U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies

That looks way small for a 250,000 lbs payload...
Even with GE-90s, you would still need more than two engines.
From the look of the cockpit window, this is a much smaller vehicle. My two cents. :)
 
Boeing pelican
 

Attachments

  • pelican01.jpg
    pelican01.jpg
    15.4 KB · Views: 1,138
http://www.aereimilitari.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9418

there is dimesions for the pelican here
 
JJC said:
there is dimesions for the pelican here

And here big old thread on Pelican here. Please use search before new post.
 
Hi,

the Bell Air cushion WIG aircraft.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790017874_1979017874.pdf
 

Attachments

  • WIG.JPG
    WIG.JPG
    30.6 KB · Views: 1,040
Artist rendering of a McDonnell-Douglas WIG in USAF colors (note SAC shield) firing a cruise missile from its retractable launch tubes. Probably a good way to upset the Navy.

This WIG looks like it can also fly at altitude, like a Bartini VVA-14. (Original painting by Mike Machat for McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Courtesy Mike Machat)
 

Attachments

  • Douglas WIG w-SLCM.jpg
    Douglas WIG w-SLCM.jpg
    48.3 KB · Views: 866
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches, or cruise missiles arsenal planes? For the limited knowledge I have, I can see these platforms as extremely flexible, so is it because that there are flaws in these concepts that I'm unaware of or is it just because of military branches' traditions that do not want other branches to invade their turf?
 
donnage99 said:
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches, or cruise missiles arsenal planes? For the limited knowledge I have, I can see these platforms as extremely flexible, so is it because that there are flaws in these concepts that I'm unaware of or is it just because of military branches' traditions that do not want other branches to invade their turf?
Nothing "ignorant" about the question Donnage :)

Of the "listed" tasks the ONLY one that the USAF would be interested in would be the Cruise-Missile Arsenal plane, similar to the one pictured in the post above yours. Of course the "problem" with that idea is the Air Force doesn't have a lot of experiance with sea-based duties and frankly from a purely service orientated view it would make more sense to have something like a 747 based airborne arsenal aircraft rather than a WIG based on simiply due to how much easier that would be to intergrate into the current infrastructure.
The 'rest' of those jobs are Navy duties and would be of much more interest to them than the USAF. Mostly it is because (as you note) branches of the military don't like to have 'over-lap' in duties, partially because of traditional seperations of duties but mostly having to do with funding. If, say, the Air Force got a whole bunch of WIG transports that were capable of going from the East Coast of the United States to a beach landing on the Coast of Africa then there would be a LOT of political pressure on the Navy to have their Marine transport and support infrastructure and equipment cut back or eliminated. There might even be suggestions that the Marines be put under the Air Force control! (The horror! The Marines would of course commit mass suicide at the mere thought of such an event :p )

That's actually one reason why the Pelican transport recieved such a cool welcome and so little support for a larger test program. It wasn't being pitched a capability for the Navy, but as a "Super-Heavy" Air Force transport that could not ONLY land troops and equipment on the beach but could fly out-of-ground-effect to do the same at some in-land point! The Air Force didn't/doesn't want to directly interface with operations like beach landings since that is far out of our expertise range, at the same time the Navy and Marines didn't want to have funding for their landing operations and equipment budget going to the Air Force to support a heavy duty transport they may or may not be able to use as readily as what they were already using. About the ONLY branch that didn't have an 'issue' with the basic idea of the Pelican was the Army which pretty much wanted the Air Force to buy them so they could make plans on being able to move a full company of M-1A-2 heavy tanks anywhere in the world on short notice.

Randy
 
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches,

...Because the Air Farce wouldn't be the branch to develop and implement an aircraft for such a purpose. The Navy and Marine Corps would be the most likely branch to consider using such a vehicle, with the Aaaarmy coming in second and most likely using whatever the Navy put into service. That being said, the closest thing the US armed services came to implementing anything WIG was the Sea Spectre, a remarkable cross-breeding between an F-117 and a large PT Boat whose stealthy nature of mission wound up being its reason for failure, as the Navy had extreme difficulties getting any of its flag officers to assume command voluntarily; for some whackjob reason, they felt using such stealth technology combined with stand-off-and-shoot(*) in high seas combat was "cowardly" and "dishonorable". Personally, I'd have given my remaining good leg for the honor of commanding such a vessel. And my left nut for the privilege to actually use its might in combat against our enemies.

(*) If being able to strike from a distance without detection was a sin, try telling that to battlecruisers with 16" guns, painted in camouflage.
 
Well, the Navy has the original stealth platform - submarines.

And we had a WIG test program planned in the early '90s. Ran short of money...
 
OM said:
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches,

...Because the Air Farce wouldn't be the branch to develop and implement an aircraft for such a purpose. The Navy and Marine Corps would be the most likely branch to consider using such a vehicle, with the Aaaarmy coming in second and most likely using whatever the Navy put into service. That being said, the closest thing the US armed services came to implementing anything WIG was the Sea Spectre, a remarkable cross-breeding between an F-117 and a large PT Boat whose stealthy nature of mission wound up being its reason for failure, as the Navy had extreme difficulties getting any of its flag officers to assume command voluntarily; for some whackjob reason, they felt using such stealth technology combined with stand-off-and-shoot(*) in high seas combat was "cowardly" and "dishonorable". Personally, I'd have given my remaining good leg for the honor of commanding such a vessel. And my left nut for the privilege to actually use its might in combat against our enemies.

