I’m pretty sceptical about ground effect planes, there’s a very good reason why they’ve never really taken off, despite so many countries and organisations giving them a try over the years, but I’d love to know what everyone else thinks.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I think that anything with such narrow operating parameter is always limited. Just the way things work. Take rockets - ones to put humans in orbit are very different than say sounding rockets, or other sub-orbitals, or even ones for satellites (and those vary based on LEO or GeoSynch).

    Soviet Union used ground effects planes as naval vessels with missiles (Ekranoplan), which I guess the tradeoffs made sense.

    • @IlovethebombOP
      link
      21 month ago

      The Soviets also crashed one of their ground effect planes, killing all the crew. I understand they were also very costly to operate.

      • @absGeekNZ
        link
        English
        31 month ago

        Electric ground effect has a major advantage vs the jet turbine driven ones.

        It does not have to suck in massive volumes of air close to the ground…sea water is not good for jet turbines.

        • @IlovethebombOP
          link
          31 month ago

          Sea water is a nightmare for anything mechanical, in my experience, but electronics can at least be sealed effectively. Usually.

          The biggest reason I’m so sceptical about this, is every other use case I’ve seen for electric vehicles or vessels has been something that’s already a proven concept. Cars, trucks, planes, harbour ferries, they are all a proven concept, we’re just moving to a different fuel.

          Ground effect planes, on the other hand, have never been proven with any fuel type.

          • @absGeekNZ
            link
            English
            31 month ago

            Good point… We will just have to watch and find out. Ground effect theory, and somewhat practice is sound.