Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Technicalities: Faster than a Boat

By Peter Garrison / Published: Sep 16, 2011
Rate it! or
Flying Magazine | The World’s Most Widely Read Aviation Magazine

The Lun's engines tilted to direct the exhaust
under the wing for takeoff.

(September 2011) In 1920 it was already common knowledge among pilots that, as airplanes got very close to the ground, they seemed to slide along on a slippery cushion of air. A decade later, the phenomenon — “ground effect” — had been investigated in wind tunnels and flight tests and was well documented, even if the precise mechanisms involved were still imperfectly understood. A 1934 summary of existing research by a French investigator, Maurice Le Sueur, was translated by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, NASA’s wonderfully productive and helpful predecessor, and published as Technical Memorandum 771 under the title “Ground Effect on the Takeoff and Landing of Airplanes.”

“Observations on airplanes in free flight,” Le Sueur wrote, “have enabled us to observe certain systematic phenomena such as: the greater facility of low-wing airplanes for taking off; the impossibility of certain heavily loaded airplanes to gain altitude; the prolonged gliding power of low-wing airplanes at landing, etc.”

During the 1920s several long-range attempts had ended in disaster when airplanes crammed with fuel rose from the ground, sometimes even after a shorter run than expected, but then would not climb out of ground effect. It still happens today, especially at high density altitudes, but most of us are more likely to encounter ground effect on landing, when we find certain airplanes floating effortlessly past the point where we intended to touch down.

All these phenomena are manifestations of three basic properties of ground effect. The strongest and most readily apparent is the reduction of induced drag, or drag due to lift, which, at minimum speed, is the bulk of any airplane’s drag. Entering ground effect — typically defined as one wingspan above the ground, but really noticeable at less than half a span — has the same effect as increasing the aspect ratio would: The airplane glides better.

The influence of ground effect on lift is less obvious. Contrary to the impression created by the phrase “cushion of air,” ground effect does not increase maximum lift or reduce stalling speed; but lift increases more rapidly with angle of attack in ground effect than out of it, and so the airplane stalls at a lower angle of attack. When the trailing edge of the wing gets quite close to the surface, however, as happens when a short-legged low-wing airplane — a Piper Comanche, for instance — with flaps down flares just above the ground, the maximum lift may in fact diminish and the stalling speed go up.

At speeds well above the stall, dropping closer to the surface increases the lift for a given angle of attack, and so if the angle of attack is held steady, a wing close to the surface — less than a chord length above it — resists getting any closer.

Comments (2) Post a comment

All Comments

WatchingChina's picture

The US military was very interested in Russia's Ekranoplane, and after the collapse of the USSR, so as to not draw excess attention to the negotiations, they proposed to use the services of an American firm with the neutral name (RAN [Russian Academy of Science]), and through this, a delegation of US specialists obtained the opportunity to meet with its designers.

Russia agreed to organize the visit by American researchers at their base in Kaspiyske, where they could photograph and videotape in detail without the limitations.

The leader of the American delegation was Colonel Francis of the USAF, who headed the promising tactical fighter program at the time. There were also prominent specialists from scientific research centers, including from NASA, and also representatives of US aircraft manufacturers. Among them was Bert Rutan.

As a result of these visits, for which the US paid US$200,000, the US may have saved several billions in cost, and years in development, to produce its own designs. The US military raised the question at the time about the possibility of organising a joint activity to produce its final interest - the creation of a troop-carrying air-cushion vehicle with a takeoff weight of up to 5,000 tons for US military quick response teams.

GEV developed since the 1980s have been primarily smaller craft designed for the recreational and civilian ferry markets. Germany, Russia and the US have provided most of the momentum with some development in Australia, China, Japan and Taiwan. In these countries small craft up to 10 seats have been designed and built. Other larger designs as ferries and heavy transports have been proposed, though none have gone on to further development.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, smaller ekranoplans for non-military use have been under development. The CHDB had already developed the eight-seat Volga-2 in 1985, and Technologies and Transport developed a smaller version by the name of Amphistar.

In Germany, Lippisch was asked to build a very fast boat for Mr Collins from Collins Radio Company in the USA. He developed the X-112, a revolutionary design with reversed delta wing and T-tail. This design proved to be stable and efficient in ground effect and even though it was successfully tested, Collins decided to stop the project and sold the patents to a German company called Rhein Flugzeugbau (RFB) which further developed the model.

The Boeing Pelican WIG Concept Aircraft

Boeing had shown an interest in the WIG idea and have discussed a concept to build a huge WIG craft with military needs in mind for a long range heavy transport craft. Named 'The Pelican' the 500ft wing span craft it is proposed would carry 2,800,000 lbs of freight. The ride height would be established at around 20 feet off the ground but a ceiling altitude of 20,000 feet was being considered as in conventional aircraft. The Pelican as it was envisaged would operate from a runway with 76 retractable wheels although the dual concept of a water landing craft was on the agenda.

The wings on the Pelican are tilted downwards for the best WIG efficiency. The craft would be powered by four huge powerful turboprop engines. With an envisaged 2 cargo decks, one for at least 15 main battle tanks and the upper for a thousand troops, with a maximum takeoff weight up to 3,000 tons, the Pelican would have a wing area of more than an acre.

iused2fly's picture

A very entertaining and informative column, Peter. And a equally interesting response from watchingchina above.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use