is not really part of the equation.

wrong again party pants

this was the question : Would it be possible to build a vehicle that used WIG effect along a cleared land corridor as an alternative to long distance/high speed railways?

there was no mention of passengers and freight

my answer was a clear NO

too much to go wrong at a low altitude at high speed

extending the idea i then proposed that the only real use was military (funny enough the russians thought so too – the iranians as well but the russians seemed to have suffered crashes of the few that were built)

given the dangerous conditions unmanned over water for military purposes seems the most practical option.

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

no its called brainstorming

its a launch platform

its a missile

its a hybrid sub

either way it takes off and leisurely stalks a naval taskforce

the iranians might have similar ideas, hence their weird little and“harmless” WIGs they use. they are obviously used to launch much faster missiles after creeping up on american carriers, ships.

you could use them to fell supply ships to the taskforce

It’s not really brainstorming as such. The brainstorm question was how they’d go carrying passengers and freight over land. Sinking American carriers in the Hormuz is not really part of the equation.

wrong again party pants

this was the question : Would it be possible to build a vehicle that used WIG effect along a cleared land corridor as an alternative to long distance/high speed railways?

there was no mention of passengers and freight

my answer was a clear NO

too much to go wrong at a low altitude at high speed

extending the idea i then proposed that the only real use was military (funny enough the russians thought so too – the iranians as well but the russians seemed to have suffered crashes of the few that were built)

given the dangerous conditions unmanned over water for military purposes seems the most practical option.

> too much to go wrong at a low altitude at high speed

Better avoid racecars then. And skiing.

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

no its called brainstorming

its a launch platform

its a missile

its a hybrid sub

either way it takes off and leisurely stalks a naval taskforce

the iranians might have similar ideas, hence their weird little and“harmless” WIGs they use. they are obviously used to launch much faster missiles after creeping up on american carriers, ships.

you could use them to fell supply ships to the taskforce

It’s not really brainstorming as such. The brainstorm question was how they’d go carrying passengers and freight over land. Sinking American carriers in the Hormuz is not really part of the equation.

wrong again party pants

this was the question : Would it be possible to build a vehicle that used WIG effect along a cleared land corridor as an alternative to long distance/high speed railways?

there was no mention of passengers and freight

my answer was a clear NO

too much to go wrong at a low altitude at high speed

extending the idea i then proposed that the only real use was military (funny enough the russians thought so too – the iranians as well but the russians seemed to have suffered crashes of the few that were built)

given the dangerous conditions unmanned over water for military purposes seems the most practical option.

what else do you think railways carry apart from passengers and freight?

Your military applications are piffle, modern warships carry weapon systems that can shoot down smaller and faster targets like sea skimming missiles and fighter aircraft travelling at high subsonic speed. WiG effect craft being bigger and much slower would be easy targets to shoot down, especially if trying to get within torpedo range.

The only use for them in a military sense is carrying troops, vehicles, tanks and supplies (i.e. passengers and freight). Even then they are not the kind of craft that can survive the weather conditions over oceans. They are not an offensive weapon. They were trialled with anti-ship missiles but these tests concluded they were shit for the task.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

It’s not really brainstorming as such. The brainstorm question was how they’d go carrying passengers and freight over land. Sinking American carriers in the Hormuz is not really part of the equation.

wrong again party pants

this was the question : Would it be possible to build a vehicle that used WIG effect along a cleared land corridor as an alternative to long distance/high speed railways?

there was no mention of passengers and freight

my answer was a clear NO

too much to go wrong at a low altitude at high speed

extending the idea i then proposed that the only real use was military (funny enough the russians thought so too – the iranians as well but the russians seemed to have suffered crashes of the few that were built)

given the dangerous conditions unmanned over water for military purposes seems the most practical option.

what else do you think railways carry apart from passengers and freight?

Your military applications are piffle, modern warships carry weapon systems that can shoot down smaller and faster targets like sea skimming missiles and fighter aircraft travelling at high subsonic speed. WiG effect craft being bigger and much slower would be easy targets to shoot down, especially if trying to get within torpedo range.

The only use for them in a military sense is carrying troops, vehicles, tanks and supplies (i.e. passengers and freight). Even then they are not the kind of craft that can survive the weather conditions over oceans. They are not an offensive weapon. They were trialled with anti-ship missiles but these tests concluded they were shit for the task.

Ground hugging on land would be impossible to shoot down except from aircraft. That’s why drones were so effective, despite their slow speed.

