Seagliders: the next innovation in mobility
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лис 2023
- Don’t miss our newsletter!
Mike and Jake host REGENT Co-founder & CEO Billy Thalheimer to discuss Wing-In-Ground-effect (WIG) vehicles. Why do they refer to them as seagliders? What is the science and technology that makes them work? Why is there no pilot? Why is the Marine Corps is interested? Tune in for answers!
For those interested in #military #technology #strategy #innovation #business #transportion
----
Links
● Sign up for our amazing newsletter www.themerge.co
● Support us on Patreon / the_merge
● REGENT website www.regentcraft.com/
----
Follow us on...
● Instagram / merge_newsletter
● Facebook / themergenews
● Twitter / mergenewsletter
● LinkedIn / themerge
● Website www.themerge.co
----
Show Notes
(01:12) intro
(03:11) What are WIGs
(07:43) Flown by a captain?
(10:52) full scale mockup
(14:30) $60M Series A fundraise
(16:35) Marine Corps application
(22:03) electric vehicles in a Pacific fight?
(24:30) building a strong board of advisors
(25:57) certification and safety
(31:10) scale
(34:30) dual-use development
(36:14) Coast Guard interest?
(37:26) Why Rhode Island?
(40:15) outro - Наука та технологія
The year is 1994 and I'm in my senior aerospace capstone design class. And I remember an article from Popular Mechanics from the late 80s on the Russian Orlyonok ekranoplan. I suddenly go on a crash course to learn about WIG design because no one was teaching it back then. Stability and control is a huge headache, and fly-by-wire only solves some of the issues because physics still wins. So you have to make wing and tail design choices that look odd. Another cool technology is Power Augmented Ram (PAR) where the wing sits in the water and is part of the buoyancy. You then put flaps down and the wingtip has endplates to capture jet exhaust being blown under the wing to help get out of the water. Poor man's hovercraft. As speed picks up you increase altitude a little while slowly retracting flaps to transition out of PAR mode. This guy is right about going big. It doesn't increase aerodynamic efficiency. That's still related to the span-to-altitude ratio. What going big does is allow you to fly over significant sea states and over masts and stay there. It drives you to insane sizes, though. Think 300ft+ wingspans and wings large enough to hold shipping containers. The efficiency is economic or transport efficiency. Think small container ships but airplane-like speeds. I used to say, it's kind of like FedEx Overnight for shipping containers - overnight may be a stretch going across the pond, but next day was certainly a possibility.
Always great on ward carroll!
Wow. What an excellent example of technology development over years of time and concept.
Old Cold War concept They are actually called Ekranoplans..... the Soviets developed a number of them them from the 1960s up to the early 90s
A WIG Type A vehicle isn't just software limited to ground effect. They are generally physically incapable of leaving ground effect because the power demand is too high.
Retired Navy Supply Officer here. Neat concept. I'm looking at this process backwards in that it's easy to visualize the transport and delivery operation. My concerns are, where do they launch from? What is the deployed maintenance concept? If you intend to resupply far flung and widely dispersed combat forces these craft must deploy, launch and recover from somewhere. Probably a ship? The supplies they deliver are carried into theater on a vessel or aircraft and then loaded onto WIGS, right? So what will that look like?
On the bright side, these are probably cheaper than LCS 🙂
Interesting technology...I see why the marines are interested. Move stuff fast and relatively stealthy.
Interesting concept. Many questions need answers before this becomes a viable operational concept - sea state? marinization? viable refueling options? The program would benefit from having a detailed CONOPS developed to better understand the risks, benefits and opportunities this concept presents.
The GE vehicle is interesting, like the Ekranoplans were, but I don’t like the electric imperative.You two OPs seem sold on the current official dictum that our CO2 productions are the cause of any wild weather. Please study the past situation of the UN’s IPCC’s “CMIP6”, regarding solar-forcing data allowed but resultant studies discredited, at the least. The CMIP study windows are 4 years, they are now working with CMIP7 rules.
But ya, it’s interesting. Battery technology will be key, and availability of power, with this insane assault on the lifebreath of our plant kingdom.
