Why don't we fly ground effect vehicles?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 2 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 1,4 тис.

  • @Golden284-fan
    @Golden284-fan 9 місяців тому +3996

    Cons: almost everything
    Pros: they look really really cool

    • @davefletch3063
      @davefletch3063 9 місяців тому +131

      The cool factor outweighs the negatives

    • @rickyfitness252
      @rickyfitness252 9 місяців тому +40

      I mean that's all you can really ask for in life

    • @brilliant-handle
      @brilliant-handle 9 місяців тому +35

      Well, they would fly under radar so that's a big reason for military use

    • @rickyfitness252
      @rickyfitness252 9 місяців тому

      @@brilliant-handle wouldn't need radar. You could just listen for it

    • @jonnenne
      @jonnenne 9 місяців тому

      No lol. Boats show up on radar and so would these ​@@brilliant-handle

  • @chemicalphil
    @chemicalphil 10 місяців тому +5029

    Take too sharp of a turn and it turns into an Ocean Gate sub😢

    • @robertsudano4304
      @robertsudano4304 10 місяців тому +57

      Too soon

    • @timg1246
      @timg1246 10 місяців тому +183

      ​@@robertsudano4304How about now ?

    • @robertsudano4304
      @robertsudano4304 10 місяців тому +150

      @@timg1246 yea we can start CRACKing jokes again ..😉

    • @pixellordm8780
      @pixellordm8780 10 місяців тому +116

      @@robertsudano4304normally i’d say “wait until the bodies go cold” but they were cold from the get-go.

    • @maelthrajaluk42
      @maelthrajaluk42 10 місяців тому +73

      ​@@pixellordm8780what bodies? 😂

  • @walterabernathy5663
    @walterabernathy5663 10 місяців тому +1770

    Also have a problem with saltwater corroding the engines.

    • @maelthrajaluk42
      @maelthrajaluk42 10 місяців тому +32

      Easy fix, don't live near saltwater 😂

    • @thorr18BEM
      @thorr18BEM 9 місяців тому +92

      ​@@maelthrajaluk42yeah, they were created to go over the Caspian which has only a third of the salinity found in the ocean.

    • @RCAvhstape
      @RCAvhstape 9 місяців тому +19

      So Great Lakes maybe?

    • @jamesbizs
      @jamesbizs 9 місяців тому +46

      So; like, every sea plane? Every hovercraft? Every sea vehicle with an exposed engine?

    • @randygonzalez6250
      @randygonzalez6250 9 місяців тому +18

      Also fish, dolphins, & whales literally jump out of the water regularly.

  • @SamnissArandeen
    @SamnissArandeen 9 місяців тому +292

    That said, flying a normal airplane in ground effect has saved a crash or two. I remember this footage of an E-2C landing on the carrier, slowing for a bit, then the arresting cable snapped and the plane rolled straight off the deck. Ground effect helped the pilot save that one.

    • @gytis156
      @gytis156 9 місяців тому +18

      It is believed that Olympic Airways Flight 411 didn't crash into Athens downtown because of ground effect, even when flying below stall speed.

    • @jonasbaine3538
      @jonasbaine3538 9 місяців тому +5

      I think an aircraft carrier deck is much higher than ground effect distance. I remember it too, That pilot just had full power already applied

    • @fartmoderne7205
      @fartmoderne7205 9 місяців тому +2

      @@gytis156 Mentour Pilot has a great video about this

    • @Moridorable
      @Moridorable 9 місяців тому +1

      >Kerbal pfp
      Forreal, I'd probably trust you to land a plane. :v

    • @GaijinGamerGirl
      @GaijinGamerGirl 9 місяців тому +1

      If an aircraft rolled off a carrier it wasn't ground effect that saved it from a poor landing, just sheer luck that there was enough lift generated from the flight deck to the sea level to soften the impact.

  • @Sonofawildanimal4241
    @Sonofawildanimal4241 10 місяців тому +1974

    Probably why pelicans fly so close to the water at times

    • @kibbs325
      @kibbs325 9 місяців тому +228

      Not just pelicans, many large seabirds are known to utilize ground effect

    • @notchomomma239
      @notchomomma239 9 місяців тому +166

      That is EXACTLY right. Observing pelicans is where we first came up with the idea for these vehicles. I was reading a lot of Popular Mechanics when these first came out and learned all about em.

    • @craigsampson3386
      @craigsampson3386 9 місяців тому +33

      I just thought they did it to try and catch fish 😂

    • @amosbackstrom5366
      @amosbackstrom5366 9 місяців тому +19

      ​@craigsampson3386 I think it's both, they definitely do catch fish that way.

    • @craigsampson3386
      @craigsampson3386 9 місяців тому +10

      @@amosbackstrom5366 clever little things.

