red750 Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 This is an old thread, but I came across this today. Who'll be first?
Phil Perry Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I'd guess that it isn't technically an Aircraft,. . .but a ground effect water cruiser. . . . Probably Russian or Eastern European in origin ? They seemed to master that sort of tech in the 60s. . .and probably before that. . . lots of examples on the interwebbythingummy. . . 1
Marty_d Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 A WIG craft... Wing In Ground effect. There was a company set up not far from where I live that was going to make small ones - haven't heard what happened to them, must've had more ambition than capability. Or found out the legislative restrictions were going to be harsher over here than the US - I believe you can drive one with a powerboat licence over there, they're not classified as an aircraft because they can't go higher than half the wingspan.
Guernsey Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 This WIG craft also has a WOW factor....Wing over water effect. . Alan.
kasper Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 flightship 8 ... or airfish 8 depending on when the pic was taken (it got renamed) and it was Australian designed and built in Qld ... just checked - designed and built in Germany, brought to Australia - Australian company went bust, all assets and IP sold to Singapore ... nothing much happening since 2010
red750 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Here's one without a photo. What jet aircraft was designed to take off and land on water skis?
kasper Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Here's one without a photo. What jet aircraft was designed to take off and land on water skis? Convair FY2 seadart would fit the bill 1
Yenn Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 A flying friend of mine was heavily involved with the firm that built them in Cairns. Talking to him last weekend he said the biggest problem with them was longitudinal stability. The most competent auto pilots were not good enough to control them. The Russians built a lot of them as troop transports, but they are reputedly laid up and gently corroding away.
kasper Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 A flying friend of mine was heavily involved with the firm that built them in Cairns. Talking to him last weekend he said the biggest problem with them was longitudinal stability. The most competent auto pilots were not good enough to control them.The Russians built a lot of them as troop transports, but they are reputedly laid up and gently corroding away. Yep, all flying wings have an issue with the level of longitudinal stability - without a long moment arm on a second flying surface they are limited and will react to air movement ... the tailplane on these WIGs is an attempt at reducing the impact BUT when you are using ground effect over waves on water the upsets from waves generally impacts the stability and introduces a very umpleasant rocking ... welcome to seasickness in the air. The issue is lessened the larger the WIG is - the Kaspian sea monster for example at over 90m long and with a weight around 500t simply beat the waves into submission and was like many ekranoplan operationally workable ... but none appear to have given much service over the years. 1
Yenn Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 I was told that the Russian Ekranoplanes were large but had to have massive power. That really defeats the purpose for non military use.
kasper Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Yes lots of power and quite a few engines ... but remember you are pushing several hundred tons of aircraft along at turboprop speeds - lots of power yes but its efficiency is greater than the same load being lifted out of ground effect
willedoo Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 That's interesting. Does anyone have any thoughts on the aerodynamics behind the large horizontal stabilizers. I can only think of the large dihedral shape being for roll resistance and to counteract the weight of all those engines, being mounted high and lateral. Even without the engines, is there an ever present roll instability in ground effect? I don't know much about ground effect forces. Cheers, Willie.
planedriver Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Probably similar to boats. once they have enough power to lift them up on the plane, power can be reduced to around 1/3rd and they will just about stay there. These beasts would be similar I would have thought, in that once they become unstuck and in ground effect, it would probably be similar scenario. At first sight 8 big jets look like a bit of an overkill, but that's probably what they need for the initial lift. Just glad I'm not paying the fuel bill. 1 1
djpacro Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Tailplane dihedral gets it away from wake and efflux at high angles of attack. Of course it also provides its own dihedral effect wrt spiral and Dutch roll stability modes.
DGL Fox Posted February 22, 2016 Author Posted February 22, 2016 This one should be easy...who's aircraft is this? David
kasper Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 This one should be easy...who's aircraft is this?David [ATTACH=full]41626[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]41626[/ATTACH] Burt Hinklers Avro Avian i am pretty sure 3
willedoo Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 This aircraft is not too hard to pick - the nationality is obvious, also that it's an ejection testbed. Question is, what aircraft is it, and what has it got to do with the U.S.A. ?
kasper Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 looks like the ar$e end of an AN12 - the russian equivalent of the C130 Herc so there is a weak link to the USA 1
willedoo Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 looks like the ar$e end of an AN12 - the russian equivalent of the C130 Herc so there is a weak link to the USA Correct there, Kasper; it's the An-12MLL testbed. That's not the link to the U.S.A. though. More related to the F-22 and F-35. The seat is the clue. Cheers, Willie.
Kiwi303 Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Well, it is the Bears shooting a Man out the test capsule... the US did it the other way and had Men shooting Bears out of their test rigs. Part of the research for the B58 Hustler system included drugging man sized bears and strapping them into the ejection seat capsules the B58 was to use and poping them out in various ways, face first, arse first, sideways, etc. Then once that was all done they got put down and autopsied to see what happens internally 2
rankamateur Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Well, it is the Bears shooting a Man out the test capsule... the US did it the other way and had Men shooting Bears out of their test rigs.Part of the research for the B58 Hustler system included drugging man sized bears and strapping them into the ejection seat capsules the B58 was to use and poping them out in various ways, face first, **** first, sideways, etc. Then once that was all done they got put down and autopsied to see what happens internally Just like the cosmetics industry...not tested on animals...much.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now