Boeing hovercraft concept

[Triton]

Photo negative of artist's impression of Boeing hovercraft concept found for sale on eBay.

Description:

This auction is for an official, large, Boeing Kodak Safety photo negative, concept slide. The artist's signature Gene Ericksen is in the negative. It measures 10" X 8". This is one of many color negatives and other items from the estate of a Boeing engineer I will be listing in the coming days. Many are labeled as having been used in various "presentations to the Board of Directors" from the late 60's to early 70's and are in cardboard frames, some are not. This one is loose and I am unaware of what the project name may have been. Undoubtedly a proposal by Boeing's Marine Division.

URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Boeing-Photo-Negative-Of-Concept-Hovercraft-NR_W0QQitemZ330393560978QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4cecfda792

 

[ouroboros]

Interesting, but why the exposed jet engines for propulsion, and not turboprops?

 

[M. A. Rozon]

Just a guess but this ship has the look of a "stealth" design. As such, turbo props might not be desireable due to radar return issues: Exposed propeller blades generate substantial radar returns.

A case in point was the Tu-95 Bear: It's raw radar return was somewhat spectacular, to say the least. Civilian high bypass turbofan engines from the front also generate very bright radar returns for much the same reasons.

With the engines shown, at least this can be mitigated somewhat as exposure of the compressor stages at the front end of the engine can be reduced.

Anyways, that's my two cents worth. I'd be interested in what everyone else might think about this.

B)

 

[Stargazer]

I had exactly the same idea when I saw the picture: early stealth characterics à la F-117... therefore jets instead of turboprops to produce smaller RCS. But the way the jets are depicted, I think they'd stick out like a sore thumb on a radar: no vectoring, no covering. And even if the stealth characteristics were not so bad, the long flames at the back of all six engines would make the infrared signature quite impressive I'd say...

 

[M. A. Rozon]

True. As depicted (low bypass torbofan of turbojet?) they would stand out. This can be reduced, depending on the amount of bypass chosen, the cooler bypass air mixing with the air coming out of the core of the engine and dropping the overall temperature of the exhaust. As with all things, it's the details that matter, details we can only guess at how they'd be addressed.

The design also reminds me a bit of some of the "Streetfighter" concepts I have seen illustrated on this board. I wonder if this is connected with that project.

B)

 

[V8Interceptor]

True. As depicted (low bypass torbofan of turbojet?) they would stand out. This can be reduced, depending on the amount of bypass chosen, the cooler bypass air mixing with the air coming out of the core of the engine and dropping the overall temperature of the exhaust. As with all things, it's the details that matter, details we can only guess at how they'd be addressed.

The design also reminds me a bit of some of the "Streetfighter" concepts I have seen illustrated on this board. I wonder if this is connected with that project.

B)

I believe that concept art may predate Streetfighter by some years. I recall reading that in the late eighties/early nineties the Navy was interested in developing a stealthy special forces delivery craft and some of the concepts explored included surface effect and air cushion vehicles..

 

[Triton]

The estate from which this negative came was from a Boeing engineer that included negatives and artwork for Boeing projects in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that this hovercraft concept was also from the late 1960s or early 1970s.

If you look at the concept artwork closely, you will notice two rows of windows, small door, and a hand rail. This hovercraft concept is of a large transport and I believe that it is unlikely that it would be built for the exclusive use of special forces. Due to its large size, it makes me think more of an amphibious transport dock or amphibious warefare ship that is also capable of landing. Perhaps landing hundreds of Marines and their gear? In addition, because I believe that it from the late 1960s or early 1970s, it is highly unlikely that it is stealthy.

 

[M. A. Rozon]

Triton,

given what you've said, I'd have to agree. Thanks for the clarification.

B)

 

[Triton]

Triton,

given what you've said, I'd have to agree. Thanks for the clarification.

B)

Darn, I was hoping you folks who are also active on the Warship Projects discussion forum would be able to identify this concept.

 

[M. A. Rozon]

Sorry to disappoint :'(

This is the first I've seen of this concept.

Will try harder next time, I promise! :

B)

 

[ouroboros]

I suppose one thing in favor of turbojets is direct injection of seawater mist into the exhaust for greater mass flow and reduced IR signature, as a kind of burst speed capability for the final push to shore, but the corrosion would be horrific...

 

[Grey Havoc]

Is it just me, or does that concept look like a hovercraft/ hydrofoil hybrid? (Look at the lower hull area)

 

[ouroboros]

that rocky shore would probably mean no hydrofoils...

 

[Grey Havoc]

that rocky shore would probably mean no hydrofoils...

Hmmmm. I was thinking that the artist's impression was perhaps intended to show the concept transitioning between its foil-borne and hover modes. However there isn't really enough detail in the impression for such an illustration.

 

[Triton]

Boeing ACV/hovercraft concepts photographs found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/85-PLUS-VINTAGE-1970-S-BOEING-CONCEPT-VEHICLE-YC-14-ORIGINAL-MILITARY-PHOTOS-/140776979897?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20c6f63db9

 

[Jemiba]

Aren't that quite obviously ACV / Hovercraft ? ???

 

[Triton]

Aren't that quite obviously ACV / Hovercraft ? ???

Yes, I would agree and have modified my post. In a hurry to post the concepts I found yesterday.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing air cushion vehicle with 100-ton payload concept circa 1970 press photo found on eBay.

This is an artist's conception of an air cushion vehicle which Boeing is studying as a possible way to carry cargo in Alaska and Northern Canada. The vehicle would be about 100 feet long and some 50 feet wide. It would cruise at about 80 miles an hour with a 100-ton payload.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1970-Hovercraft-Boeing-Press-Photo-/190726076283?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2c6828f77b

 

[Prophet141]

Is it really not worth it putting some variety of aerodynamic fairing over the cargo area? Sorry for playing necromancer on this old thread.

Artist's impression of Boeing air cushion vehicle with 100-ton payload concept circa 1970 press photo found on eBay.

This is an artist's conception of an air cushion vehicle which Boeing is studying as a possible way to carry cargo in Alaska and Northern Canada. The vehicle would be about 100 feet long and some 50 feet wide. It would cruise at about 80 miles an hour with a 100-ton payload.

Source:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1970-Hovercraft-Boeing-Press-Photo-/190726076283?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2c6828f77b

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is it really not worth it putting some variety of aerodynamic fairing over the cargo area? Sorry for playing necromancer on this old thread.

Artist's impression of Boeing air cushion vehicle with 100-ton payload concept circa 1970 press photo found on eBay.

This is an artist's conception of an air cushion vehicle which Boeing is studying as a possible way to carry cargo in Alaska and Northern Canada. The vehicle would be about 100 feet long and some 50 feet wide. It would cruise at about 80 miles an hour with a 100-ton payload.

Source:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1970-Hovercraft-Boeing-Press-Photo-/190726076283?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2c6828f77b

Not hugely. I mean, it's not like all semitrucks do, and this isn't going any faster.

 

[Nik]

I'm amused that Boeing did not see fit to mention the big hover-ferries scooting across English Channel. Perhaps because they'd have to pay stiff license fees ??

FWIW, my parents and I were aboard one which took short-cut across Goodwin Sands. Unfortunately, the combination of wind, tide and sea-state meant we could see the beige of that infamous, ship-devouring Bank in the wave troughs. The ride was ghastly: pitch, toss, hurl...

Our car was well-packed, but a remarkable amount of stuff re-arranged itself, taking patience and serendipity to find during that night's first camp-stop... ( AKA "How the FF**FF did that wedge itself so far under seat ??")

IIRC, after that season, the hover-ferries were lengthened and seat-belts fitted to improve their sea-keeping, mitigate passenger distress...

Also, having seen dozens of passengers airborne in cabin after each and every lurch left us in giggles every time we saw a lively episode of ST:TOS, often chorusing, "SEAT-BELTS, STUPID !!"