WesWorld

Shinra, sorry to say this but that thing is just utterly hideous! O_O

Also I think you need a few more exhaust thingies on the side as it now looks like a V-6 to me.

ShinRa, isn't the float a little small for the plane? 2 feet in diameter with a fullness of 0.2, seems kind of little......

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Ground effect aircraft are one of those interesting in between areas that are unlikely to really ever really take off.

[...]

It's great for a little performance envelope but really lacks the flexibility to effectively compete with other modes of transport. It's difficult to uproot ship-helicopter-aeroplane.

Ulf-Dieter surely would wholeheartly disagree. :o)

I have many PowerPoint slides where he compares the projected FS80 to planes like a Dash-8-300 or A318 or ferries like the high speed boats CatNo1 or the Austal Highspeed 2 or conventional vessels. He also has a lot of data on wave height etc. to show that in areas like the Baltic, North Sea or Persion Gulf a FS80 could start and land 98% of a year - which is comparable to conventional ships if you consider ice etc.

To connect cities, especially those without large harbors and infrastructure (you hardly need more than a usual quay to supply a FS80), a ground effect vessel with 80-100 seats would be a really good option.

Without going into detail, but Ulf-Dieter and his fellows have at hand a completely designed craft fitting all applying set of regulations, newly registered shipping company and licences for several harbours in the Baltic. All business cases show a big chance for profit. However, 80-120 million € to build the first batch of 3-4 craft are missing despite European and Governmental sponsorship yet. We´ll see what the next few years will bring....

[One problem here is that there a strong, international parties involved that have no interest to see these crafts born to life. And then there are groups that would immediately buy a purpose build vessel, organisations in South America with dubious background..... There is more to this than just technology.]

Walter, that seems to be the only comment you've had on anything I've posted in recent memory. :\

The exhaust stacks I slapped on were ripped from a V-12 plane, so.... -shrug-

As for the float size in planebuilder....I don't have the ability to run planebuilder on my computer, Hood put together the sim.

It could be that it is two cylinders leading to one exhaust exit. The picture of the MiG-3 I used and modified for the Ki-37 had the same (not sure if that is actually the case).


To me it just looks too small for a 2450hp engine of a raceplane...

Actually that makes it look a bit better...

Alternatively, you could rip the exhaust from the Ki-37 pic, make it darker and stick it onto your plane.

The Atlantean entry, created by Hood. Osson Talsconis is the pilot, a freelance pilot.
Aircraft Type or Name:

Spartan Schneider

General Type:
Airplane = 1
Airship = 2
Orbiter = 3
1

Year of First Flight: 1937

Description

Flying Boat / Seaplane
Monoplane
Conventional Fuselage

A Schneider Trophy racing seaplane powered by a V-12 inline with ethanol additive fuel. Evaporative cooling on both wings and two ventral radiators and two oil coolers. Single float with outrigger floats design



Characteristics:

Weight (maximum) 5,500 lbs
Weight (empty) 4,533 lbs

Length 31.2 ft
Wingspan 28 ft
Wing Area 120 sq ft
Sweep 2 degrees

Engines 1
Spartan VS-2800V-E V-12 Phoenix
Piston

2,800 hp



Crew 1


Typical cost $0.290 million in 1937
Total number procured 3


Performance:

Top Speed 410 kts = 472 mph
at 0 ft
Mach N/A

Operational Ceiling 36,000 ft

Range 180 nm = 207 miles
with 195 lbs payload
205 lbs released at halfway point

Climb 8,300 fpm

Cruise 348 kts = 400 mph
at 0 ft

Corner Speed 222 KIAS =
222 kts at 0 ft
Mach N/A
Turning Rate 17.9 deg/sec
Radius 2,397 ft



Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 12 ft

Bypass Ratio 56.63

Engine Weight 2006 lbs
Overall Efficiency 17 percent

Structural Factor 1.00

Number of Wings 1
Number of Fuselages 1

Limiting Airspeed 450 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 6.00 g
Wing Taper 0.2
Wing Thickness at Root 1 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.35

Number of Nacelles 1.5
Length 26.7 ft
Diameter 2 ft
Fullness 0.2

Fuselage Diameter 3.75 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.3

Pressurized Volume 0 percent
Cargo Decks 0

Cleanness 72 percent
Unstreamlined section 1.2 sq ft

User equipment 25 lbs

Quoted

Ulf-Dieter surely would wholeheartly disagree. :o)

I'm sure he would, but that's my informed opinion. It would probably perform well on a couple of routes, but is just not flexible enough to warrant putting enough money behind it. I'm surprised no EU funding is available, they'll usually give money to any crazy scheme (like this which is rather dubious).

Lots of new teams in the Schneider Trophy this year, I predict, many, many engine faliures.

IRL, the Philippines might actually be a place where WIG craft would seem to be useful. Faster than any boat, probably even going 'around', say, the south end of Luzon it's likely faster than most land routes...

Of course, the DAB-X will (almost) certainly remain Napkinwaffe.

Folks, I want to press on with this since we're rapidly approaching Q1 and so I want to begin write-ups over the weekend.

Please have all entries in by 08:00GMT on Saturday morning.

