EKRANOPLANS (WIGs)

A few much-needed corrections

So, what about an amphibian freighter?

Longhaul military/civil freighter lineup looks like:

Lockheed Hercules/C-130 is out of production C130J remains in production
Lockheed C-141 is out of production

Lockheed Galaxy/C-5 is out of production. It also is purely in military use

McDonnell-Douglas BC-17 is still in production Yes, the C-17 remains in production

An-22 is out of production

Il-76, IIRC, is still in production I do not believe so but am not certain, What is your source?

An-124 is available for civil use, unlike C-5

An-225 is available. The second frame is not completed. The first AN-225 is reported to have suffered an accident which may mean it is no longer available.

Airbus Beluga is out of production Airbus have said the tooling remains available and are contemplating restarting production of the Beluga to meet the growing demand for outsize lift, including inhouse for the A400M components

Boeing Dreamlifter is not certified for use by others. The certification program is underway.

All commercial freighters are built for people, not cargo, require good runways and have at most 3 m headroom (on B747).

If you want to carry something which is too big for B-747, your sole option is rent An-124. This is the only way to bail out a 777, because their engines are too big for 747F. Same goes for a 767 engine, in fact almost any high-bypass engine has a diameter too large for a standard freighter.

An-225 with 88,4 m wingspan is slightly problematic for landplane runways.

What if Russia and China launch an amphibian freighter, which is available for commercial charter to deliver outsized loads, including delivering them to softish or shortish though wide runways – as well as emergency assistance – and strategic airlift for projecting force?

That presumes that China is prepared to pony up the funds, because the Russians are not going to. In addition, neither is prepared to embark on such a deal at this time, they have other, more pressing needs for their cash.

I might also point out that Boeing is currently in discussion with FedEx and UPS regarding a blennded wing cargo aircraft with the capacity to shift far more cargo than any aircraft currently in service.

From another forum…

***Begins***

Boeing’s BWB wings way towards air cargo market
May 22, 2007

Airframer in talks with two potential customers to define commercial freighter version Boeing is working with two potential customers to define a commercial freighter variant of its blended wing body large transport aircraft as it prepares to fly a subscale model of the flying-wing design at NASA Dryden in California.

“We have been working with a couple of customers,” says George Muellner, president, advanced systems, for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. “We have a customer, we have finalised what they want, and it is now an issue of customer funding and our desire to invest.” Boeing has been working on the BWB concept for years, but the design is still at an early stage. “The earliest it could be out there is eight to 10 years, initially as a commercial freighter and beyond that for military applications,” says Muellner.

He says two issues need to be overcome before the BWB becomes a reality. The first is an understanding of the design’s low-speed flying qualities. This will be tackled with the two X-48B unmanned subscale vehicles now at Dryden. Flight testing is expected to begin next month.

The second is manufacturability. “The basic design is not a tube, it’s a rectangular pressure vessel, so material design is an issue,” Muellner says. “The internal structure is like an array of ISO containers,” he says, which is one part of its appeal to freight operators. “It’s fuel efficient and it’s easy to load.” Boeing Commercial Airplanes has been careful to distance itself from the military division’s work on BWB because of concerns about passenger acceptance. “BCA is scared because it has no windows,” says Muellner. Our source (and this is a single source, to be sure) tells us that the two unidentified airlines in the Flight article are FedEx and UPS. Boeing did not respond to a request for comment on the Flight story.

This is potentially stunning news on several counts. First is the declarative statement that Boeing “has a customer” and has “finalized” what the customer wants. Second is that another customer has been involved as well. Third, the entry-into-service date for the BWB-F—2015—is about when the Airbus A380 freighter now is loosely forecast to enter service (2014). Waiting a year for the BWB vs. the A380 would be inconsequential for the advantages the BWB offers.

The BWB economics, as we’ve previously reported, are forecast to be at least 25% better than the A380. The A380 freighter would be immediately rendered obsolete (as would Boeing’s 747-8). And if Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA) would overcome its long- stated reluctance to the BWB, a passenger version would also render the A380 obsolete— a mere eight years after its entry into service. The BWB has the ability to carry as many of more passengers than the A380.

