There's an improved design version of this wing-in-ground vehicles with regards to the stepped hull. They are trying a hydrofoil hull version. It may improve take-off vibration issues but not sure how it performs during landing.
Perhaps just adding an small wheel under each wingtip float, another in the rear side of fuselage, would allow amphibian operations. Or not? ruclips.net/video/gnflnBF7jWk/видео.htmlsi=7G89k3iVfgSyfyxq ruclips.net/video/qTIoezhRS3g/видео.htmlsi=IFd3e_Smp0pKnDoZ
Since airborne, there cannot be no more sonar sensing: for just submerged coral rocks. The lowering-down for landing will be more dangerous.. esp during Night time.!?!
The Ekranoplans the Russians were working on had lots of challenges that made them impractical. These thing really cool on paper and even when they're in operation. But it doesn't take long to figure out that they're just not going to work in the long run. Kind of shame, really.
You would need to do some heavy cost analysis of production versus flyable seas. Doesn't look super viable unless you just need an occasional quickie transportation service for VIPs. Then again, why wouldn't you just use a traditional plane or helicopter?
I believe they use cost effective automotive engines with regular gas equaling a much lower maintenance cost repair/replacement. That may make them more viable. Hydrofoils are probably the answer to the rough water problem. As far as existing air travel goes, these are probably safer than helos or fixed wing travel with no need of landing strip and maintenance areas.
@@davidguthrie5941 Turbines can ingest some water.But it doesnt matter.This entire concept is flawed.Not even very safe.And its rendered superfluous by nearly every seaplane which does whatever this can and much more and cheaper.The only way this concept even kind of works is if you scale it way up as in the Ekranoplan .
Good for the travel along the shoreline from Kamchatka to Cape of Good Hope in bigger and with damper.
Good lord, the music selection is so needlessly intense.
I feel like I would get one of these I was successful in the street pharmaceuticals industry.
There's an improved design version of this wing-in-ground vehicles with regards to the stepped hull. They are trying a hydrofoil hull version. It may improve take-off vibration issues but not sure how it performs during landing.
Perhaps just adding an small wheel under each wingtip float, another in the rear side of fuselage, would allow amphibian operations. Or not?
ruclips.net/video/gnflnBF7jWk/видео.htmlsi=7G89k3iVfgSyfyxq
ruclips.net/video/qTIoezhRS3g/видео.htmlsi=IFd3e_Smp0pKnDoZ
That will add extra friction
Not that much, I'd say. Anyway, it's easy to implement, test, measure, and revert if results are negative. Or not?
I Loved THE TRANSLATION ..THANKS..
oh the drama oh the angst oh the tension f f s k
Since airborne, there cannot be no more sonar sensing: for just submerged coral rocks.
The lowering-down for landing will be more dangerous.. esp during Night time.!?!
Put in a break water along the cost near the resort. Reduce the waves make a "wet runway"
The Ekranoplans the Russians were working on had lots of challenges that made them impractical. These thing really cool on paper and even when they're in operation. But it doesn't take long to figure out that they're just not going to work in the long run. Kind of shame, really.
That is not entirely accurate. Do more research.
spring and absober?
Not a single mention of the "ground effect" principle that this whole thing is based on?
What if they added hydrofoils to smooth take off and landings?
...like an F-35 rotating engine nozzles.
It’s a plane that won’t gain altitude. Just buy a sea plane and travel faster and higher 👍🏻👍🏻
Very Good..
Indonesia is a big market
16.377 islands
They've had stepped hulls on flying boats for over 100 years.
You would need to do some heavy cost analysis of production versus flyable seas. Doesn't look super viable unless you just need an occasional quickie transportation service for VIPs. Then again, why wouldn't you just use a traditional plane or helicopter?
I believe they use cost effective automotive engines with regular gas equaling a much lower maintenance cost repair/replacement. That may make them more viable. Hydrofoils are probably the answer to the rough water problem. As far as existing air travel goes, these are probably safer than helos or fixed wing travel with no need of landing strip and maintenance areas.
Very impressive 👍
Great. Flying in the most congested straits you can find. OOps....
It's not as bad as you might think...
JUNk
How about a mallard 🦆
Didn't the wing fall of one in Miami some years back? Are they still flying?
@@MrGrandure off one, i don’t know, yes they still fly .... still very popular....
@@MalditoLocaDeLosMina cool, for some reason I thought they were grounded
@@MrGrandure I think they are discontinued for the bigger Grumman HU-16 Albatross.....
Heavy trans,IC engines..Why not use turbines? JUst get a catalina and get it overwith.
Lol excellent point, especially considering General Motors' shoddy reliability and warranty support.
@@davidguthrie5941 Turbines can ingest some water.But it doesnt matter.This entire concept is flawed.Not even very safe.And its rendered superfluous by nearly every seaplane which does whatever this can and much more and cheaper.The only way this concept even kind of works is if you scale it way up as in the Ekranoplan .
I saw it in Cairns years ago. It was overbuilt more like a boat than an aircraft.
It shakes too much when moving, like in extreme racing. Such a vehicle will not be popular.
Слишком трясёт при движении, как на экстремальных гонках. Такое средство передвижения не будет популярным.
The landing is terrible though