To expand on the mention of weather: a hovercraft has to ride above the waves, meaning that current versions can only cross smaller bodies of water that don’t have the waves you get mid-ocean. Oceanic versions would have had to be cruise ship sized, and the economics just weren’t there. Also, all that salt spray they kick up gets sucked into the engine intakes, making maintenance a bitch.
People have been trying for decades to come up with something faster than a ship but bigger than an airplane which would be economically viable, but so far no luck.
Not true – that’s exactly what the ekranoplan does. And it’s arguably more fuel efficient. But it needs a big pull to take off (or you have to launch into the wind), it doesn’t like tipping very far over, and I suspect that it could crash disastrously in bad weather.
Brain Glutton – those articles (they’re actually the same link) don’t really addd anything to the question I ask.
They can certainly be faster than hydrofoils - the Wiki link says 500+ kph has been demonstrated.
They can probably be larger - Wiki says one of 2500 tons has been designed.
They can travel over shallow water or flat ground.
Where can you get up to 500 kph in any of those places, and how much trip time do you save? How much premium would passengers or freight forwarders pay for that reduced trip time?
What is the advantage of coming onto flat land instead of docking at a pier?
Where trip time is not critical, how does an ekranoplan, or hovercraft for that matter, have a weight-hauling advantage over an ordinary boat?
(I was referring to Eraknoplans in my earlier answer, FWIW)
In an Eraknoplan, you’d just float there like a boat if it lost power. They’re basically flying boats that only operate a few feet off the ground from what I can tell.
The big question is “are they more fuel efficient than jet aircraft?” because if so, then they could be easily used on the Australia- NZ run, or Seattle/Vancouver-Anchorage, or Tasmania/NZ- Antarctica… Being able to work on land would mean they could operate on ice, so I can see them being very useful for polar work.
He’s telling the truth. Since the hovercraft pushes air under the ice, it displaces the water that was holding the ice up. With nothing to support it, the ice closest to the hovercraft snaps and falls off the sheet.
IIRC the GEVs have to fly about 0.1 to 0.3 thier wingspan or less above the flat ground/water/whatever to get a substantial efficiency advantage.
So, the only way for them to fly over larger bodies of water safely is for them to be BIG (so they don’t crash into waves). Once you HAD a big ass one it would probably be a good thing. But you gotta invest and risk much money to get there. So, its somewhat of a chicken and the egg financial problem.
How do you think its weight is supported, if not via air pressure? And does that pressure push downwards as well as upwards?
Just FTR, an ekranoplan is an airplane and has to meet all of an airplane’s certification requirements. The ones for a ship ain’t nothin’ compared to that.
You know, I’ve often thought that if you could fly something like one of these over flat sand instead of water, you’d have real-life actual Pod Racing! Picture a 200-km course somewhere in North Africa, with remote cameras along the course following the race. A big prize, the most [del]crazy[/del]daredevil pilots, and lots of liability wavers. Pod Racing: “If nobody dies, it was a dull race”.