  • @Dan-by2vj
    @Dan-by2vj 9 місяців тому +323

    I'm just happy they exist

    • @Katiethekitten
      @Katiethekitten 9 місяців тому +3

      Me too 😊

    • @Max-ji5cg
      @Max-ji5cg 9 місяців тому +8

      Soviets thinking "I just think there neat"

    • @Gigika313
      @Gigika313 9 місяців тому +2

      @@Max-ji5cgyou mean the people that reached space before us?

    • @Thetruepredictor
      @Thetruepredictor 9 місяців тому

      ​@@Gigika313Space? 😂

    • @tommytheshimigami
      @tommytheshimigami 9 місяців тому +1

      They don't need to tilt to turn if the rudders are in correct places.

  • @voornaam3191
    @voornaam3191 10 місяців тому +316

    These things have one nerdy disadvantage. You'd not expect it, but taking off from the water takes a long "runway" because at low speed the small wings (compared to an airplane) need flaps and slats and smart tricks and huge engines. Russian Airforce used them, and that is why ekranoplans are well known. Seen a YT video on a company in or near Hamburg, Germany, building small ones. There are more video's explaining them. Engineers did serious work on solving the problems, but "normal" airplanes and fast ships are an alternative.

    • @ernielarkin4793
      @ernielarkin4793 10 місяців тому +5

      I think there's a company in the med, running a ferry service already.
      Watched a documentary about it.

    • @Relkond
      @Relkond 10 місяців тому +21

      The Russian version, I know, had most of the engines just for getting off the water. They shut off more than half of them once airborn - meaning most of the engines, after takeoff, were dead bumps causing drag.

    • @terranovarain2183
      @terranovarain2183 10 місяців тому +8

      Hydrofoils is the best solution I think

    • @wiciuwiciu2783
      @wiciuwiciu2783 10 місяців тому +6

      Those Ekranoplans were great at shows, running in straight line.
      ANYTHING more was impossible, and even tho, pilot's were constantly terrified

    • @matthieulagardere3886
      @matthieulagardere3886 10 місяців тому +6

      ​@@terranovarain2183I think we can combine both , hydrofoil help to reach the speed where the lift will be enough to get out the hydrofoil of the water .
      The last ULTIM trimaran foiler are not so far , the 2 arms linking the 2 external hulls have a wing shape , wait and see.

  • @Jeff-yb6rz
    @Jeff-yb6rz 10 місяців тому +90

    Seen one of these,here in nz ,a rubber dinghy and two house doors for wings ,a small air boat motor, true story lol this guy was crazy tho it worked really well ,and you don't need a pilot licence 😜 i think he got some clips on the tube, anyway peace ❤

    • @-pyrosef-
      @-pyrosef- 9 місяців тому +8

      Wow that's true ingenuity

    • @SuperSaiyanPikachu1
      @SuperSaiyanPikachu1 9 місяців тому +2

      Cool

    • @nomorelies832
      @nomorelies832 9 місяців тому +3

      I'm gonna look for it for sure I've got to see the two doors for wings that's just awesome 👍😎

    • @stereo-soulsoundsystem5070
      @stereo-soulsoundsystem5070 9 місяців тому +7

      Stop before you encourage the Floridians

    • @MrMcavoy80
      @MrMcavoy80 9 місяців тому +3

      ​@@stereo-soulsoundsystem5070 lol. Friggin Florida...

  • @JohanEngelen
    @JohanEngelen 10 місяців тому +198

    I was once in a certified boat that that could fly 130 meters high if necessary. Really a very strange experience

    • @jackryan8588
      @jackryan8588 9 місяців тому +3

      Military?

    • @JohanEngelen
      @JohanEngelen 9 місяців тому +20

      @@jackryan8588 no pleasure a 2 seater fun thing

    • @Trainboy1EJR
      @Trainboy1EJR 9 місяців тому +29

      @@JohanEngelen Sounds like Florida Man’s personal airboat! XD

    • @JohanEngelen
      @JohanEngelen 9 місяців тому +35

      @@Trainboy1EJR it was in the Netherlands. My friend's father was a naval engineer who designed it. Imagine flying over the dike that separates the IJsselmeer and the north sea

    • @xenophagia
      @xenophagia 9 місяців тому

      ​@@JohanEngelen That would be incredible 🤯. How did it work, and do you remember what it was called?
      Also are there any videos, or photos of it I can find?
      I wanna see this thing lol

  • @ChaoticScape
    @ChaoticScape 9 місяців тому +51

    Because they determined years ago, that one stray wave and the entire vehicle is destroyed. You have to have almost perfectly calm water in order to fly, Imagine starting a flight out, calm seas then midflight you've got 6 foot swells. Good luck landing, It disrupts the ground effect.

    • @ramseydoon8277
      @ramseydoon8277 8 місяців тому +1

      Could maybe be good river transport, if the river isn't too windy lol I'm trying to think of one application that would make sense for these things, they're so cool looking but so impractical!