Floats in planebuilder are simmed as one big and two small floats as 1.5 nacelles to reduce drag. Since you can't get good enough to the real Schenider weights and speeds with too much drag I thought best to err on the side of less drag. Speeds are approx anyway (given the turns in the course etc) and of course depend on those engines.

As far as the floats go, I'm mostly concerned with whether there's enough volume there to float the plane. A 2', 0.2 fullness float seems too small. The other thing to make certain of is to have 1.1 wings, that gets you the bracing, etc, needed to support the floats (and generate drag).

Range increased version of the He-121 follows.....

Heinkel He-121 V-1

General Type:
Airplane = 1
Airship = 2
Orbiter = 3
1

Year of First Flight: 1941

Description

Flying Boat / Seaplane
Monoplane with Struts
Conventional Fuselage


A WW Heinkel Schneider Trophy racer, powered by a racing DB-604 running on methanol/benzene/etc fuel and fitted with MW-30 injection. Fitted with a combination (radiator plus evaporative) cooling system for the engine, to try to ensure the 24-cylinder engine stays cool. User weight is for the floats and the associated struts (main float is fixed, stabilizing floats fold upwards to the wing tips).



Characteristics:

Weight (maximum) 7,500 lbs
Weight (empty) 5,887 lbs

Length 31.5 ft
Wingspan 32 ft
Wing Area 195 sq ft
Sweep 0 degrees

Engines 1
DB-604R
Piston

4,158 hp
at 5,000 ft


Crew 1


Typical cost $0.706 million in 1941
Total number procured 2


Performance:

Top Speed 423 kts = 486 mph
at 1,200 ft
Mach N/A

Operational Ceiling 15,000 ft

Range 200 nm = 230 miles
with 34 lbs payload
38 lbs released at halfway point

Climb 10,546 fpm

Cruise 405 kts = 466 mph
at 1,200 ft

Corner Speed 262 KIAS =
266 kts at 1,200 ft
Mach N/A
Turning Rate 27.2 deg/sec
Radius 1,889 ft



Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 13.75 ft

Bypass Ratio 42.5

Engine Weight 2200 lbs
Overall Efficiency 12.5 percent

Structural Factor 1.00

Number of Wings 1.1
Number of Fuselages 1

Limiting Airspeed 500 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 10.00 g
Wing Taper 0.1
Wing Thickness at Root 1 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.4

Number of Nacelles 1
Length 27 ft
Diameter 4 ft
Fullness 0.45

Fuselage Diameter 3.75 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.35

Pressurized Volume 0 percent
Cargo Decks 0

Cleanness 72 percent
Unstreamlined section 1.3 sq ft

User equipment 0 lbs

The Macchi C.72 (which sims very well in planebuilder) has two floats that are 20.1ft long and 2.9ft diameter. Some of the aircraft outlined above are heavier, so larger float volume is needed, and because of the need to react the torque from the propeller you need one of them to be a lot bigger. The buoyancy reserve for the C72 was 19% as opposed to 60% for the S6B which had to deal with the torque. Float volume for the S6B was about 80 cu ft. With a 26.7ft long x 2ft diameter float as outlined by Wes above you've got about 35 cu ft of buoyancy which is nowhere near enough.

The propellor diameters here are probably a bit big as well, 9.5ft for the S6B and 8.2ft for the C72. You can't mount the aircraft too high off the floats and need to keep the prop out of spray.

The He-121's prop diameter IS too big, that's a Planebuilder artifact from trying to get the fuel consumption correct (at the very high rate of 0.8 lbs/hp/hr). Since Planebuilder only has 1 efficiency number to use, that affects both the fuel consumption and the ability to "grab" air, there's a bit of an issue..... Result: the prop's too big. I figure that's less of a problem than not having high enough fuel consumption for the big DB X-engine.

Quoted

The He-121's prop diameter IS too big, that's a Planebuilder artifact from trying to get the fuel consumption correct (at the very high rate of 0.8 lbs/hp/hr). Since Planebuilder only has 1 efficiency number to use, that affects both the fuel consumption and the ability to "grab" air, there's a bit of an issue..... Result: the prop's too big. I figure that's less of a problem than not having high enough fuel consumption for the big DB X-engine.

You've got the bypass ratio (well what planebuilder terms bypass ratio) and prop diameter to play around with as well. A smaller propeller is able to put the same amount of power into the air by a combination of spinning faster, wider blades and more blades. It won't be as efficient at low speeds but that doesn't matter so much at higher speeds. Using a sensible sized propeller of around 10ft maximum you can go to a lower bypass ratio and put the same power into the air. Realistically, I doubt you can effectively put 4000hp through a propeller that small. The late model Spitfires with 2500hp had similar diameter 5 blade props. Realistically it's either lower propeller efficiency or a heavier more complicated contra-rotating propeller.

Today with a 9ft diameter fan like on the RR Trent you can comfortably put over 50,000hp into the air but with lots of wide chord blades.

If you look, I've already adjusted the bypass ratio awfully low, even assuming a six-bladed prop.

Due to technical difficulties both the Mexican and Australian entries have withdrawn.

OOC Didn't have time to get specs written up...