The Next Spruce Goose

Milt Thanatos writes "For those of us who have been patiently waiting for WIGE (wing-in-ground-effect) ever since the first stories leaked out of the Soviet Union, this may be it. Check out: this site. Note that, unlike the Soviet WIGE, this version can take to altitude above rough seas or dry land."

Comments

Phantom Works?

[Profane Motherfucker]

Not too fucking Phantom if they have a Public Relations office doing the publicity, hitting the front page of Slashdot and being seen by tens of thousands. We're CODE ORANGE folks!

Re:Phantom Works?

[0x69]

"Phantom Works" means that they've got the budget & clearance to work on cool "outside of the box" stuff. Boeing has no special interest in "secret", they're a big company trying to make money. The military doesn't waste much time trying to keep their huge, heavy, & slow transport equipment secret anyway.

If you read a bit down the page, you'd see that they want to replace many of the world's commercial container ships with new Boeing Pelicans (costing $$$$ each). "Phantom Works" will just be part of the sales pitch.

Re:Phantom Works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent analysis of the most pedantic fucking thing in the world. Please tell me why water comes out of the faucet, despite me living far from a river.

Reliability problems.

[Unknown Poltroon]

Ok, so it can only take off from a paved runway, which means its not amphibious. What happens when a engine fails when its crusing at 20 feet and an engine fails? There is no margin for error. What about rogue waves? It's crusing at 20 feet, and a 40 foot wave pops up? For that matter, how calm does the ocean need to be for the ground effect to work?

Re:Reliability problems.

[FreakCERS]

well... it says nowhere that it is UNABLE to land on water... - in emergencies...
and.. it DOES state that it will be equipped with "the latest flight control technology" - which in my opinion means that it most likely WILL be able to detect rouge waves...

I haven't come across any articles describing the effects of waves or similar on the ground effect, but this page has quite a bit info on the effect itself

Re:Reliability problems.

[blufive]

What happens when a engine fails

Same as any other plane: it slows down a bit. Look at the picture, it's got at least 4 engines (assuming they're not using coax props with multiple engines in each nacelle). If one packs up, it's not a major problem.

There is no margin for error.

Yes there is. 20 feet, at least :). Seriously, when it's cruising, it's not going to be running at full power, so they just throttle the others up a bit, and put up with any loss of speed.

What about rogue waves? It's crusing at 20 feet, and a 40 foot wave pops up?

The document says "as low as 20 feet". If the weather's a bit ropy, they fly a little higher.

For that matter, how calm does the ocean need to be for the ground effect to work?

Not very. What counts is how high your wing is above the "ground". The ground effect starts to be measurable at an altitude of half your wingspan. For it to really work, you want to be somewhat lower. If the ocean is really rough, things will get rather bumpy, though. This thing is projected to have a wingspan of something like 150 metres. That's BIG. It would be getting serious groung effect with its wing 20 metres above the water. That's 65 feet, folks.

Re:Reliability problems.

[ceejayoz]

rogue waves would be easily detected by a terrain following system - same way they detect mountains when flying low over enemy territory, with radar!

as for engine failing - I imagine it'd be fine with 3 out of its 4 propellers going. IIRC a 747 can fly with only one of its four engines working properly.

Re:Reliability problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's 65 feet, folks.

Thank you. Finally a unit I can understand!

Re:Reliability problems.

[blufive]

rogue waves would be easily detected by a terrain following system - same way they detect mountains when flying low over enemy territory, with radar!

Yes, and no. If you're only 20-30 metres up, you'll only be able to see waves from a few miles away with radar - and if you're doing 400-500 mph in a 1500-2000 tonne aircraft, "a few miles" isn't very much warning. Throw in the fact that there are going to be a LOT of waves, of varying height, and it wouldn't be wise to rely on it. You could use radar to get a general idea of the sea condition, and then choose your altitude to give a safety margin above the highest waves.

IIRC a 747 can fly with only one of its four engines working properly.