    • @eleSDSU
      @eleSDSU 7 місяців тому +2

      @@ramseydoon8277 Transportation across big lakes or inland seas like the Caspian.

    • @bp968
      @bp968 12 днів тому

      Problem is for any distance your better off going to 30-40k feet where the air is super thin. You "pay for" the climb very quickly once that high up and the second advantage is speed. Most jet planes top speed is directly proportional to their altitude. Want to go fast? You need to go high.
      Of course you can go fastest up around 600,000 feet. You can hit 15,000mph plus up there 😅

  • @Idontrememberasking
    @Idontrememberasking 10 місяців тому +130

    Because altitude is insurance when it comes to flying, and being a few feet off the ground doesn't give you any time to correct yourself in the event of an emergency

    • @ashtonhartley2662
      @ashtonhartley2662 10 місяців тому +28

      And a big wave could end your trip

    • @fungoose2195
      @fungoose2195 10 місяців тому +5

      yaya this is why ground effect memevours on air craft are so dangourous. one foal move and your sucked down on the tarmac

    • @GewelReal
      @GewelReal 9 місяців тому +10

      ​@@fungoose2195except theres no tarmac and youre always right above your landing spot

    • @fungoose2195
      @fungoose2195 9 місяців тому

      @@GewelReal yes sorry, you still have a boat in your head thi

    • @GewelReal
      @GewelReal 9 місяців тому +7

      @@fungoose2195 it's like saying if you lose power in a hydrofoil you will die because you are few meters above the water

  • @B1rdTheW0rd
    @B1rdTheW0rd 9 місяців тому +9

    Ground effect is one of the most interesting laws of aerodynamics.

  • @robertthomas2942
    @robertthomas2942 10 місяців тому +76

    WIG, or Wing In Ground -effect. They are more efficient than planing hulls and aircraft. They would be perfect for 1-2hr hops over water that are currently served by ferries and small aircraft.

    • @eastcorkcheeses6448
      @eastcorkcheeses6448 10 місяців тому +8

      But are they any better than a plane , for the same short hop , the plane is more versatile,

    • @moshunit96
      @moshunit96 9 місяців тому +7

      Yet it still has the same problems.

    • @Gunter_Custom
      @Gunter_Custom 9 місяців тому +4

      ​@@eastcorkcheeses6448 can carry much more wieght

    • @fhuber7507
      @fhuber7507 9 місяців тому +5

      Except they are shut down by weather than even a C-172 can handle... Because waves are a serious problem.

    • @camojoe83
      @camojoe83 9 місяців тому +1

      Unless there's inclement weather or waves.

  • @stevengrubb3291
    @stevengrubb3291 9 місяців тому +16

    We do have hovercraft though. They have many disadvantages, too, but some advantages for military landing craft.

  • @gregvarner9562
    @gregvarner9562 10 місяців тому +73

    Adios at the first decent sea swell.

    • @JFrazer4303
      @JFrazer4303 10 місяців тому +8

      Not true, since they can handle up to 5 meters in GE, and can actually fly.

    • @realMaverickBuckley
      @realMaverickBuckley 9 місяців тому +9

      They can fly at 80 feet. But I guess when landing or taking off, rough swells would be an issue

    • @MrDlt123
      @MrDlt123 9 місяців тому +3

      Or rogue wave. 😅

  • @nanopulp
    @nanopulp 9 місяців тому +11

    Ekranoplans apply only to wig craft with straight or minor taper wings. The airfish design by wigetworks shown in the last part of the video uses a reverse-delta design which has different performance

  • @ke6319
    @ke6319 10 місяців тому +37

    Yet they're quite a spectacle

  • @trueriver1950
    @trueriver1950 9 місяців тому +2

    In a sense hovercraft are ground effect planes, but with the skirt enhancing the ground effect, and flexible skirts can run over uneven terrain (to some extent)

  • @nicolaspeigne1429
    @nicolaspeigne1429 10 місяців тому +20

    You could make an hydrofoil/ekeanoplane hybrid where the underwater wing could stop lifting and just help for manoeuvrability.

    • @reallyhappenings5597
      @reallyhappenings5597 9 місяців тому +1

      smart

    • @TripedalTroductions
      @TripedalTroductions 9 місяців тому +2

      Could you go fast enough? I'm thinking the water would create too much drag to go fast enough to create lift through the air. The two fluids are far too different in density. Maybe something like that could work on other planets or moons.

    • @JebHoge
      @JebHoge 9 місяців тому

      Avatar: The Way Of Water has a villain ship that kind of works this way. It's a neat what-if imagineering example.

    • @Dazza_Doo
      @Dazza_Doo 9 місяців тому

      Wing tip clearance. Also - at that high speed you will crash into other boats and pleasure craft.

