Russia returns to flirting with Wing in Ground (WiG) Vehicles

a reply to: anzha

Excellent, about time, The Russians were at the for front of this tech 50 years ago.

I will be honest, I hate flying in domestic Commercial aircraft, the seats are so squeezy, there is no legroom, you cant move, a horrid experience, even if only for a few hours......seems longer to me.

I cant imagine what a long international flight is like....especially from here. Oz.

Its about time we have developed these Wig craft, perhaps even in a circular shape, that can traverse the Worlds Oceans, at a very low height, but at say 300 mph, where you can, as a passenger, get up walk around, go to an observation deck, perhaps have sleeper rooms, and enjoy a fast but relaxed journey to another part of the World. Yes of Course using the Oceans only......
The actual Journey would be longer, perhaps not by a huge amount, but would be more comfortable and hopefully safer, with good design.....particularly compared to a metal cylinder falling from 35000 ft like current planes.

Even across land aircraft could be better developed nowdays, some sort of circular airship, with a large cabin area for people to walk around, VTOL capabilities, using EM and solar panels etc, and only fly perhaps just above the storm clouds (or avoid them), or 10,000 feet or less, travel at 300ish mph, relatively smooth and quiet......using modern tech.

I still think it primitive that we still have planes in the 21st century, that need a 1/2 mile runway to take off and land, when they should be taking off vertical.

Maybe one day we will get out of these old fashioned current ideas.

a reply to: Woody510


One note:
You can stay in useful ground effect for about half your wingspan. But the lower you are, the more benefit. For a little (and slow) ekranoplan like in your video, the useful altitude is negligible. For the Caspian SeaMonster with a wingspan of over 120 feet, it gets you to 60 feet altitude which is sufficient to clear most obstacles and remain in ground effect. With sufficient speed, you could get higher (lift is a function of the square of the velocity of the wing), but then you're relying on direct lift and not ground effect, and you lose the efficiency benefits. The smaller, slower Orlyonok (sp?) had a max ceiling of several thousand feet, but remains most efficient down low (~50').

a reply to: RadioRobert

Has anyone ever modeled a lifting body or flying wing WIG?

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: RadioRobert

Has anyone ever modeled a lifting body or flying wing WIG?

There are some mostly lifting surface WIGS, but not specifically a flying wing, that I'm aware of. Generally speaking any aircraft can get some benefit for as much altitude as your wingspan (or rotor diameter), but it drops off rapidly after about half-span. I'm not sure that depth (or chord, properly) would make much difference, but maybe?

Here's a Burnelli-esque fuselage WiG here.. L/D seems less than ideal compared to longer aspect ratio wings, so I'm guessing wing shape does factor. So I'd infer you produce more regular lift at a given speed, but perhaps less likely to reap GE benefit. I'm open to anyone with math making a point in either direction.

The Ekranoplan was designed as a fast landing craft to outflank the NATO defenses and put troops and material behind them from the Baltic Sea. Any sort of heavy seas would play havoc with it but calm seas and flat land would allow it to move quickly inland but I was under the impression that it would stay wet. Problems with sea water ingestion during startup and flight and corrosion were difficult and reminded me of the Convair F2Y Sea Dart, the only supersonic seaplane.

All good until a Dolphin jumps up in front of you or worse a Whale...