Engineering360: "Ground-Effect Cargo Craft Under Development"

Is that really something new? See: The Ekranoplan

Came across this while doing some video research on alternative airplane design. Although it seems to me the Spruce Goose owes it's maiden and only flight to the effect.

I'm thinking the premise of Red Dawn wasn't too far fetched, as such crafts could have easily flown under our radar at the time--similarly, I suppose, to the way it flew under MY radar until just a few years ago.

You might enjoy "The Deltoid Pumkin Seed" by John McPhee.

I read the synopsis. Perhaps--if I could enjoy reading fiction anymore. I guess perhaps I was being a little melodramatic, prompting your comment. I retract the "Red Dawn" comment, after reading this: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2952/can-someone-actually-fly-under-the-radar

Well, the Russians were obviously under the radar, at least metaphorically, judging by the contents of this post. 50+ yr old technology--rehashed...sorta like me (haha).

It is non fiction.

So much for first impressions and smooth introductions. I guess I leapt to conclusions about the subject matter. In my defense, however, Amazon's description didn't help: "This is the fascinating story of the dream of a completely new aircraft, a hybrid of the plane and the rigid airship - huge, wingless, moving slowly through the lower sky."

"Fascinating"...."story"...."dream"-- After that volley, I pretty much checked off the court. How is a hybrid of a plane and airship a dream, unless you're speaking primarily in terms of commercialization?

Is there some sort of time warp around planet earth. Nothing new about this, the Russians were building these years ago.

https://www.wired.com/2011/06/ekranoplan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

https://www.defensetech.org/2011/09/27/wednesday-aircraft-porn-the-ekranoplan/

http://attk-invest.com/

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

Th operate them in Australia commercially.

What is the chances that the rest of the world can catch up with reality. New to the west, no doubt, but not to others. Thank you Russia for this great invention. Pity it was not viable at the time

Can we take this discussion into a tangent?

I was a big Letterman fan in high school. There was this episode where Letterman flew a "lawnmower" around the studio. Can't seem to find footage on Google or Bing search engines, but was able to find a similar, if not the same, RC aircraft on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26PpA1kFIWw

When I saw it it led me to believe that the concept of an "airplane" could be taken quite literally-- "air" + "plane". One could literally fly a sheet of plywood...all that would be missing are the control surfaces. I came to the theory that aircraft modeled after nature's example may not necessarily be the most efficient designs, economically or practically.

Designers of supercars and race cars spend a lot of time and effort on solving the problem of downforce. Drag boats do the best they can to cling to the surface of the water, but they also spend a lot of time airborne: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUenNETcVmQ

What would occur if you melded their design with that of the RC lawnmover? The flying car? An Ekranoplan that could take off into the atmosphere if needed?

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

Is this the one?

That would be the one. A commercialized version, albeit, described through this link:

Flying Lawnmower

I think the one Letterman flew was it's prototype. I remember it being red, not green.

you are describing a hovercraft. A hovercraft is not a lifting body aircraft, which relies on a positive angle of attack to generate lift.

Who is describing a hovercraft? The OP?

Flying Lawnmower in Action No air-cushion involved.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's doesn't take a quantum leap of logic to progress from:

1) aerodynamics designed to assist a vehicle in adhering to a surface

2) ground effect vehicles e.g. the Ekranoplan

3) aircraft without "wings" e.g. the Flying Lawnmower

4) With the proper thrust and control surfaces what's preventing a supercar or drag boat from taking advantage of ground-effect or even flying?

lol, right you are. I watched the wrong youtube.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&p=lawnmower+hovercraft#id=2&vid=bf0cab6fc0d75039d48fc20ad1327bef&action=click

that is one dedicated RC modeler.

There is nothing wrong in utilising the effects of using a ground effect on any of your ideas. An airfloat boat is in Au I believe. The whole idea revolves around attaining a certain speed to create the lift. With the speed one requires wider and longer corners and with drag boats the whole intention is to lift as much boat out of the water to rduce drag.

They would then need to move the prop forward to prevent the bow, (nose) from flipping over. A move away from conventional drag boat design. Maybe it is only the rules stopping them.

Also with cars they want suction, (down force), to the tarmac to obtain grip to create propulsion via the tyres. The akron wants no friction and no downforce at all. It wants nill resistance and a cushion of air to float on. They are both opposites of forces.

I think we've established that "Ground-Effect Cargo Craft Under Development" is just old gravy warmed over, so to speak, and I don't want to interfere with any further posters who may want to hail it as some latest-greatest type of thingy.

So to continue the tangent I started a new thread, albeit anonymously: The Flying Car.

Please, if you will, join in...thanks in advance