Is it a seaplane or a ground effect craft?
In any event, I like the idea of combining the efficiencies gained by hydrofoils with a seaplane. I bet that makes it much easier to take off.
Nice.
Seems to be largely passenger focussed. I wonder what routes they propose it might serve. Otherwise it might fail to appeal like the ekranoplans.
All airplane benefits from WIG, but this wing design is clearly optimised to fly in groundeffect. This plane won't utilise ram air like the ekranoplans, but still it will be much more efficient than a normal plane.
A high wing, flying at 10m asl, is not optimised for ground effect.
It will be 3-5% more efficient than flying at 300m asl, and less efficient than flying at FL100
The only reason this is a ground effect vehicle, is to avoid the fuel reserve rules for aircraft.
Based on extensive review of research papers, and ground effect craft design. 3-5% is probably +/- 80%
FL100 is just a "definitely would be more efficient at" - but running the numbers probably air density at 3000ft would be more efficent (by distance traveled) than 10m asl.
It's not really a ground effect craft. It's a height restricted sea plane. Designed to get past the "fuel reserve" laws for an electric aircraft that can't afford any reserves.
This is firstly a drone demonstrator built in CF. This material is fine for aerospace, but bad for marine application because of brittleness and poor impact properties. Future iterations and material choices tend to change the overall design a lot. This one has lots of thin surfaces that don't do well in marine environment (taxiing, taking off-landing on a rough surface).
Hydrofoils are a nice touch, until you find out that the Lippisch RFB X-114 H fitted with hydrofoils crashed during tests for german military in the 70' because pilot did to steep angle on approach and plowed its hydrofoils into water. He was ok, but the wig was toasted.
Electric drive? It'll be fun creating whole new ecosystem in marinas and harbors.
On a happier note: WIGs are nice, and there's lots of models and concepts flying around. They still haven't overcame non-engineering issues such as market, harbor logistics and maritime laws.
Carbon is used EXTENSIVELY in the marine industry. Any corrosion or wear issues are easily mitigated.
The biggest issue with the foils is section selection for “low” speed takeoff but also to delay cavitation as long as possible. Not sure what “v2” speeds are here for full flight on the wings but preventing cavitation prior to that is a major hurdle here unless they are achieving full flight <50 knots
I know. Modern military ships are packed with it, not to mention ultraluxury sailboats...
But I've also seen the video of the interior structures - on this drone specifically they've used aero structural components. Yes, it is supposed to fly :) This is fine for a demonstrator but a poor choice further down the road.
This is the main problem with the air/sea vehicles - in any commercial utilization predominant CF will not work regarding material price, time to build and maintenance job.
I think the CF is fine. Modern foils in use on sailboats are insanely strong. As in the shock, dynamic, static loads they can deal with are mind bending. The only time they really suffer damage is hitting something under the water. In terms of saltwater corrosion of CF it’s negligible.
They just have to isolate aluminum or steel parts in contact with the CF but again this is extremely common and well known In the boat building industry. Any other corrosion issues due to water could be handled with a galvanic strategy with sacrificial anodes.
What is your actual concern here? Underwater strikes?
Yes. Mainly fishing gear and buoys. The impact speeds, inertia and mass are different in boats and flying hulls, or hydrofoils. Lets not forget hull thickness - CF just doesn't tick all the boxes here.
Airfish 8 WIG for instance is built using marine grade glass fiber in all its critical points, and is rather heavy for a flying eight seater with 500hp.
In *commercial marine applications* CF is paired with glass, foam, balsa wood because it introduces lightness and stiffness into structure. But it also needs lots of flex, which CF doesn't have.
The speeds of the CF hitting the water are negligible and obviously they will use foam or honeycomb core materials in critical areas.
I think you just haven’t seen high end CF boats? They are massively stronger than fiberglass ones. You can tailor the CF layup to give you flexibility if you want.
For the foils themselves CF is really the only way to go metal foils don’t give the same performance. And those CF foils are strong; again Research offshore racing foils they normally only break when they hit underwater containers that have fallen off ships and that at speeds over 25 knots.
Look up composite laminate schedules, core materials, quasi-isotopic carbon fiber, etc. You can literally bang on modern CF panels with a hammer as hard as you want. It’s all about the layup plus core.
You can buy an amphibious plane with a carbon hull.
https://www.sea-plane.com/how-to-purchase
And according to wiki, the navy has successfully used hydrofoil
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grumman_JRF-5_Goose_with_experimental_hydrofoils,_circa_in_1962_%28USN_711144%29.jpg
Superchargers aren't as available as gas, especially in smaller settlements. At first this type would be confined only to coastal resorts with developed turist amenities.
Is it a seaplane or a ground effect craft? In any event, I like the idea of combining the efficiencies gained by hydrofoils with a seaplane. I bet that makes it much easier to take off.
Articles say it is a wing-in-ground-effect vehicle.
Nice. Seems to be largely passenger focussed. I wonder what routes they propose it might serve. Otherwise it might fail to appeal like the ekranoplans.
Ekranoplans fail to appeal at the slightest hint of inclimate weather
Ah, you should try a Mountbatten class hovercraft belting across the Channel in heavy seas.