    • @NikosPer
      @NikosPer 9 місяців тому

      I imagined the same but for faster take off.... hydrofoil to help it lift faster and release from the water and helping landing as well... it would be waymore supple to land in hydrofoils. These hydrofoils should be huge and sturdy....great concept.

  • @mikebikekite1
    @mikebikekite1 9 місяців тому +1

    There's also the flying hovercraft design that is smaller, only carrying 270Kg, but has a range of over 150 miles at 70mph and can obviously land on water or land. It can turn fairly quickly and it's apparently capable of flying smoothly over 6 foot waves. Cost is about $200K though.

  • @xXxJSCOTTxXx
    @xXxJSCOTTxXx 10 місяців тому +9

    My dad told me about the Spruce Goose back when i was a kid.
    I thought it was such a strange yet cool idea.

    • @timg1246
      @timg1246 10 місяців тому +8

      That was never an ekranoplane. It was intended to fly over the Atlantic at normal operational altitude.
      But the whole project was so disastrous that it only ever took one short, low level, flight.

    • @vanringo
      @vanringo 10 місяців тому +5

      The spruce goose was a a sea plane that was too heavy and by the time it was ready, wasn't really needed. I believe it took one flight was airborne for about a minute, if that, then landed. It was a successful test flight, and it never flew again.

    • @reallyhappenings5597
      @reallyhappenings5597 9 місяців тому +1

      Technically a flying boat, not a seaplane.

    • @Taber01
      @Taber01 9 місяців тому +1

      @@vanringo It was built during the war, but the war ended before the first flight so the armed forces said they would not pay for it as it was not in working operation during the war. So Howard Hughes took it out on one flight to show it was working and to get paid for it. It was the only flight it did

  • @nathantrombley4045
    @nathantrombley4045 9 місяців тому +1

    All fun and games till a 90 foot wave appears from another dimension

  • @KadaCombs
    @KadaCombs 10 місяців тому +8

    the noise also is a problem. it might be best to use to travel short distances over water.

    • @timg1246
      @timg1246 10 місяців тому +3

      That would, I effect, be an over engineered solution to a very small problem. Those things are a safety nightmare.

  • @grimsgraveyard3598
    @grimsgraveyard3598 9 місяців тому +1

    Seems like if they improved them so they could fly slightly higher it would solve the uneven terrain and mobility issues. Would likely sacrifice fuel efficiency but should still be as capable otherwise.

  • @dogwalker666
    @dogwalker666 10 місяців тому +5

    They also only work in perfect weather conditions.

  • @Archangel3083
    @Archangel3083 9 місяців тому +2

    Turning problems can be improved greatly with thrust vectoring

  • @nwbklr
    @nwbklr 9 місяців тому +4

    Oh shit that black and white footage is the Russian MD-160. It was meant as a nuclear weapons carrier that could fly undetected all the way to the US avoiding radar. This thing is collecting rust in some shipyard now. I’ve seen pictures of it. It’s 2 million pounds and the length of a football field. Can’t believe there’s footage declassified of it.

    • @gorizont-plate
      @gorizont-plate 6 місяців тому

      This thing was transported in military museum.

  • @markthomasson5077
    @markthomasson5077 9 місяців тому +1

    With current sensor technology these vehicles could well make a comeback.
    Latest hydrofoil boats have 40 sensors

  • @hunterhobday6363
    @hunterhobday6363 9 місяців тому +5

    Maneuverability wise then it seems like the next innovation needed in order for them to become more prevalent/wide spread is an increase in altitude such that the vehicle could bank up to the full 90 degrees and still have enough clearance to not come into contact with the water/ground. This should also help to reduce the effect of irregular terrain though it wouldn't remove the effect completely. Maybe also the inclusion or development of an existing/new terrain following guidance system (I'm thinking maybe like the ones used in cruise missiles) and link it to a high resolution/high precision GPS database or something along those lines I dunno I'm certainly no engineer. I'm sure there are probably some issues with my suggestion that I don't know about

    • @jacktrades9214
      @jacktrades9214 9 місяців тому

      The terrain issue is more like driving a car over pot holes or a washboarded dirt road. With the air foil, the vehicle would hit the water without the benefit of a car's shock absorbers on a road.

  • @TaterChip91
    @TaterChip91 9 місяців тому +2

    I did know things like this even existed. I see there basically impractical, but still a very neat thing to see

  • @agentl0key891
    @agentl0key891 9 місяців тому +13

    build rows of small vertical wings (like stablizers) facing up from the top of the wings. To turn you turn them like rudder so you don't have to bank the craft.

    • @EtadikNonya-dv7rc
      @EtadikNonya-dv7rc 9 місяців тому +2

      I was thinking something similar like years the nose to pull it in that direction and if it gets body roll tilt them upside down v shaped so right turns the left flap moves downward and if there needs to be compensation sure the front fin idea from the berkut to stabilize

    • @GewelReal
      @GewelReal 9 місяців тому +6

      ​@@EtadikNonya-dv7rcand then you have 10x the drag

    • @reinbeers5322
      @reinbeers5322 9 місяців тому +2

      Way more drag, and you're just making a wing but vertical.