Cool vid. Cheers.
How long til we have WIG racing. Jet WIGS!
Love the cast, only wish I had more money to invest in all these companies you are highlighting!
Me too! Maybe one day we'll start a tech investment fund!
Wow, this was fascinating! I'd love to see a followup when they get the first production vehicle rolled out.
We absolutely will!
@@TheMergeMedia Hi, my name is William Walker and I am developing a Blade Runner style flying car. It is a very unusual vehicle and thought your group might be interested in it. I call the vehicle "Sky Chaser" and an artistic picture of it can be seen in the icon at the top left hand side of this post. Clicking on the icon will enable you to see a project presentation and flight videos. Sky Chaser looks and drives like a car, flies both vertically and horizontally, and is amphibian, and flies well in "Ground effect". It has no exposed rotors, and uses the body as a wing. It also has no unfolding wings, and flies the way it looks, just like the Blade Runner vehicle in the movies.
Sky Chaser is basically a flying wing design with twin electric motors in front and has double rudders and double elevons in back for control. It also has VTOL capability and is a Tricopter configuration, with 2 tilting front electric motors in front mounted on nacels, and another electric stationary motor in back blowing thrust though a hole in the wing behind the cockpit. The tilting motors enable vehicle to transition from VTOL to plane mode. The aircraft is also car with 4 large wheels powered by small electric motors. In addition, the vehicle is amphibian, and can navigate and takeoff and land on water, both in VTOL and in plane mode. Sky Chaser has a very short wing, but its effectiveness is increased by blowing high speed thrust over the wing and by using oversized side body panels, housing the wheels, to block airflow around the wingtips and help channel the airflow over the wing. The front props are counter rotating and from the pilots perspective, the right prop rotates clockwise and the left prop rotates counterclockwise. This configuration seems to yield the most lift.
I started the project in 2016 in San Diego, Calif, USA where I built and tested a 1/6 scale model. Then I made a CAD model and got it to fly in a flight simulator. 3 years ago I moved to Sweden and work with business partner and we have now built a full scale unmanned working prototype which flies. For more information:
*SkyChaser(dot)se
*Project Presentation: drive.google.com/file/d/1FAdls15OriuQ4hoD2xPwXeNQDQTKpK1t/view?usp=drive_link
*evtol News article 1: evtol.news/sky-chaser-concept-design
*evtol news article 2: evtol.news/sky-chaser
*Simulation tests: drive.google.com/file/d/19taPDO1yERAumR8OV1IFk2n1TqNLNUkN/view?usp=drive_link
*Full Scale hover test: drive.google.com/file/d/1qDl5X142uC5yt_5Xcb0GUS3h-LgD4P0V/view?usp=drive_link
Something not mentioned here, but which the Russians found with an effort to provide scheduled civilian transportation on the Caspian Sea, was uneven wave surfaces created an unworkably jarring ride. Even by Soviet standards, the technology failed at the consumer level.
Their design looks to have a much higher wing loading and higher aspect ratio which helps absorb gusts, turbulence, etc better than the old Soviet designs.
Also modern digital control systems will perform much better and have active ride control, smoothing out the ride.
This is amazing technology from genius minds!
It differs significantly from what the Russians had on Lake Bycul (sp)
Just a heads up. At the 3:50 min mark Billy mentions the Soviet Ekranoplan, ground effect vehicle, that "flew over the Baltic Sea", that's not correct, the single example of the huge Ekranoplan in the picture you show, that the Soviets built, was called the "Caspian Sea Monster"! - Not the Baltic Sea Monster. There were other smaller "Ekranoplans" that were used for transport but the specific one Billy spoke about and you showed was the "Caspian Sea Monster".
From the Wikipedia article "Caspian Sea Monster"
"The KM (Korabl Maket) (Russian: Корабль-Макет, literally "Ship-maquette" or "Model-Ship"), known colloquially as the Caspian Sea Monster, was an experimental ground effect vehicle developed in the Soviet Union in the 1960s by the Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau. The KM began operation in 1966, and was continuously tested by the Soviet Navy until 1980 when it crashed into the Caspian Sea. The KM was the largest and heaviest aircraft in the world from 1966 to 1988, and its surprise discovery by the United States and the subsequent attempts to determine its purpose became a distinctive event of espionage during the Cold War."
