Boeing Pelican ULTRA (Ultra Large TRansport Aircraft)

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
1,790
Boeing Pelican patent
 

Attachments

  • us006848650-008.gif
    us006848650-008.gif
    34.8 KB · Views: 285
  • us006848650-007.gif
    us006848650-007.gif
    35.8 KB · Views: 189
  • us006848650-006.gif
    us006848650-006.gif
    22.8 KB · Views: 172
  • us006848650-005.gif
    us006848650-005.gif
    25.3 KB · Views: 165
  • us006848650-004.gif
    us006848650-004.gif
    39.2 KB · Views: 475
  • us006848650-003.gif
    us006848650-003.gif
    21.1 KB · Views: 478
  • us006848650-002.gif
    us006848650-002.gif
    34.7 KB · Views: 568
  • us006848650-001.gif
    us006848650-001.gif
    87.1 KB · Views: 614

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,219
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Not *quite* the same Pelican. There are some notable design differences, not least of which is beign smaller. The questions is... are these differences due to actual design changes, or has the design been modified specifically or the patent?
 

Dronte

Argentinean ugly bird
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
96
Reaction score
30
Another Pelican drawing.(source unknown)

And the SkyCat200 "a non-rigid hybrid air vehicle would have a payload in excess of the C-17 airlifter, able to carry 200t over a range of 3000-5000 nm" (source: Jane's International Defense Review Oct.2001)
 

Attachments

  • ThePelican.jpg
    ThePelican.jpg
    30.2 KB · Views: 313
  • SkyCat200.jpg
    SkyCat200.jpg
    74.4 KB · Views: 356

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
896
Reaction score
110
flateric said:
Boeing Pelican patent

This a great find - it's new to me. It must have been recently posted by the patent office.

If only I could find the patent drawings for the new morphing wing UAV?
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
896
Reaction score
110
overscan said:
Tinwing: the 1 bit GIF format is ok, but its not very good for actually viewing onscreen.

This is entirely true, although I typicaly save any interesting line drawings for later viewing.

overscan said:
If you want to keep the images, I'd download them from the patent office in the original TIF files.

Indeed, the patent office website is a great place to find all sorts of thing.:)

overscan said:
I made the smaller size jpegs for viewing purposes.

Flateric resized the pics to small as monochrome, which is the worst of both worlds.

Monochrome images don't resize very well at all, but they do have their place.

You can turn a very large (3.0+MB!) grayscale .jpeg into 500kb monochrome .gif with very little discernible loss of detail or quality.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
1,790
OK, OK, I've resized them and saved as GIFs ;D

To Scott - you see that this Boeing propaganda paper dated March 2004 with Pelican appearence that changed 0% since it was unveiled in september 2002, while patent is February 2005. So it seems that if previous was Pelican ULTRA, this is Mini-M-Pelican:) My thoughts that all the money now pulled in Walrus backet and Pelican pretty RIP.

BTW, I'm sometimes shocked with maniac way Boeing patents every possible configuration of what they suppose worth a cent, like Sonic Cruiser.
 

Attachments

  • phw3sm.jpg
    phw3sm.jpg
    105.5 KB · Views: 477
  • phw2sm.jpg
    phw2sm.jpg
    117.6 KB · Views: 499
  • phw1sm.jpg
    phw1sm.jpg
    160.2 KB · Views: 461
  • Clipboard02.jpg
    Clipboard02.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 340

Schorsch

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
26
Reaction score
5
flateric said:
OK, OK, I've resized them and saved as GIFs ;D

To Scott - you see that this Boeing propaganda paper dated March 2004 with Pelican appearence that changed 0% since it was unveiled in september 2002, while patent is February 2005. So it seems that if previous was Pelican ULTRA, this is Mini-M-Pelican:) My thoughts that all the money now pulled in Walrus backet and Pelican pretty RIP.

BTW, I'm sometimes shocked with maniac way Boeing patents every possible configuration of what they suppose worth a cent, like Sonic Cruiser.

I agree on this point. I heard remarks that for a WIG-aircraft the engines are positioned rather bad, being in the wet upwash of the wing. The Russian put their eingine right in the front or on the tip of the fin, away from any wet upwash.

You final sentence hits the point, keeping the shareholders happy with "breath-taking innovations". I guess the project engineers are less optimistic when they report to the board. Also it would be interesting, how much money is put in those projects.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
1,790
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkcWvy231b4&feature=fvw
 

SteveO

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
434
Reaction score
143
Nice video, would have been good to see a B747 or A380 for size comparison.

IIRC the wingtips rotated to improve ground clearance for take off and landing.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,013
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

  • notpelican1.jpg
    notpelican1.jpg
    34.2 KB · Views: 201

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
210
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
I am still wondering why it was proposed and marketed. Is anybody on this planet, who really thinks, that such a monstrosity can be designed, developed, BUILT and OPERATED in a reasonable time and with the reasonable costs? My opinion is, that it is the PR stuff: "Look, we are able to design the impossible." ...or at least to think about it.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,013
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Matej said:
I am still wondering why it was proposed and marketed. Is anybody on this planet, who really thinks, that such a monstrosity can be designed, developed, BUILT and OPERATED in a reasonable time and with the reasonable costs? My opinion is, that it is the PR stuff: "Look, we are able to design the impossible." ...or at least to think about it.

