New Super WIG Transport

Boeings new planned Super Transport WIG. 400 feet long, 500 foot wingspan.




[edit on 21-2-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Looks cool
any idea on the possible top speed or payload?
and whats the state of the planning just a concept or a realistic project?

This is old news having being kicked around Boeing since 2002 as a conceptual Aerofoil Boat called the Pelican ULTRA (Large Transport Aircraft). This concept, based upon ground-effect (WIG) principles is a massive vessel, designed to carry 1,400 Tonnes over 16,000 km. The length of the vessel would be longer than a football field and the span of its massive wing would be about 500 feet. The wing-surface area would cover more than an acre. The craft would be capable of carrying 17 M-1 battle tanks on a single sortie at speeds 10 times those of current container ships.





Was dependant on a US mobility report issued in 2003, I assumed it got canned as it has dropped off the Boeing Phanton Works website (still some reference in the archive of the frontiers section

might be old but that is the coolest transport plane that i have ever seen

Justin

why do i get the feeling it looks like a sub with wings on it

Pelican Ultra Transport stats.

Weights,
Takeoff: 6,000,000 lb
payload: 2,800,000 lb

Length: 400 ft.
Wing span,
Wings extended: 500 ft.
Wings Folded: 340 ft.

Ceiling,
Over Ground: 20,000 ft.
WIG 20 ft.

Largest WIG transport since the Russian (Caspian Sea Monster) in the 1960's.

There's actually one flying passengers in Alaska. It flies between islands, but I can't remember where exactly.

The Pelican, old news, I believe the Airship won out in the competition, or did they not chose a winner yet?

Shattered OUT...

THE BAHAMAS ISLAND have some vehicules, follow this link : Text Redwww.att-nn.com...

we worked in 1990 on this technologie with a prototype with our Colab wing's. it's a great project for plenty of applications...

The USSR had something similar back in the day... It is now rusting away in a hanger... no investors. It was a great idea, but not practical. However, maybe Boeing knows something we don't.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Boeings new planned Super Transport WIG. 400 feet long, 500 foot wingspan.




[edit on 21-2-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Clearing the water by about 40 or 50 feet it should be ok to cross the pacific as long as it stayed above relatively deep water. The speed, range and capacity should be pretty even compromise between a ship and a plane. But the question is if it will actually add any tactical or strategic value. It probably would have helped in taking on the japanese in WW2. I dont see much of a future for such a lumbering beast in future combat scenarios.

Originally posted by orca71
Clearing the water by about 40 or 50 feet it should be ok to cross the pacific as long as it stayed above relatively deep water. The speed, range and capacity should be pretty even compromise between a ship and a plane. But the question is if it will actually add any tactical or strategic value. It probably would have helped in taking on the japanese in WW2. I dont see much of a future for such a lumbering beast in future combat scenarios.

The idea is that these things can actually carry a large number of M-1 tanks, where as our other aircraft can barely hold 1 or 2.

Usually, we have to use ships to transport large numbers of tanks. With a fleet of 20 or so of these, you could redeploy tanks in very massive numbers in a very short ammount of time.

Personally, I like the Air Ships slightly more, but do like the idea of the speed these things bring to the table.

ULTIMA1: Just a small note. This russian WIG is not called Caspian Sea Monster. This is only concoction of the western journalists. Regular name is Alexejev KM (KM means Korabl Maket - ship mockup and not Kaspian Monster

Is my imagination or does Boeing's design look some what like Howard Huges Spruce Goose? That being said I have to ask could the Spruce Goose fly out of ground effect?

I don't think it particularly looks like it, but the image of a gigantic light coloured propeller driven transport flying so close to the waves is very evocative of the famous photo of the Spruce Goose in flight.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The idea is that these things can actually carry a large number of M-1 tanks, where as our other aircraft can barely hold 1 or 2.

Usually, we have to use ships to transport large numbers of tanks. With a fleet of 20 or so of these, you could redeploy tanks in very massive numbers in a very short ammount of time.

Personally, I like the Air Ships slightly more, but do like the idea of the speed these things bring to the table.

Add in that is is probably 20 times faster than a ship and has the benefit of being submarine proof, I can see alot of uses for this craft.

Originally posted by orca71
Clearing the water by about 40 or 50 feet it should be ok to cross the pacific as long as it stayed above relatively deep water.

It would be able to clear deep-water waves at that altitude, but I'd be more concerned about air turbulence. If a strong down-draft over one wing caused the wing to dip into the water at full speed, wouldn't the whole thing cartwheel into the ocean?

The Russian craft has much shorter "wings" so the drag of one hitting the water would have less leverage on the overall structure (The "Pelican" is 100ft wider than it is long). Plus, the Russian WIG appears to have pontoons on the ends of the wings that would prevent them from plunging too deep if they did touch the water. Perhaps the Russians had experience with this potential failure mode?

The stats listed above show the cieling in WIG mode as only 20ft. I'm sure the engineers are on top of things, but something that big going that fast that close to the water just seems dangerous to me.

Originally posted by Saltman

Originally posted by orca71
Clearing the water by about 40 or 50 feet it should be ok to cross the pacific as long as it stayed above relatively deep water.

It would be able to clear deep-water waves at that altitude, but I'd be more concerned about air turbulence. If a strong down-draft over one wing caused the wing to dip into the water at full speed, wouldn't the whole thing cartwheel into the ocean?

The Russian craft has much shorter "wings" so the drag of one hitting the water would have less leverage on the overall structure (The "Pelican" is 100ft wider than it is long). Plus, the Russian WIG appears to have pontoons on the ends of the wings that would prevent them from plunging too deep if they did touch the water. Perhaps the Russians had experience with this potential failure mode?

The stats listed above show the cieling in WIG mode as only 20ft. I'm sure the engineers are on top of things, but something that big going that fast that close to the water just seems dangerous to me.

20ft is probably minimum height with a full load. With wings that large there's going to be a good amount of conventional lift as well as some ground-effect aircushion.

As for safety, if one of the wing tips dipped into the water at very high speed, part of the wing would be ripped off and the aircraft would simply fall into the water. I wouldnt be surprised if they designed it to break-away in case of extensivesurface contact, disabling the vehicle instead of destroying it. As it is, because of the concentration of pressure at the wing tip it is unlikely to get too far into the water. But a large wave can change that.

I do agree that the russian design seems more sensible at first but Boeing must have its reasons for choosing to go with more conventional lift rather than relying almost entirely on ground-effect like the Russian aircraft. Perhaps because a broader wing allows lift to be distributed over a number of waves resulting in a smoother ride over rough seas where a small lift area would be more susceptible to variations in wave height between peak and trough.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by orca71]

Please provide a link to the offsite source where you get this info.

It is a violation of the terms of service to neglect this.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Please provide a link to the offsite source where you get this info.

It is a violation of the terms of service to neglect this.

Offsite Source: www.periscope.ucg.com...