If the BWB-F is available as early as 2015, and a passenger version followed within a couple of years—by 2017—the A380 won’t have had enough time to break even, assuming sales as forecast by Airbus (and disputed by Boeing and others). We figured Airbus needs a minimum of 11 years to break even at forecasted sales, and this is probably conservative.

Our source says that BCA fears of the BWB having no windows can be overcome, in his view. On current twin-aisle aircraft, people in the center sections don’t have windows and basically can’t see out of the ones in the airplane anyway, so passengers are already used to not having windows. This is particularly so on Very Large Aircraft, such as the 747 and A380.

Furthermore, the A380 now sports exterior cameras with video feed to the passenger seat, providing a view to passengers that is more interesting than the side windows. Additional cameras on a BWB that are directionally controlled by the passenger will alleviate any concerns, our source says.

As we’ve previously reported, the BWB is hardly a new concept. It’s been around for decades and it was a major research project at McDonnell Douglas before Boeing merged with the company in 1997.

In addition to the technical issues and passenger acceptance described above, there is another major issue: government “subsidy.” As readers know, Boeing and Airbus—via their surrogates, the US Trade Representative and the European Union—are engaged in an international trade dispute over alleged “illegal” government “subsidies” for the benefit of commercial projects.

In addition to past, present and near-future airliners that are the subject of these allegations, we reported last week that Boeing’s proposed BC-17 (a commercial derivative of the C-17 military cargo airplane) would open Boeing up to new accusations of benefiting commercially with Pentagon tax dollars.

This would also be true of the commercial BWB, which has been funded in past by NASA money (another target of Airbus/EU complaints) and presumably at least some military research and development funds. (The Air Force is interested in the BWB as a tanker.) Be that as it may, successful development of the BWB will render the A380 and 747 obsolete and give Boeing a major leg up in future rounds of the aerial tanker replacement program. (Recall that following the current KC-X competition, the Air Force has already announced plans for KC-Y and KC-Z programs.)

These are follow-on programs to replace the balance of the more than 500 KC-135s and 59 KC-10s. The KC-30 is perfectly matched, in our view, to replace the KC-10—but would a KC-BWB become the favorite, thus frustrating Northrop and EADS/Airbus? If Boeing proceeds as outlined by Flight, Airbus stands being relegated to a distant second place well beyond the next decade predicted by former Airbus CEO Christian Streiff, as a result of the A380 problems and multiple A350 redesigns.

***Ends***

Unicorn

How ’bout Pelikan? Although not a WIG in the traditional sense it’s definitely a WIG and would be awesome to see. And wouldn’t be tied to the sea.

Airlift

So, what about an amphibian freighter?

Longhaul military/civil freighter lineup looks like:

Lockheed Hercules/C-130 is out of production
Lockheed C-141 is out of production

Lockheed Galaxy/C-5 is out of production. It also is purely in military use

McDonnell-Douglas BC-17 is still in production

An-22 is out of production

Il-76, IIRC, is still in production

An-124 is available for civil use, unlike C-5

An-225 is available. The second frame is not completed.

Airbus Beluga is out of production

Boeing Dreamlifter is not certified for use by others.

All commercial freighters are built for people, not cargo, require good runways and have at most 3 m headroom (on B747).

If you want to carry something which is too big for B-747, your sole option is rent An-124. This is the only way to bail out a 777, because their engines are too big for 747F.

An-225 with 88,4 m wingspan is slightly problematic for landplane runways.

What if Russia and China launch an amphibian freighter, which is available for commercial charter to deliver outsized loads, including delivering them to softish or shortish though wide runways – as well as emergency assistance – and strategic airlift for projecting force?

Now this is just speculative but….