It started out as a Boeing Phantom Works research project in 2000 from a Department of Defense goal of placing a full brigade --moving 3,000 troops and 8,000 tons of cargo--on the ground anywhere in the world within 96 hours. Boeing chose to look at Wing-In-Ground effect (WIG) vehicles for this task.

Source: Sweetman, Bill "Monster at 20 ft" Popular Science February 2003 page 70
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,013
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Intended as a large-capacity transport craft for military or civilian use, it would have a wingspan of 500 feet (150 m), a cargo capacity of 1,400 tons (1,300 metric tonnes), and a range of about 10,000 nautical miles (18,000 km). Powered by four turboprop engines, its main mode would be to fly 20-50 ft (6-15 m) over water, though it would also be capable of overland flight at an altitude as high as 20,000 ft (6,100 m) albeit with a decreased range of about 6,500 nautical miles (12,000 km). It would operate from conventional runways, with its weight distributed over 38 fuselage-mounted landing gears with 76 wheels.

General characteristics

Length: 400 ft (122 m)
Wingspan: 500 ft (152 m)
Height: 18.3 ft (fuselage bay interior) (6 m)
Wing area: > 1 acre (>4,000 square meters[1])
Useful load: 2,800,000 lb (1,400 tons) (1,272,727 kg (1,273 metric tonnes))
Powerplant: 4 × , () each
Cruise speed: 240 kts in ground effect (445 km/h)

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican
http://www.editinternational.com/read.php?id=47ddf0fe4b9ca
 

Attachments

  • 01%20-%20pelicanside_lowres.jpg
    01%20-%20pelicanside_lowres.jpg
    23.1 KB · Views: 129

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,221
Reaction score
821
Triton said:
It started out as a Boeing Phantom Works research project in 2000 from a Department of Defense goal of placing a full brigade --moving 3,000 troops and 8,000 tons of cargo--on the ground anywhere in the world within 96 hours. Boeing chose to look at Wing-In-Ground effect (WIG) vehicles for this task

The amusing thing here is that Phantom Works is usually about secret aircraft that can be test-flown away from the public eye. Now try to fly a beast like this anywhere and keep it a secret...
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,614
Reaction score
3,537
Matej said:
I am still wondering why it was proposed and marketed. Is anybody on this planet, who really thinks, that such a monstrosity can be designed, developed, BUILT and OPERATED in a reasonable time and with the reasonable costs? My opinion is, that it is the PR stuff: "Look, we are able to design the impossible." ...or at least to think about it.

How 'bout the Lockheed, 1000ft-span, nuclear powered, BWB? ;D
 

Nik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
523
Reaction score
179
I doubt the Heathrow locals would be amused by the down-wash from this monster as it clawed out of ground effect over their roof-tops...

FWIW, I'm very surprised it came with wheels. Air-cushion would allow un-made field work, snow etc... Even swamp ??

And, instant 'kneeling'...
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
1,790
http://www.google.com/patents/download/7845898_Cargo_container_handling_system.pdf?id=IQ7kAAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U3hGLlUV1q8tyh7FBzawnuxSch4Mg&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0
 

Attachments

  • ultra3.jpg
    ultra3.jpg
    183.3 KB · Views: 472
  • ultra2.jpg
    ultra2.jpg
    111.2 KB · Views: 481
  • ultra1.jpg
    ultra1.jpg
    139.4 KB · Views: 509

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,013
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Three-view drawing of Boeing Pelican ULTRA (Ultra Large Transport Aircraft)

Source:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154783
 

Attachments

  • boeing pelican ultra.jpg
    boeing pelican ultra.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 408

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
219
Boeing Pelican ULTRA factory model, nearly finished. B-747-400 model is to scale. I believe the vehicles are Humvees.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing Pelican model.jpg
    Boeing Pelican model.jpg
    32.5 KB · Views: 427

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,451
Reaction score
6,108
Hi,


I don't know if those sketch drawings are a variants to Pelican or not ?.


http://scienseillustrations.mypage.ru/the_project_american_ekranoplane_the_pelican__proekt_amerik.html
 

Attachments

  • Pelican.jpg
    Pelican.jpg
    111.1 KB · Views: 159

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
1,790
These drawings with added canards or tandem wings has nothing to do with real Boeing design studies.
Other article renderings - while pretty flashy - are fairly inaccurate.
 

lastivka

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Messages
4
Reaction score
11
Apparently, in 2020 there was a revival of interest in large WIG craft, mainly due to "the significant interest in WIG from potential U.S. adversaries". Advantages of the WIG are revisited in a US Naval Institute report which mentions that "[A Soviet] WIG design, known as the Lun, weighed 380 tons and was considered to be a threat by Russia’s Scandinavian neighbors because a fleet of 10 could have crossed the Baltic Sea with minimal radar signature in 12 minutes and deposited 5,000 troops without warning... While not invulnerable, WIG craft offset many of China’s antiaccess/area-denial (A2AD) investments. Flying at approximately 200 feet, they would be almost invisible to Chinese radars, hidden by the curvature of the Earth and flying much too fast for real-time satellite detection. At low altitude above the water, they would be largely immune to threats from long-range surface-to-air-missiles, antiship ballistic missiles, submarines, and mines. As such, they would be significantly more survivable than amphibious ships, EPFs, or strategic sealift ships."
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,858
Reaction score
6,465
Though with the new administration, it is highly unlikely we will see any progress in this area, for the next four years or so at least.
 

Similar threads

Top