Well, for certain values of the word "fly", I suppose. It certainly wouldn't be able to engage in any energetic maneuvers, the climb rate would be diabolical (or non-existent) - and if it was one of the outboard engines, steering the beastie would be a little, um, exciting.

Re:Reliability problems.

[MrNixon]

It says right at the bottom of the article that the pland can climb to high altitudes to leave rough seas. Ground effect simply increases efficiency and range.

Re:Reliability problems.

[foobar104]

What happens when a engine fails when its crusing at 20 feet and an engine fails?

A basic understanding of inertia is needed here. When a plane loses an engine-- or all the engines, for that matter-- it doesn't just drop out of the sky. It starts to slow down a bit, but only very gradually. If you lose an engine on a large multi-engine plane, you can just bump the throttles on the other engine or engines up a little and, if necessary, adjust the rudder to keep the aircraft from yawing due to off-axis thrust. It's no big deal, really. Several times I've been on commercial flights that lose one engine. If you're close to your destination, the ATCs simply move you ahead in the pattern to get you down a little faster. The only real concern is the possibility that you might, in a two-engine aircraft, lose the other engine.

As far as I know-- I'm no expert-- every civilian or military multi-engine aircraft in use today can sustain flight on just one engine. Even the big boys, like 747s, can maintain altitude, descend, and land with all the engines out but one.

Re:Reliability problems.

[srussell]

A basic understanding of inertia is needed here. When a plane loses an engine-- or all the engines, for that matter-- it doesn't just drop out of the sky.

I agree -- a basic understanding of inertia is needed.

There are many cases where inertia won't help you much. This plane, in all probability, will make a good glider. However, if you take an F15 and turn off the engines, it does effectively drop out of the sky, in the sense that the speed rapidly falls below the minimum speed required for its tiny wings to provide any lift.

There's another way inertia will not only not help, but will hurt. If this plane doesn't glide well, then the 20m fall isn't going to hurt as much as the 500 knot horizontal velocity will when it hits something.

I'd like to hear what the average rate of recovery for failed engines is, and how long the average restart time is. Not on this plane, in particular, but your average commercial airliner.

Re:Reliability problems.

[foobar104]

I'd like to hear what the average rate of recovery for failed engines is, and how long the average restart time is. Not on this plane, in particular, but your average commercial airliner.

I'm talking completely out of my ass here, but I've never heard of an engine restart incident on a commercial jetliner. In order to restart an engine, you have to make certain changes to your angle of attack that the passengers might find... surprising. I believe SOP in that circumstance is just to shut the engine down, contact ATC and declare an emergency, and land at the nearest airport. When my flight to Chicago lost an engine over southern Illinois, we were already in the pattern for Midway airport, so ATC just let us skip to the front of the line. At least, that's what the pilot said over the PA. "Ladies and gentlemen, that loud noise you just heard was our starboard engine shutting down. It's nothing to worry about, but of course air traffic control has moved us to the front of the landing pattern, so we'll be on the ground in about ten minutes." Something like that.

Re:Reliability problems.

[Cubeman]

Actually, I'm aware of at least one. In 1982 a 747 flew into a cloud of ash from a nearby volcano, and both engines failed. The plane fell 25,000 feet until the pilots were able to restart the engines. Here is a link.

Re:Reliability problems.

[foobar104]

In 1982 a 747 flew into a cloud of ash from a nearby volcano, and both engines failed.

Let's clarify this. There were two incidents of 747 engine failure involving Mt. Galunggung in 1982. In the first one, a British Airways 747 lost all four engines. It descended to 12,000 feet before the pilot was able to get 3 of the 4 engines restarted. In that case, SOP doesn't matter a bit because the choice was either restart at least one engine or glide into the sea.

In the other case mentioned with respect to Mt. Galunggung, a Singapore Airlines 747 lost two engines out of four due to the ash cloud; that aircraft didn't attempt an engine relight, but instead made an emergency landing in Jakarta.

There are many documented instances of engine failure or shutdown on commercial aircraft. But the correct procedure in that instance is to declare an emergency and head for the nearest airport. Heroic maneuvers in an attempt to restart the failed engine are confined to rare, but not unheard of, cases in which all the engines have been lost and the aircraft is gliding in.