I was thinking about WIG aircraft and came to the conclusion that their military applications, however potentially useful, are limited and questionable. But it did occur to me that they could be extremely useful for maritime trade being that, if build large enough, they could transport very large loads (exceeding even the An-225) across large distances at (almost aircraft like) speed. This would constitute a revolution for maritime trade being that it could cut transport times without increasing costs – at least it could be less expensive than air transport. The only drawback is the massive investement that is needed to start the process: Large, costly and risky WIG aircraft need to be designed, built and tested and port facilities need to be adapted. This would cost billions.
So, I was thinking, this process is only useful for countries that conduct massive volumes of trade across large expanses of water. The following combinations come to mind, China+US, UK/EU+US… Anybody want to add some more?
Another problem here is that Russia is currently, I think undeniably, the world leader in the construction and design of large WIG aircraft so any project would have to involve Russia. If they were clever they could cooperate with the US and China to create a network (perhaps consisting of only two or three port to begin with) of WIG ports across the Pacific. They could also, potentially, come to some sort of agreement with these two countries to jointly develop very large transport WIGs that would ‘sail’ between these ports speedily carrying large volumes of cargo.

Whadya’ think?

Anyone ever figure out what the Chinese WIG-type thing in Google Earth was?

I think it is a Chinese Wiggie thingiee!:D

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59018&highlight=Chinese+WIG

Anyone ever figure out what the Chinese WIG-type thing in Google Earth was?

I notice no one pointed out the C-130 with the hovercraft undercarriage which I was posting the pictures in regard to is also not a WIG either. Wonder why that is?

Probably because it’s a DeHavilland Buffalo. :rolleyes:

I am in a discussion about WIGs. Someone stated they would have a hard time making a turn because they only fly ten feet off of the water. I read way back in Military Technology(?) that WIGs can fly higher like an aircraft but that it drastically effects the fuel consumption. Can anyone comment on this discussion. Any comments would be welcome.

Most WIG of any size are flying at more like 30m and about 500km/h. If a freak wave appeared or someting that needed to be avoided was in front of the aircraft simply pulling back on the stick would allow the aircraft to climb immediately like any aircraft… which is what it is. There will be loss of speed but as they cruise at much higher speed than their stall speed that is no problem unless they encounter a vertical rock face hundreds of metres high. (Which generally appear on maps and can be avoided.)

Pulling up and turning to enable a turn to avoid an object increases fuel consumption in the same way that slowing down for corners in a car increases fuel consumption. The difference is that with few roads being perfectly straight with plenty of turns a car will be turning much more than the average WIG so the increase in fuel consumption will be less.

BTW I look back on the previous page of this thread and I notice a few mentioning that the bartini aircraft I posted pictures of was not a WIG. Congrats. I posted it as an example of a Soviet aircraft that used an underciarrage that could handle a range of landing surfaces. I notice no one pointed out the C-130 with the hovercraft undercarriage which I was posting the pictures in regard to is also not a WIG either. Wonder why that is?

Jack, the person has wrongly assumed that the cruising height of some Ekranoplans (about 10 feet) is their maximum ceiling. This is wrong. Even without an increase in thrust, speed may be converted to instant height in all Ekranoplans. Obviously with quick spooling engines, this height increase may be further increased/maintained, albeit not as economically as the cruise height. I have seen footage of a large Ekranoplan banking quite steeply into a turn way above an altitude of 10 feet.

There are pictures of relatively large Ekranoplans on concrete surfaces at rest, implying that they had to get there somehow! I have seen an Ekranoplan video of an Orlynok leaving the water and coming to rest on a concrete hardstanding. Post cold war American engineers who inspected Ekranoplans felt them to be too heavily built and stated that they “were built like boats while we would build them as aircraft”. I feel that they had missed the point. Building them with heavy and stiff boat like hulls allowed the Soviets to land them on harder surfaces to rapidly unload men and materiels, much like a boat at rest on the ground at low tide.

I would like to see a cargo application for the Ekranoplan, particularly air freight. Much faster than Ships, slightly slower than current air freighters, but at a cheaper fuel/ton/per mile ratio.

