China develops water-skimming plane

I was recently on a cruise where the waves were 16ft to 20ft. I would not have wanted to be in a plane that flys above the surface at 1ft 7 ins at 180 miles per hour.

By God! Do I dare say... Yes, someday we'll have planes that actually fly in the ocean! And we will call these ships!!!

Don't just read what is on CR4 site. Visit the link and read further details. It says it CAN fly as low as half a meter but that would not be its normal flying altitude. From the looks of the plane the wing span might be closer to 50 feet in which case the proper flying altitude would be more like 100 feet. From the shape of the plane & added on pontoon like extensions I would assume it would take off from water itself. They are already planning 50 seaters & 200-400 ton capacity planes down the line.

I would guess they would come in really handy in the great lakes areas or for not so near off shore oil platforms in emergency situations. Helicopters have a real big disadvantage in such situations. Extremely limited range & load capacities. Can't land on the water either.

Apparently you have never flown anything like the the really old time 2 seater Piper Moth trainers. These were wooden framed fabric covered monoplanes with dope used to glue & shrink the fabric tight to conform to the wing & fuselage shape.

I have. It is not all that bad !

Who'd they steal the design from, Larry the Cable Guy? They'll probably sell the thing to Iran or Osama to use as a terror weapon (oops, that's the North Koreans). Is it a retractable WIG? Just wondering how it takes off and lands. We already have really good hovercraft, helicopters, cruise missiles (which aren't being used enough obviously), ships, and commercial aircraft, why would anyone want one of these? Kind of like the boat car or car boat, or the thing that sinks immediately if the chop on the water gets over eight inches high. Some ideas don't need to see the light of reality.

Hi MSNBC. I am sorry to break your bubble, but the Russians developed this technology way back in the 1980s and 1990s. They developed and flew very large aircraft that skimmed the surface of the Caspian and the Black seas at a speed of 400knots. Since then there are a number of private people who have developed their own types of these planes for their private use. Spencer.

Ten years ago I watched a group of Russian engineers complete a plane at Zanadu, in the Bahamas which resembled a Cesna fuselage, without wings, high-mounted to a very large wing WIG.

It had a reported 400 mile range. The Plane / Flotation Wing was also the fuel storage and two continentals were mounted on tall hard-points, either side of the wingless cockpit and tail section. The photos on The WIG page of the more modern piper-looking aircraft, nestled low on the plane are the closest to what I saw. Must have been an early version.

I was told it was capable of 90 knots in seas up to 2 feet and 55-70 knots on waves as much as 4 feet. Howard Hughes would have been proud to see it fly next to his Time Share.

It's nice to see the Chinese have overcome the leading edge effect. I wonder what system they are using to alter the surface plane of the water, in advance of the oncoming wing, to avoid the messy wreckage 40 years of engineering couldn't overcome in USSR and USA? I guess they paid off the drag co-efficiency, so the story could be published. No mention of the fuel efficiency, either...

Why would anyone want to spend so much money to overcome escape velocity of water? It's like concrete when you touch even the slightest bit of air frame at the wrong incline. (Unless you plan on avoiding radar...)

Isn't a Harrier or a Bell Helicopter, with twin turbines and floats, more affordable and safer? Auto-rotation from 2 feet doesn't give the pilot much reaction time, does it?

I would want about fifteen feet of space between me and the seat in front of me and one heck of an airbag!

Gotta' admit; I was diving, feeding and photographing 29 sharks while I was there and wasn't the chosen one with chain-mail underwear. (Talk about questionable risk management...)

If they say it can fly, I'll go for a shake down.

Might be time for off shore filling stations! Boooyahh!

As for the terror threat; if they make you fly naked, would that make you feel better?

I got ta tell ya, I just don't get it, unless this story came from the Onion! It seems to combine the worst of both worlds (ships and planes)... Perhaps someday busses will fly! Yeah, sure!

Part of the Ops Manual of the WW II PBY "Catalina" covered possible range extensions by flying in "ground effect" altitudes. In some cases the Catalina's 2,545 mile range could be extended nearly 30% by reducing the airspeed to that just above stall speed which is much less when operating in ground effect.

That may be true, but it was my understanding that the mentioned plane was also somewhat feared as a "death-trap." Even today, I believe it's a rare pilot that will operate one.

I've never heard them called "death traps" but according to Jane's Aircraft of the World 2005 issue, the Catalina served in the Pacific, Atlantic and under the flag of nearly all the allied nations in WW II. If you have a chance, look up the history of this valiant defender. You may be surprised at her impressive battle history.

Hi taejonkwando. I agree with you, the Catalina was one of the aircraft worlds best workhorses. One of my uncles flew Catalinas during the second world war, he told me it was one of the safest planes he had ever flown. Regarding ground effect flying machines, I see no reason for the other people on this blog laughing about it. The Japanese, Austrailians and the Russins are developing them at a fast rate, I have seen the huge Russian machine in operation and it was very impressive. As I said in my previous post, the Russians were the first to use this technology way back in the 1980s on a regular basis. Spencer.