    • @agentl0key891
      @agentl0key891 9 місяців тому +2

      @@GewelReal maybe make them thin and long with the flap part eh never mind I'm not a aeronautical engineer.

    • @GewelReal
      @GewelReal 9 місяців тому +4

      @@agentl0key891 they can be 1 atom thick and they still will add quite a bit of drag. That's simply how aerodynamics work

  • @paxwallace8324
    @paxwallace8324 9 місяців тому +1

    Well the ground effect is fly in your critique of GEVs they are in Ground Effect meaning it requires less energy to stay aloft than a regular airplane transporting the same amount of cargo. Also the bigger they are the better the strategy works. Also it'd be easy breezy to design a GEV that could forego ground effect and fly over any storm when the need arises but that's also not exactly necessary with computer assistance + radar.

  • @jcoop3660
    @jcoop3660 10 місяців тому +8

    Mostly larger models that hardly ever fly are left now.

  • @Laerei
    @Laerei 9 місяців тому +1

    Thrust vectoring would solve that turning problem easy -peasy.

  • @deusexaethera
    @deusexaethera 9 місяців тому +3

    So basically all the positives and negatives of hovercrafts, but amplified.

  • @jesusisalive3227
    @jesusisalive3227 9 місяців тому +1

    To say any problem is insurmountable is just ridiculous! They will figure out the turning problem, and all they have to do about rough water is to design more lift into the system. When the water is smooth, take advantage of the ground effect. When the water is rough, rely on the lift. Seems pretty easy, really.

  • @AG-yb1lm
    @AG-yb1lm 10 місяців тому +5

    Arguably 'Transitioning' , and 'Transitioning At Speed' are the biggest problem.

    • @othername1000
      @othername1000 9 місяців тому

      That’s not very woke

    • @ArtemisKitty
      @ArtemisKitty 9 місяців тому

      ...almost like the laws of physics DNGAF 😂

  • @phoboskittym8500
    @phoboskittym8500 9 місяців тому +1

    They can actually fly higher than depicted, depending on design and power not just a few feet off the water

  • @skeetermcswagger0U812
    @skeetermcswagger0U812 9 місяців тому +6

    This makes complete sense considering the times that I've hydroplaned on a wet surface at high speed in a car ruined my pants.

  • @KingKroy
    @KingKroy 9 місяців тому +1

    I believe mankind has what it takes to solve all those known and not yet, known problems/disadvantages. There just need to be a reason/motivation

  • @Rastor0
    @Rastor0 10 місяців тому +13

    They actually can fly over waves and uneven surfaces, but it makes for a rough ride for the passengers

    • @solexxx8588
      @solexxx8588 9 місяців тому +1

      That's not true. Air is compressible so the ride over waves is buffered and smooth.

  • @Sgt.chickens
    @Sgt.chickens 9 місяців тому +1

    May as well just work on Making the Hovercraft More efficient. Its had commercial success before and the only reason the Massive ones stopped running was fuel costs.

  • @MrDlt123
    @MrDlt123 9 місяців тому +8

    I know this may sound odd to non-pilots, but in terms of flight safety, height gives you options in case of an emergency. You can fly some distance if you lose engines, which could get you to an airfield or at least a suitable landing location, whereas when close to the ground, you could be in trouble very quickly. - Particularly at aircraft speeds.

    • @Dazza_Doo
      @Dazza_Doo 9 місяців тому +1

      Are you a pilot?
      This acts as a float plane, it doesn't crash into the water

    • @MrDlt123
      @MrDlt123 9 місяців тому +1

      @@Dazza_Doo Yes, and you missed my point.

    • @Dazza_Doo
      @Dazza_Doo 9 місяців тому

      @@MrDlt123 your point is mute, this isn't an aircraft, altitude in a WIG is out of its flight envelope. It's unstable and pose a crash hazard. Lovely thought though

    • @MrDlt123
      @MrDlt123 9 місяців тому +1

      @Dazza_Doo First, my point is that height buys you time. That's it. Take it or leave it, but it seems you love to argue for some odd and pathetic reason. Secondly, the term is 'moot,' not 'mute.' Used in a sentence: 'Your point is moot.' See there? Next time you're trying to appear intelligent, you should look up big words prior to attempting to use them. Have a blessed day, DA.

    • @Dazza_Doo
      @Dazza_Doo 9 місяців тому

      @@MrDlt123 cool story bro 😎 shame altitude doesn't play a factor in WIGs ...

  • @ZootedSosa
    @ZootedSosa 9 місяців тому +1

    They don’t seem entirely useless but the risks don’t seem to outweigh the rewards

  • @johngatesiii1688
    @johngatesiii1688 10 місяців тому +12

    They still look cool ASL!!!😊

  • @benwilms3942
    @benwilms3942 9 місяців тому +1

    Waves do not make an insurmountable obstacle for them.