Altitude Ability of WIGs

Folks,

I am in a discussion about WIGs. Someone stated they would have a hard time making a turn because they only fly ten feet off of the water. I read way back in Military Technology(?) that WIGs can fly higher like an aircraft but that it drastically effects the fuel consumption. Can anyone comment on this discussion. Any comments would be welcome.

Jack E. Hammond
Indiana, USA

In military terms they could be used as mobile platforms for launching anti-ship missiles which is pretty neat but what will be the cost of such a ekranoplan ? which can carry a decent load (4-6 missiles)

nice. 🙂 strange that whenever you think of something someone else out there is also thinking about it.

My idea is basically a single seat single engined propeller driven plane with a small bay (for say 1 torpedo). Short stubby wings. for taking of it would have a inflatable type 2 pods that are metallic from the outside such that when deflated they turn back into the airframe. The metallic strip also acts as the surface that hits the water waves while taking off..

The engine is geared such that it can either run the propellor at the front or drive the screw aft. The propellor is collapsible.

The short stubby wings blend into the body and the body represents a blended wing/body design.

Heck I should have been an aeronautical engineer rather than an economist.. 😀 I spend all my time dreaming up new designs of planes..

There have been some serious concepts for flying submarines here is one from 1965 http://www.waterufo.net/flyingsubs/NavyFlyingSubHtml1.htm

I have had a design in my head for years.. didnt know what to call it as I have never heard of Ekrano whatever…

one particular idea is to have a plane that flys on the denser air over the ocean and being airtight it can even dive under water 😮 … shifting gears from a propellor to a screw.. short stubby wings that can withstand both mediums…

I have often thought that the size and role of the ZUBR CLASS (POMORNIK) hovercraft would have been better suited to a Ekranoplan. All that installed power could be more efficiently used in wing in ground effect flight rather than a air cushion.

Info and pics here http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/zubr/

Has anyone got good pics of the ZUBR CLASS (POMORNIK) in action?

That’s more like it – for your specification to be worth anything, you have to demonstrate that it’s feasible.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

But you can’t evaluate the potential unless you understand the design limitations.

You might just as well draw up a specification for a new battle tank which says “gun must penetrate all existing tanks at up to 10 km, armour must be resistant to all tank guns at any range, must be able to cruise at 100 kmh over rough ground, be fully amphibious with a water speed of 40 knots, and must be transportable in a C-130” 😉

I think the Lun class shows that my specifications aren’t totally unrealistic http://www.samolet.co.uk/lun.html

Air cushion landing gear would reduce the power needed for take off so you could eliminate some engines and improved aerodynamics and manufacturing would give better performance.

16x anti ship missiles would probably equal the payload of a B-2 (40,000 pounds) http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/specs.html so it’s a heavy load but not impossible.

That is why I said possible specifications rather than possible design. I’m no expert on Ekranoplans/WIGs, I’m just a enthusiast who can see the potential of the concept.

But you can’t evaluate the potential unless you understand the design limitations.

You might just as well draw up a specification for a new battle tank which says “gun must penetrate all existing tanks at up to 10 km, armour must be resistant to all tank guns at any range, must be able to cruise at 100 kmh over rough ground, be fully amphibious with a water speed of 40 knots, and must be transportable in a C-130” 😉

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

That’s a nice wishlist but it doesn’t give any idea of what kind of design would be needed to meet the requirements: weights, dimensions, power plants for cruising speed, extra power needed for takeoff and for OOGE flight…these boring little details are the ones which matter!

That is why I said possible specifications rather than possible design. I’m no expert on Ekranoplans/WIGs, I’m just a enthusiast who can see the potential of the concept.

Here are some possible specifications for a Fast Attack Ekranoplan 🙂

That’s a nice wishlist but it doesn’t give any idea of what kind of design would be needed to meet the requirements: weights, dimensions, power plants for cruising speed, extra power needed for takeoff and for OOGE flight…these boring little details are the ones which matter!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum