WIGS commercial and practical viability

However, in order for a WIG to fly it needs to have take-off speed same as any plane. A floatplane can not take off in rough waters, a WIG I would guess would be subjected to the same limitations. Maybe the limitations won’t be quite as strict if the WIG is sufficiently huge (and I am talking huge), but that still will shut it down if the wind exceeds a certain limit.

http://www.se-technology.com/wig/index.php has links to pics of the Ekranoplans mentioned.

I agree with a lot of your points tenthije, but here’s some further thoughts.

The large Russian ekranoplans, KM (Caspian Sea Monster), Lun, Spasatel (Civvy Lun planned for ASR work) and the more well known Orlyonok all used boost engines to augment lift and bring the craft into ground effect long before the ‘step’ speed of a flying boat. the KM and Lun used 8 at a noticeable fuel cost. (not good these days)

I don’t know how rough the water would have to be to prevent takeoff, perhaps some of the experts in the “Historical Aviation” forum can equate this with wartime Sunderland and Catalina ops. I have seen photos of Albatross ASR ops in very rough China Sea conditions.

As for your dismissal on speed grounds as opposed to aircraft. The KM cruised at 267mph (430kph) max was 310 mph (500kph) 10 times faster than shipping and weighed in at 544 tonnes. The KM was just an early example and experimental but if this could be updated and enlarged say 4X I think it would interest the fast freight people if costs could be kept lower than the 4 747s it would ‘replace’. No it’s not as fast as a 747 but it’s still fast.

The big disadvantage is the need for water as a uniformly flat surface (not much tundra in the USA or Europe) They could only really be useable on an oceanic port to port network eg New York to Southampton, (Rotterdam would be a problem due to Channel traffic). I see a possible winner as West Coast USA to Japan China and Korea. The cruising height of the KM was 4-14 meters (14-47 ft). I just wonder if this would be adequate for oceanic crossing. I have crossed the Adriatic in a Russian built hydroplane and in rough conditions it rode the inside of the waves and nearly capsized. Nearly everyone was sick and we had to continue the journey on reduced power and on the surface as opposed to planing. A long and arduous trip.

There are so many problems to solve, not the least being excessive engine maintenance due to salt spray ingestion, that I really don’t see a commercial use for them though I’m a great fan of Ekranoplans and would love them to succeed.

Brian

From a pure cargo hauling point of view I do not see the added value of a WIG. I will point out per mode of transport why a WIG would not be viable.

road/rail I think it will be obivous that the WIG is not usefull due to the presence of buidlings, trees etc. Let’s not waste time here.

plane The WIG might be cheaper, though I would doubt it, but would not be faster. If an aircraft is used, then it is used for it’s speed or it’s added security… there is no other advantage the plane offers.

The WIG won’t compete on speed. End of discussion. Let’s move on:

The added security might apply but only if the WIG is classified as a plane along with the added security measures that go with it. And even then I doubt companies like Brinks or national banks would like to see their valuables (I am talking money, gold etc) in transit a second longer then strictly necessary… thus taking us back to planes.

ship Anything sailing on a boat is not time-sensitive. If it is time sensitive, then it is because someone in planning made a mayor ****-up by underestimating transit times… or in short, they ignored the advice provided by me and my collegues. I had to vent, back to the program:

If something is sailing, then time is not important, saving money is. There is no way a WIG will be as cheap as shipping. The day I see a WIG capable of carrying 8.000 twenty foot containers or equivalent is when I will consider it’s viability. Be aware though that todays largest container vessel is already 14.000 TEU (Emma Maersk amongst one or two others) and ships continue growing.

Besides, even when 8.000+ TEU WIGs are created, there still would be no infrastructure. Sending them to the regular docks at Rotterdam, Southampton, Hamburg would be impossible unless you got folding wings. Folding wings add weight and complexity, and thus increase fuel consumption and maintenance costs. Besides, when it comes to fuel economy you can not beat a huge diesel the size of a building.

Simply increasing terminals to cater to WIGS is not that easy either. It took 10 years to decide to expand the Maasvlakte terminal in Rotterdam and doing so requires reclaiming land. The same situation is found in most of the mayor ports in at least Europe and North America. Pulling down cities or reclaiming land is not viable for many ports.

There have been many attempts to upgrade shipping. The Hoverspeed hovercraft (Dover > Calais) failed due to spiralling maintenance and fuel costs. The Stena HSS catamaran (Hoek van Holland > Dover) failed due to fuel costs, it consumed more per KM then concorde… with considerable margin!

The only form of transport that managed to cut back shipping was the Channel tunnel, and I think we all agree that that was hardly an economically jusitifiable venture. The tunnel went bankrupt at least twice leaving many debtors. It now makes an operational profit, but only because all constructions costs where written off after the last bankruptcy! Also, good luck tunneling the atlantic let alone the pacific!

The Alexiev ‘Lun’ was designed to operate in arctic waters and over the tundra so an updated version should be able to handle most of the weather conditions that commercial shippingl may find.

First, welcome on board!

I am not aware of the Alexiev Lun. However, in order for a WIG to fly it needs to have take-off speed same as any plane. A floatplane can not take off in rough waters, a WIG I would guess would be subjected to the same limitations. Maybe the limitations won’t be quite as strict if the WIG is sufficiently huge (and I am talking huge), but that still will shut it down if the wind exceeds a certain limit.

The Alexiev ‘Lun’ was designed to operate in arctic waters and over the tundra so an updated version should be able to handle most of the weather conditions that commercial shippingl may find.

The other aspect of ground effect is that even small increases in wing area improve the effect. Therefore a huge ekranoplan would ‘fly’ with a higher ground/water clearance and be able to take most conditions in it’s stride. The flip side of this is that the ‘ram’ effect which helps longitudinal stability (ekranoplans have a tendency to pitch nose up at high speed in the same way as Donald Campbel’s Bluebird) decreases with height.

However – it is the only way to get a multi thousand ton passenger craft to cross long distance at speeds anywhere near aircraft.

Still don’t see it happening though 🙁

Brian

In what ways different than a normal airplane?

Here in Hamburg aircraft can take off and land in conditions where you don’t want to be anywhere near the waterfront. Going through gusty wind at sea level for prolonged times sounds a bit challenging.

It is very weather dependent.

In what ways different than a normal airplane?

So in say their use as a ferry they are not able to operate in weather conditions that would not stop existing catamaran type high speed ferries ?

What should one do with such an aircraft?
It is very weather dependent.