Re:Reliability problems.

[p3d0]

Ah, long live the Slashdot Naysayer, trying to get modded as Insightful by listing a bunch of ill-conceived bogus showstopping problems without having read the article.

Re:Reliability problems.

[p3d0]

Actually, a 747 is a pretty good glider, and can go a long, long way with no engines at all.

Re:Reliability problems.

[Weedhopper]

However, if you take an F15 and turn off the engines, it does effectively drop out of the sky, in the sense that the speed rapidly falls below the minimum speed required for its tiny wings to provide any lift

Dude, the F-15 has a HUGE wingspan to weight/ surface area ratio that effectively provides it with an almost delta wing effect. Military fighter aircraft generally have a much higher amount of lift per weight than commercial jetliners. The amount of lift provided by the wings on fighters is why you need such a long landing strips on airfields that will support them.

Re:Reliability problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, waves that are full of ladies' cosmetics and/or a red color will likely pose bigger problems than knocking a cargo plane out of the "sky".

Re:Reliability problems.

[srpatterson]

From the look of it, as 8 bladed props are very unusual, I think that each engine bay would hold 2 (maybe more) engines with 2 contra-rotating props.

Woo cool

[smoondog]

Just a clarification on the story. The plane may look like the spruce goose, but it does not land on water.

-Sean

Re:Woo cool

[Anonymous Coward]

A clarification on the clarification: nobody said it landed on water.

Re:Woo cool

[foobar104]

A clarification on... oh, you figure it out.

The Spruce Goose was a seaplane. It could only land on water. Calling this plane "the next Spruce Goose" gives a pretty seriously wrong idea. So the original clarification was justified and appropriate.

Does it come with...

[leviramsey]

...a reclusive germ-phobic wacko who owns Las Vegas?

That would be the ultimate feature!

Russia already built this

[austad]

Back in 1960, the Russians developed the Ekranoplan. We saw it in satellite photos because the thing was too damn big to fit inside a building. It was over 2 football fields long, weighed over 540 tons, and could reach speeds of more than 500 knots. It could also fly up to 20 meters above the surface. Back in the early 1990's, we finally found out what that thing in the pictures actually was. Around 20 of them were built, but for some reason they cancelled the program.

There's a good picture and some info here. The History channel had a show on this thing a few weeks ago too, and it made me wonder why we didn't have anything like that. It's an unbelievably fast and efficient way to carry large amounts of people and cargo.

Re:Russia already built this

[Phoenix]

Granted the Russians already build a Ground Effect Craft, but it was not able to do what this craft can do. It's not JUST a GEC like the Russians, this one can act as both. Using the Altitude as needed over land, and then switching to GE mode for the trans oceanic routes.

In a military role, say you're getting supplies from Kansas to Germany. Using the russian craft you'd have to take off from Kansas to a coastal base with the cargo, transfer to the GEC only craft, fly to england, transer back to a cargo craft and land.

This craft by Boeing would be able to take off from Kansas, drop to 20 feet as soon as it hits open water, pull back to 20,000 ft and land in Germany.

much better design

football fields long?

[Nf1nk]

[humor]
it was almost 1/600th of Rhode Island long and could have crossed more than 4 Texas's (Texii?)in less than a day!
[/humor]
There are times that I wish we could all just use one measuring system, I vote for furlongs per fortenite.

Re:football fields long?

[Yottabyte84]

attoparsecs per microfortnight!

Re:football fields long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Texases

Sailboat Bowling Anyone?

[orn]

I'd hate to be in a sailboat, relaxing somewhere in the middle of the Pacific when one of these went by.

Or imagine being the poor sucker in the crow's nest looking for land or reattaching a sail.

And I bet they say it's the sailor's fault for being in a shipping lane.

How many water skiers could this tow?

[ewanrg]

Having seen some of the other crazy things people do, it occurred to me that one of the great uses for this thing would be for starting a new sport - extreme waterskiing...