Something to think about if you live in California. San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland airports are very close to the ocean. From Los Angeles to San Francisco at 200MPH doesn't beat a B737, but is sure faster than the High-speed Rail Project, which may never be completed. Something to think about
USCG regulations?
A collision avoidance system should allow emergency jumps over obstacles detected by radar. Th e captain would not have to have control over that so not be pilot qualified.
Eraknoplans flew over the Caspian Sea not so much the Baltic sea
So it is an ekranoplane?
This could prove to be very useful for the Marines/others especially with the looming issues in the pacific. Logistics are crucial in the region. Let's hope the company is able to protect the IP that others like China are constantly trying to steal or copy. I really hope this company is successful. The US is already losing nearly a trillion dollars in IP/tech theft to CCP espionage every year.
Great video, but I have an OT question about defense spending that would seem to be up your alley or one of your collaborators with. Who or what process determines the $ valuation on the draw down arms packages given to Ukraine, which have all been given clearly ludicrously inflated valuations. The majority of the arms + gear given were heavily used and, more importantly, already paid for in the ‘80s and being retired, retiring or being disposed of at huge expense.
Examples: we were scrapping DPICM by the metric ton, leaving MRAPS and HMMWVs overseas cause they weren’t worth shipping and the U.S. didn’t want to keep them in the first place. The Avenger was retired. Most of the NVGs given were not only extremely obsolete (early 2000s era), but often broke and always heavily used. I could go on.
The value of these packages seemed clearly put at what these systems would cost if purchased new today. Seems like they were thinking of foreign optics + political capital and forgot about domestic ones.
Good callout. There was actually an accounting error not too long ago over this exact issue
@@TheMergeMedia Any link/additional info or or are you actually going to make a related short or episode? It can just be the CBO determining this stuff.
All good until it cartwheels across the ocean.
I love everything about this concept; it's well thought out, and appears to have enough financing to get a good prototype u and running.
However, the constant "electrification" war drum beat just doesn't make any sense to me. The ENTIRE military is based on oil-based fuels; if they are forced to go electric, how do you think you're going to charge the batteries? Solar cells? That's laughable at scale. Can't find it in the ocean? What about these vehicles docked at them? Considering battery technology is still taking probably 10x as long to replenish as does Jet-A equivalents, I call those sitting ducks. Noise? The vast majority of propeller driven vehicles is from the props themselves. Jet turboprop exhaust is not that loud.
Other than that, I really hope this technology demonstrator moves forward quickly and successfully.
You lost me at "sustainable". We are here to defend the USA. Also, I question the survivability of a solar powered charging station inside the 9-dashed line; much less your sugar-glider while charging for 2 hours sitting at a pier while praying the sun stays out long enough to get you charged enough to take off.
You’re misunderstanding the usefulness of sustainable energy. You don’t have to power the machine entirely from solar or other sustainable energy-it’s a backup energy source. One that is readily available where other fuel may not be.
Your knee jerk reaction to anything sustainable is shortsighted and a little embarrassing.
@@PvtPartzz I have an 8kW solar system that generates 10MW-hrs per year. I haven't paid for electricity for 3 years. I don't have a problem with efficient logistics. My problem is with defense contractors focusing on the wrong thing. My house could charge a Tesla S 100d 100 times per year. How does that compare to the fuel needs of a USMC FOB? Solar is good for small loads, not transport craft. #notembarassed
Airforce use economy class to move soldiers around....sustainable is just a word and a fact of reality
@@lukeamato2348 How do Boeing 767s burning Jet-A Kerosene count as sustainable? I agree they are efficient from a time perspective, and when used during Desert Shield and Desert Storm the use of surplus aircraft capacity saved the Air Force money, but the amount of fuel used compared to C-141 airlifters was negligible.
Love your show dude. i support you.
@book3311
Thanks!!