|
|
Post by eri on Apr 21, 2022 16:00:35 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Apr 21, 2022 16:05:31 GMT 12
so in 3 years an integrated technology that does not exist will be in commercial service  |
|
|
|
Post by em on Apr 21, 2022 16:21:25 GMT 12
Love the idea but it scares the shit outta me at the same time , please don’t take out my lovely C tech rig .
Imagine taking one of those across the Manukau Bar for shits and giggles , gannets eye view of 5 metre waves from 5 metres above 😳.
Bloody tight timeline and really doubt they will be in service or even out of testing stage by 2025 but good on them for giving it a nudge . Every innovation starts with some crazy bugger having a crack at radical ideas , there could be some good spin-offs from this one even if it doesn’t get off the water .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2022 17:19:27 GMT 12
seen the latest AIR NZ ads on tv. Electric and Hydrogen by 2030? |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Apr 21, 2022 17:54:43 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 21, 2022 20:33:29 GMT 12
What I don't understand is, if the Russians had commercial ground effect planes ages ago (known as the Black Sea Monster, or something), and it didn't really work, what has changed to make these work?
That, and all the pics seem to have glassy calm sea. One of the examples was getting from Welly to Lyttleton in 30 mins or something (maybe it was 60 mins), anyway, if you have a typical ocean swell, with your wind chop on top of that, how is one of the delicate little plane things not going to get clobbered, and, how can it get a ground effect from a surface that is going up and down like whore's draws?
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Apr 22, 2022 7:56:48 GMT 12
What I don't understand is, if the Russians had commercial ground effect planes ages ago (known as the Black Sea Monster, or something), and it didn't really work, what has changed to make these work? That, and all the pics seem to have glassy calm sea. One of the examples was getting from Welly to Lyttleton in 30 mins or something (maybe it was 60 mins), anyway, if you have a typical ocean swell, with your wind chop on top of that, how is one of the delicate little plane things not going to get clobbered, and, how can it get a ground effect from a surface that is going up and down like whore's draws? The Russian monster might have weight problems ? good point about the wave action , gannets and albatrosses , petrels etc get the full rocking and rolling over waves thing going on . |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Apr 22, 2022 9:09:04 GMT 12
The Russian monster might have weight problems ? and "electric" aeroplanes won't have a similar problem. As we all know weight is the enemy in aviation. Interesting article here about the challenges in utilising Hydrogen as an energy source in superyachts, the principle issue being storage. www.superyachttimes.com/yacht-news/hydrogen-fuelthese issues will be magnified significantly for use in aviation |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 22, 2022 10:37:12 GMT 12
The Russian monster might have weight problems ? and "electric" aeroplanes won't have a similar problem. As we all know weight is the enemy in aviation. Interesting article here about the challenges in utilising Hydrogen as an energy source in superyachts, the principle issue being storage. www.superyachttimes.com/yacht-news/hydrogen-fuelthese issues will be magnified significantly for use in aviation What happened to the Graf Zeppelin again? That would have been the last time hydrogen was used in aviation wouldn't it? I had a read up on the Black Sea Monster after posting yesterday. Apparently it was intended to move heavy loads at high speeds. Not commercially, but being Russian, as a coastal attack aircraft... The thing I find fascinating, is all of these things have been around for decades, and tried decades ago. Foiling / hydrofoils first came out in the 50's? There is a renaissance now because we can build stiffer foils and lighter craft in carbon. Hovercraft etc. So what is different with ground effect? We can build lighter airframes. What benefit do batteries have over avgas? I thought the weight / energy density was the same? Obviously is batteries weigh less than the equivalent avgas, then there would be a benefit. But doesn't that same benefit apply to fixed wing aircraft? |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Apr 22, 2022 10:50:34 GMT 12
and "electric" aeroplanes won't have a similar problem. As we all know weight is the enemy in aviation. Interesting article here about the challenges in utilising Hydrogen as an energy source in superyachts, the principle issue being storage. www.superyachttimes.com/yacht-news/hydrogen-fuelthese issues will be magnified significantly for use in aviation So what is different with ground effect? We can build lighter airframes. What benefit do batteries have over avgas? I thought the weight / energy density was the same? Obviously is batteries weigh less than the equivalent avgas, then there would be a benefit. But doesn't that same benefit apply to fixed wing aircraft? Nope, for equivalent energy density with current technology you need approx 10x the volume in batteries compared to JetA1 or diesel (which are almost the same). This is why EV's are so heavy, the battery pack for a long range(400-500km) EV the battery weight is ~700kg vs ~60-70kg for 80 litres of petrol/diesel |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 22, 2022 10:56:09 GMT 12
So what is different with ground effect? We can build lighter airframes. What benefit do batteries have over avgas? I thought the weight / energy density was the same? Obviously is batteries weigh less than the equivalent avgas, then there would be a benefit. But doesn't that same benefit apply to fixed wing aircraft? Nope, for equivalent energy density with current technology you need approx 10x the volume in batteries compared to JetA1 or diesel (which are almost the same). This is why EV's are so heavy, the battery pack for a long range(400-500km) EV the battery weight is ~700kg vs ~60-70kg for 80 litres of petrol/diesel Well there you go. So the question still remains, what has changed to make a ground effect craft viable now over 50 years ago? |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Apr 27, 2022 18:55:35 GMT 12
So the question still remains, what has changed to make a ground effect craft viable now over 50 years ago? Carbon fibre and new lightweight construction materials and technics.
I learnt to fly in Cessnas, 152's to be specific. Small 2 seaters. Max take off weight 760kg +/- burning, or use for planning 25lts p/hr of 100LL petrol. In cruz they use a fair bit less. One I fly at the moment, a Tecnam 2008 which is also a small 2 seater, basically a new version of the 152, has a max take off weight of 600kg and use 14lts per hr of 91 octane mogas.
Cessnas are alloy, the Technam is fibre glass and gains the benefit of less weight so smaller motor and less fuel burn for the same performance.
These ferry things they are talking are carbon so will be very light, unlike the old Russian sea monsters which would have been as heavy as a fecking heavy thing.
What concerns me about these ferry things is the travel times they talk about means 3 figure speeds. If I was say sailing my Birdsal between Akl and Welly my mast would be well within the ground effect space. The driver of the ferry doing a few 100 kph will only have a few seconds to see my masthead light, work out what it is, which way it's going, how to miss it and then action all that.
So not many will be doing that route but one of the route they are targetting, due to range, is Akl to Whangarei. The R66 or CC fleet better hope the pilot is well aware they are all out there or it will not end well.
|
|