  • @Road_Rash
    @Road_Rash 9 місяців тому +4

    I'm glad personal aircraft of any kind is still out of reach of the common person...they still can't drive cars with wheels on them that are supposed to remain in constant contact with the ground..."we" don't need to fly anything...

    • @whozyourdaddy
      @whozyourdaddy 9 місяців тому +1

      People can't even drive shopping carts for that matter. Going to the grocery store at noon on a Sunday is like a demolition derby.

  • @nicolasrose3064
    @nicolasrose3064 9 місяців тому +1

    If you miss where you are supposed to land, it's going to take whatever fuel you have left, to try and make it all the way round for a second try....if you make it...

  • @kai_plays_khomus
    @kai_plays_khomus 9 місяців тому +4

    If I remember correctly the SU had an ikranoplan capable of regular flight with the altitude of a common commercial plane which makes it way more versatile than "ground effect only" ikranoplans.

  • @apkungen89
    @apkungen89 9 місяців тому +1

    Compared to a boat the fuel efficient is way higher! Compared to an airplane at 10000 m though the difference is not that big. But getting up to those 10000 m users quite a bit of energy.

  • @Fred_Nickles
    @Fred_Nickles 10 місяців тому +5

    In short: it's not better than what we have

  • @S.E.C-R
    @S.E.C-R 9 місяців тому

    Ah man, sorry to hear about Cody. We know all to well how you’re feeling. We lost both of our dogs last year a few months apart. One was from old age, the other was a brain tumor in our 10 year old Pitt mix, best dog in the world. She started having seizures and took her to a specialist vet that gave us a time of 4-6 months left with her, but exactly one month later to the day we had to let her go. She went into a massive seizure that could only be stopped by letting her go. We were devastated and had no idea that her life would end so horribly for her and us and much sooner than they initially told us. Love on Cody as much as possible and spoil him rotten in the time he has left. ❤❤❤

  • @jamesbarisitz4794
    @jamesbarisitz4794 9 місяців тому +8

    Another example of "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. "😂

  • @Ghost51492
    @Ghost51492 9 місяців тому +1

    This thing was made for people like me. People that are scared of heights but still want to pilot a plane 😂

  • @gamertardguardian1299
    @gamertardguardian1299 10 місяців тому +5

    Flying to close to hazards is a big deal, pilots are not allowed to be within 500ft of obstacles unless they are taking off or landing. Guerentee there would be a lot more pilot error crashes if most transatlantic/pacific airliners used ground effect airplanes. Automatic collision avoidance isnt the best, and sea level changes over these distances requiring autopilot to be adjusted periodically. Not to mention storms or “invisible” private sea vessels

    • @2Phast4Rocket
      @2Phast4Rocket 10 місяців тому

      only apply on land, not out at sea

    • @newolde1
      @newolde1 10 місяців тому

      ​@@2Phast4Rocketeh, have you ever crashed into the water at 200+ kmh? I guarantee you it's not going to feel very nice.

    • @2Phast4Rocket
      @2Phast4Rocket 10 місяців тому

      @newolde1 nobody wants to crash but the point of your original post is just incorrect. Just accept that you are wrong and leave it

    • @gamertardguardian1299
      @gamertardguardian1299 10 місяців тому

      @@2Phast4Rocket True, no FAA in international waters. But its still has its own hazards that need to be solved before any airliners would buy any

    • @2Phast4Rocket
      @2Phast4Rocket 10 місяців тому

      @@gamertardguardian1299 : don't change the subject. This was what you wrote: "pilots are not allowed to be within 500ft of obstacles unless they are taking off or landing". You are wrong about sea planes in the middle of the ocean.

  • @valentinkogler3942
    @valentinkogler3942 8 місяців тому

    short, simple, to the point. Great video.

  • @reallyhappenings5597
    @reallyhappenings5597 9 місяців тому +5

    Can still work as long-range ground transport over flat desert, smaller vehicles

    • @williamwalkup988
      @williamwalkup988 9 місяців тому +7

      I assume Desert sand would be a major pain to the engines. Believe a guy who spent almost a year in the desert in a Hummer. The sand gets everywhere, even your underwear....lol

    • @stevencooper4422
      @stevencooper4422 9 місяців тому +4

      If a small stone gets kicked up by the wind into the vehicle engine then RIP

    • @malking5226
      @malking5226 9 місяців тому

      Luke used one to search for R2. Ended up finding Obi wan

    • @Stanton_High
      @Stanton_High 9 місяців тому +1

      You've never been to a desert huh

  • @ernestimken6969
    @ernestimken6969 11 місяців тому +4

    Because they have no brakes, and can't turn quickly.