But not stealthy, because too noisy. Not that freight trains are particularly quiet either. Faster than train.

mollwollfumble said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

It’s not really brainstorming as such. The brainstorm question was how they’d go carrying passengers and freight over land. Sinking American carriers in the Hormuz is not really part of the equation.

wrong again party pants

this was the question : Would it be possible to build a vehicle that used WIG effect along a cleared land corridor as an alternative to long distance/high speed railways?

there was no mention of passengers and freight

my answer was a clear NO

too much to go wrong at a low altitude at high speed

extending the idea i then proposed that the only real use was military (funny enough the russians thought so too – the iranians as well but the russians seemed to have suffered crashes of the few that were built)

given the dangerous conditions unmanned over water for military purposes seems the most practical option.

> too much to go wrong at a low altitude at high speed

Better avoid racecars then. And skiing.

but these things are mostly attached to the ground

low level flight has always been seen as risky and is avoided.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

It’s not really brainstorming as such. The brainstorm question was how they’d go carrying passengers and freight over land. Sinking American carriers in the Hormuz is not really part of the equation.

wrong again party pants

this was the question : Would it be possible to build a vehicle that used WIG effect along a cleared land corridor as an alternative to long distance/high speed railways?

there was no mention of passengers and freight

my answer was a clear NO

too much to go wrong at a low altitude at high speed

extending the idea i then proposed that the only real use was military (funny enough the russians thought so too – the iranians as well but the russians seemed to have suffered crashes of the few that were built)

given the dangerous conditions unmanned over water for military purposes seems the most practical option.

what else do you think railways carry apart from passengers and freight?

Your military applications are piffle, modern warships carry weapon systems that can shoot down smaller and faster targets like sea skimming missiles and fighter aircraft travelling at high subsonic speed. WiG effect craft being bigger and much slower would be easy targets to shoot down, especially if trying to get within torpedo range.

The only use for them in a military sense is carrying troops, vehicles, tanks and supplies (i.e. passengers and freight). Even then they are not the kind of craft that can survive the weather conditions over oceans. They are not an offensive weapon. They were trialled with anti-ship missiles but these tests concluded they were shit for the task.

if this was true then why do they still make sea skimming missiles ? for old times sake ?

you can use slow moving sea skimming carrier craft to carry a missile to close to its destination, you use an eye in the sky to bring it “close” to its target, fire it and then turn away

imagine if you had more than one carrier circling around a target

i don’t see a ground effect aircraft as being particularly safe to travel in – you are riding low low, going too fast to correct for any problem that might crop up. if its unmanned and lightweight all fine and dandy, big, heavy and lumbering along with humans on board – forget it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

now i go looking to see if others think along the same lines as myself

Now, the Chinese are reputedly in the process of developing a sea skimming, ground effect anti ship missile. Its terminal approach altitude is supposedly going to be 18 inches and mount around a 900kg warhead. No don’t ask me how they are going to take into account ocean swells. But a good reason its air intake is mounted on top. If the parameters are accurate and its speed will be around 965km/h, given current radar horizons on a Burke, that will give the ship around 59 seconds to react. Below is the image released of the supposed prototype:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26382/china-sea-skimming-anti-ship-drone/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXb8vcz7vq8

https://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/falkland-islands/45704/bbc-finds-evidence-french-helped-argentines-sink-our-ships

BBC finds evidence that French helped Argentines sink our ships

French support for us may not have been “picture-perfect” but the overall effect of the programme was to highlight how generally effective it had been. Certainly streets ahead of some of our other “allies”.

The Belgians, for instance, refused to sell us artillery and small arms ammunition.

Israel’s extensive support for Argentina during the war was laid out recently in startling detail by the Argentine journalist Hernan Dobry in his book Operation Israel: the Rearming of Argentina During the Dictatorship 1976-1983. Menachem Begin, then prime minister, did all he could to transport arms and equipment to Argentina because he hated the British so much. Apparently, in 1947 the British Mandatory authorities had (after due process and quite properly) hanged one of his terrorist chums.

But it’s the attitude of the United States that still grates most of all. Their reluctance to support us against the Fascist Argentine Junta is well known. Initially, in April 1982, they even refused us permission to use the US operated airfield on Ascension Island (a British Crown Colony for Heaven’s sake) to refuel RAF aircraft. In 2012 the US does not recognise our legal claim to the Falkland Islands which Hillary Clinton’s staff insolently refer to as “Las Malvinas”.

beware of “friends” and “allies” in times of war.

just reviving this idea for a moment…

I notice looking at Google Earth that Australia has many salt lakes that seem to arrange themselves in chains, like they are following the bed of ancient rivers. Perhaps these could be turned into corridors for WIG effect aircraft. It wouldn’t really matter if they are dry, muddy or full of water, and the land is not currently being used agriculturally.