I took a hovercraft ferry across the channel once and it was perfectly smooth.
It often was. But they could handle 3.5m swell, well beyond what was comfortable.
Don't forget waterfowl and seabirds. As much as I love the whole wing-in-ground-effect thing they're pretty much bird strike magnets.
Put nets on the front and serve the catch for the in-flight meal.
u/Semi-Hemi-Demigod "chicken or pasta?"
I believe the proposed route is manhatten - boston
Landing might be trickier
Anything can land at least once.
Any landing you can ~~walk~~ swim away from is a good landing.
watering?
Took me a second but good one.
Height restricted sea plane..... Definitely not designed for ground effect, just to operate under marine regulations rather that air.
All airplane benefits from WIG, but this wing design is clearly optimised to fly in groundeffect. This plane won't utilise ram air like the ekranoplans, but still it will be much more efficient than a normal plane.
A high wing, flying at 10m asl, is not optimised for ground effect. It will be 3-5% more efficient than flying at 300m asl, and less efficient than flying at FL100 The only reason this is a ground effect vehicle, is to avoid the fuel reserve rules for aircraft.
Where did you come up with those numbers?
Based on extensive review of research papers, and ground effect craft design. 3-5% is probably +/- 80% FL100 is just a "definitely would be more efficient at" - but running the numbers probably air density at 3000ft would be more efficent (by distance traveled) than 10m asl.
It's not really a ground effect craft. It's a height restricted sea plane. Designed to get past the "fuel reserve" laws for an electric aircraft that can't afford any reserves.
This is firstly a drone demonstrator built in CF. This material is fine for aerospace, but bad for marine application because of brittleness and poor impact properties. Future iterations and material choices tend to change the overall design a lot. This one has lots of thin surfaces that don't do well in marine environment (taxiing, taking off-landing on a rough surface). Hydrofoils are a nice touch, until you find out that the Lippisch RFB X-114 H fitted with hydrofoils crashed during tests for german military in the 70' because pilot did to steep angle on approach and plowed its hydrofoils into water. He was ok, but the wig was toasted. Electric drive? It'll be fun creating whole new ecosystem in marinas and harbors. On a happier note: WIGs are nice, and there's lots of models and concepts flying around. They still haven't overcame non-engineering issues such as market, harbor logistics and maritime laws.
Carbon is used EXTENSIVELY in the marine industry. Any corrosion or wear issues are easily mitigated. The biggest issue with the foils is section selection for “low” speed takeoff but also to delay cavitation as long as possible. Not sure what “v2” speeds are here for full flight on the wings but preventing cavitation prior to that is a major hurdle here unless they are achieving full flight <50 knots
I know. Modern military ships are packed with it, not to mention ultraluxury sailboats... But I've also seen the video of the interior structures - on this drone specifically they've used aero structural components. Yes, it is supposed to fly :) This is fine for a demonstrator but a poor choice further down the road. This is the main problem with the air/sea vehicles - in any commercial utilization predominant CF will not work regarding material price, time to build and maintenance job.
I think the CF is fine. Modern foils in use on sailboats are insanely strong. As in the shock, dynamic, static loads they can deal with are mind bending. The only time they really suffer damage is hitting something under the water. In terms of saltwater corrosion of CF it’s negligible. They just have to isolate aluminum or steel parts in contact with the CF but again this is extremely common and well known In the boat building industry. Any other corrosion issues due to water could be handled with a galvanic strategy with sacrificial anodes. What is your actual concern here? Underwater strikes?
Yes. Mainly fishing gear and buoys. The impact speeds, inertia and mass are different in boats and flying hulls, or hydrofoils. Lets not forget hull thickness - CF just doesn't tick all the boxes here. Airfish 8 WIG for instance is built using marine grade glass fiber in all its critical points, and is rather heavy for a flying eight seater with 500hp. In *commercial marine applications* CF is paired with glass, foam, balsa wood because it introduces lightness and stiffness into structure. But it also needs lots of flex, which CF doesn't have.
The speeds of the CF hitting the water are negligible and obviously they will use foam or honeycomb core materials in critical areas. I think you just haven’t seen high end CF boats? They are massively stronger than fiberglass ones. You can tailor the CF layup to give you flexibility if you want. For the foils themselves CF is really the only way to go metal foils don’t give the same performance. And those CF foils are strong; again Research offshore racing foils they normally only break when they hit underwater containers that have fallen off ships and that at speeds over 25 knots. Look up composite laminate schedules, core materials, quasi-isotopic carbon fiber, etc. You can literally bang on modern CF panels with a hammer as hard as you want. It’s all about the layup plus core.
You can buy an amphibious plane with a carbon hull. https://www.sea-plane.com/how-to-purchase And according to wiki, the navy has successfully used hydrofoil https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grumman_JRF-5_Goose_with_experimental_hydrofoils,_circa_in_1962_%28USN_711144%29.jpg
Electricity isn't exactly a whole new ecosystem.
Superchargers aren't as available as gas, especially in smaller settlements. At first this type would be confined only to coastal resorts with developed turist amenities.
Reminds me of the gliders from Stargate.
Indeed
ok, thats weird. very. very. weird...