  • @CHA773RBOX
    @CHA773RBOX 9 місяців тому +1

    They only work on glass smooth surfaces consistently. If you have a bunch of waves, it’s not good

  • @harrybarrow6222
    @harrybarrow6222 9 місяців тому

    Excellent exposition. Thank you.

  • @PcBguitarLibrary
    @PcBguitarLibrary 9 місяців тому +1

    Id imagine no full time pilot of these aircraft ever lived long enough to retire or survive their PTSD

  • @DuckDoner
    @DuckDoner 9 місяців тому +2

    Can you imagine like a rogue wave or any massive wave like oh man that shit gives me goosebumps imagine you’re flying in this fucking thing like that and you see a 300 foot wave coming from the side directly at you fuck that

  • @MasterChief0093
    @MasterChief0093 9 місяців тому +1

    I mean couldn’t you design it around yaw? And then give it a powerful enough engine to actually take flight OGE? So maybe you had a terrain scanning radar of some sort that would adjust altitude for obstacles. So temporarily consume more fuel for lift… but then powers back down once clear? Some helicopters are in IGE at basically 20 feet. I’d imagine 20 feet can clear most stuff most days.

  • @jenniferstewarts4851
    @jenniferstewarts4851 4 місяці тому

    These are also called WIG- Wing in Ground effect. Now, there isn't a pilots licensees for these because they are considered boats...
    So enter - the Hover Wig. strapping simple wings... onto a hovercraft. (yes its a Ground Effect Wing in Ground effect vehicle now) that can zip across water, ice, sand, get up speed and fly to cross obstacles such as beaver dams, before dropping back down onto the water.

  • @pavanbiliyar
    @pavanbiliyar Місяць тому

    Such beautiful machines.

  • @yetanotherrandomyoutubecha4382
    @yetanotherrandomyoutubecha4382 9 місяців тому +1

    There's also no brakes, which is not much of a problem in the air, but terrible on the ground

  • @stephenbergeron6268
    @stephenbergeron6268 9 місяців тому

    I'm glad people explored the concept, at the very least

  • @Paelorian
    @Paelorian 9 місяців тому +1

    I don't believe the pessimism. The concern about not being able to fly in poor weather is greatly reduced with large vehicles, since maximum ground effect height is roughly wingspan. Besides, many if the recently developed concepts are able to take flight, being airplanes designed to fly most of their journey in ground effect. See the Boeing Pelican, Liberty Lifter, etc.
    This technology would be appropriate for large cargo vessels and for passenger transport. It works better with larger vehicles, which can fly higher above the ground or water, so it's expensive to develop the concept. But potentially it would be a more efficient and less expensive way to transport goods and people across water and other flat areas. Compared to every other existing method of transport. This short video makes it sound like atmospheric density makes it pointless to try to harnless the ground effect, and I don't believe that.
    I believe making good use of the ground effect could mean aircraft that are closer in capacity to ships than aircraft, but far faster than ships. I think they could be replace many container ships, and provide a relatively luxurious and comfortable way to travel over bodies of water compared to ferries and airplanes. Making use of ground effect seems like the only way to have a practical flying vehicle that's like a "flying cruise ship". It could be a much more comfortable way to travel to the other side of the planet on a nonstop overnight flight. I want an inexpensive flying bedroom to take me to my destination as I eat and sleep comfortably, and it won't happen with current aircraft or shipping technology.

  • @Workerbee-zy5nx
    @Workerbee-zy5nx 9 місяців тому +1

    Dang, maybe that reason is why they scrapped this project.

  • @Allan_aka_RocKITEman
    @Allan_aka_RocKITEman 3 місяці тому

    I am just thankful they exist because they gave us the name *_"Caspian Sea Monster."_* 😊

  • @chipman1589
    @chipman1589 9 місяців тому +1

    The soviets seemed pretty into making them a thing

  • @robertwhite3752
    @robertwhite3752 9 місяців тому +1

    Well, the one I acquired from the Batman turns on a dime!!

  • @need-to-know-
    @need-to-know- 9 місяців тому

    When you finally invent the land speeder but didn’t watch enough Star Wars to understand how it is used.

  • @aardque
    @aardque 9 місяців тому

    Ekranoplans work in almost the exact same efficiency as high altitude aircraft. Stratoliners are at the outer edge of the atmosphere, getting just enough molecules for combustion and few enough for efficiency.
    At the other end of the atmosphere, where it presses hard against the solid earth, the confluence forms a similar buoyancy as at the edge of space. Down under, so to speak, the atmosphere holds ITSELF at bay for the ekranoplan to scoot by surfing the boundary layer.

  • @Dweemo
    @Dweemo 8 місяців тому

    "come in , tower 7. this is big bird.. requesting a runway. We've lost engine two with a fish strike"

  • @purplecorn1234
    @purplecorn1234 9 місяців тому +2

    Imagine the carnage one of those high speed transports hits a wave..

  • @armadasinterceptor2955
    @armadasinterceptor2955 9 місяців тому +1

    Imagine your just zipping across the ocean, and instead of a deer, a whale hits you💀

  • @inventiontalk5412
    @inventiontalk5412 6 місяців тому

    Dynamic instability in pitch with positive feedback. One tiny bobble loses a bit of the air cushion, which causes pitch, which loses more air cushion, which increases the pitch... And the nose or the tail splashes.

  • @TragoudistrosMPH
    @TragoudistrosMPH 9 місяців тому

    I'm so happy it's mostly physics and not unwillingness to change!

  • @jeffcarello7446
    @jeffcarello7446 9 місяців тому +1

    There's a new company experimenting with "water taxi's" and personal rental aircraft in Hawaii...

  • @karezaalonso7110
    @karezaalonso7110 9 місяців тому +1

    Little tweaking and AI co-pilot for crash avoidance might create a future hoverboard

  • @gimmethegepgun
    @gimmethegepgun 9 місяців тому

    Fun fact about the ground effect: the U-2 spy plane has such a high lift-to-drag ratio that the ground effect it generates prevents it from landing without stalling. They have to use a chase car with another U-2 pilot telling them how far off the ground they are, then initiate a stall at about 2 feet above the ground and just drop.

  • @kristianramos8584
    @kristianramos8584 9 місяців тому +1

    Cartel bouta be rlly under the radar 😂

  • @British_Dragon-4K-Simulations
    @British_Dragon-4K-Simulations 9 місяців тому

    You don’t need to roll to turn. You can yaw. I know if you yaw it also rolls depending on where the vertical stabilisers and rudders are but with a fly-by-wire flight control system, it could stop the tilt from the yaw.

  • @willcall9431
    @willcall9431 9 місяців тому +1

    There use to be plans in popular mechanics on how to build a two seat version of a ground effect vehicle/ boat combo.

  • @PPC4
    @PPC4 10 місяців тому +1

    I might be wrong but I think hydrofoils are still better with the exception of needing to dock or moor off shore. Wig aircraft are still cool though.

    • @senatorjosephmccarthy2720
      @senatorjosephmccarthy2720 9 місяців тому +1

      I'm just wishing somebody would invent the simple motorboat and we could get across.

  • @petertoft70
    @petertoft70 9 місяців тому +2

    Rctestflight has some cool ground effect videos with RC planes

  • @sylph4252
    @sylph4252 9 місяців тому

    An other issue is how loud they are. A ship can sail basicly into a port town and no disturb anyone, but these things are as loud or louder than planes

  • @aprev039
    @aprev039 9 місяців тому

    “A ground effect vehicle?”
    - Naked Snake

  • @TheWorld_2099
    @TheWorld_2099 9 місяців тому +1

    To sum up the video:
    They’re better than boats, but yet not
    They’re highly efficient, yet not
    They’re super mobile, yet not

  • @xpndblhero5170
    @xpndblhero5170 9 місяців тому

    They need to use the tail fins to steer more instead of having to tilt but some of them don't have a lot of movement in the tail rudders.... Maybe go up a few feet higher for ocean crossings to avoid waves.

  • @trazyntheinfinite9895
    @trazyntheinfinite9895 9 місяців тому +1

    Its called fuel efficiency.

  • @zeddeka
    @zeddeka 7 місяців тому

    We've been here before with hovercrafts in the 1970s. They briefly had their moment, but had too many problems.

  • @byronstembridge1727
    @byronstembridge1727 9 місяців тому

    For the purpose of Rules of the Road they are known as WIG's as in Wing In Ground effect craft. They are the lowest in the hierarchy of vessels except for a vessel overtaking.

  • @nightrous3026
    @nightrous3026 9 місяців тому

    Pros: they're also immune to torpedos

  • @CJ4S147
    @CJ4S147 10 місяців тому +1

    That second thing is the big problem that even I guessed before I got to it. we barely have enough room for all the cars where are we going to find room to build whatever the heck long wide flattish spaces these things require? We’re not

  • @Will-dn9dq
    @Will-dn9dq 9 місяців тому

    The spruce goose had kids I never knew about 😂

  • @richardike2342
    @richardike2342 5 місяців тому

    Since they are just a few feet above water, then they would have to do their turns on the Yaw axis. This is the only way for them to get tighter turns.

  • @fhuber7507
    @fhuber7507 9 місяців тому

    They need smooth terrainwith no buildings or trees... So they are pretty well restricted to calm water.
    Even the very common 8 ft swells of the ocean are too much for any but very large GEV.
    Russia (USSR era) operated a giant GEV as a commuter service but weather shut it dow so often that people just quit using it.

  • @skyceratops2591
    @skyceratops2591 9 місяців тому

    Burds all ready been knowing bout counter to dem hawt hawt tip vortices 👏👏 💯💪💯