(*) If being able to strike from a distance without detection was a sin, try telling that to battlecruisers with 16" guns, painted in camouflage.
I'm confused? Are you referring to the Navy's MKIII Sea Spectre Patrol Boat? IINM, these had a fairly long service life(mid 70's to late 90's) but were not particularly stealthy so I don't understand the F-117 reference?
 

Attachments

  • seaspectre.jpg
    seaspectre.jpg
    11.2 KB · Views: 413
V8Interceptor said:
OM said:
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches,

...Because the Air Farce wouldn't be the branch to develop and implement an aircraft for such a purpose. The Navy and Marine Corps would be the most likely branch to consider using such a vehicle, with the Aaaarmy coming in second and most likely using whatever the Navy put into service. That being said, the closest thing the US armed services came to implementing anything WIG was the Sea Spectre, a remarkable cross-breeding between an F-117 and a large PT Boat whose stealthy nature of mission wound up being its reason for failure, as the Navy had extreme difficulties getting any of its flag officers to assume command voluntarily; for some whackjob reason, they felt using such stealth technology combined with stand-off-and-shoot(*) in high seas combat was "cowardly" and "dishonorable". Personally, I'd have given my remaining good leg for the honor of commanding such a vessel. And my left nut for the privilege to actually use its might in combat against our enemies.

(*) If being able to strike from a distance without detection was a sin, try telling that to battlecruisers with 16" guns, painted in camouflage.
I'm confused? Are you referring to the Navy's MKIII Sea Spectre Patrol Boat? IINM, these had a fairly long service life(mid 70's to late 90's) but were not particularly stealthy so I don't understand the F-117 reference?
I think he was meaning the "Sea Shadow" no the spectre...

Randy
 
circle-5 said:
Artist rendering of a McDonnell-Douglas WIG in USAF colors (note SAC shield) firing a cruise missile from its retractable launch tubes. Probably a good way to upset the Navy.

This WIG looks like it can also fly at altitude, like a Bartini VVA-14. (Original painting by Mike Machat for McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Courtesy Mike Machat)

Do you have a date for this concept circle-5?
 
RanulfC said:
V8Interceptor said:
OM said:
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches,

...Because the Air Farce wouldn't be the branch to develop and implement an aircraft for such a purpose. The Navy and Marine Corps would be the most likely branch to consider using such a vehicle, with the Aaaarmy coming in second and most likely using whatever the Navy put into service. That being said, the closest thing the US armed services came to implementing anything WIG was the Sea Spectre, a remarkable cross-breeding between an F-117 and a large PT Boat whose stealthy nature of mission wound up being its reason for failure, as the Navy had extreme difficulties getting any of its flag officers to assume command voluntarily; for some whackjob reason, they felt using such stealth technology combined with stand-off-and-shoot(*) in high seas combat was "cowardly" and "dishonorable". Personally, I'd have given my remaining good leg for the honor of commanding such a vessel. And my left nut for the privilege to actually use its might in combat against our enemies.

(*) If being able to strike from a distance without detection was a sin, try telling that to battlecruisers with 16" guns, painted in camouflage.
I'm confused? Are you referring to the Navy's MKIII Sea Spectre Patrol Boat? IINM, these had a fairly long service life(mid 70's to late 90's) but were not particularly stealthy so I don't understand the F-117 reference?
I think he was meaning the "Sea Shadow" no the spectre...

Randy
Ah, that makes a little more sense, though Sea Shadow is only a technology demonstrator incapable of deploying weapons(and of course, not a WIG)...
 
V8Interceptor said:
Ah, that makes a little more sense, though Sea Shadow is only a technology demonstrator incapable of deploying weapons(and of course, not a WIG)...
Well... it IS kind of "WIG-ish" looking I suppose :)

Randy
 
A WIG concept under study by the NASA in 1975

Source: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760005976_1976005976.pdf
 

Attachments

  • NASA WIG1.jpg
    NASA WIG1.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 844
  • NASA WIG2.jpg
    NASA WIG2.jpg
    68.1 KB · Views: 841
Hi

If you follow the link given below you will find a 3 volume report about wingship investigation in the U.S. They are quite large and cover every aspect: missions, aerodynamics, propulsion and so on.

Also they report (in volume 3) short descriptions of proposals for large WIGs by Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop and Aerocon (with technical data and line drawings).


best
F.T.
 
ford_tempo said:
Hi

If you follow the link given below you will find a 3 volume report about wingship investigation in the U.S. They are quite large and cover every aspect: missions, aerodynamics, propulsion and so on.

Also they report (in volume 3) short descriptions of proposals for large WIGs by Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop and Aerocon (with technical data and line drawings).


best
F.T.

We can display them here.

 

Attachments

  • MD.JPG
    MD.JPG
    80 KB · Views: 757
  • Northrop.JPG
    Northrop.JPG
    46.2 KB · Views: 745
  • Lockheed.JPG
    Lockheed.JPG
    58.4 KB · Views: 765
hesham said:
We can display them here.

OR... we can try to clean them up a bit to make them a little more user friendly... Don't you think it's a lot better this way?
 

Attachments

  • Aerocon Wingship 2 small.jpg
    Aerocon Wingship 2 small.jpg
    413.8 KB · Views: 400
  • Aerocon Wingship 1 small.jpg
    Aerocon Wingship 1 small.jpg
    239.7 KB · Views: 400
  • Douglas Wingship 2 small.jpg
    Douglas Wingship 2 small.jpg
    603.2 KB · Views: 314
  • Douglas Wingship 1 small.jpg
    Douglas Wingship 1 small.jpg
    459.6 KB · Views: 319
  • Northrop Wingship 1 small.jpg
    Northrop Wingship 1 small.jpg
    299.7 KB · Views: 304
  • Lockheed Wingship 2 small.jpg
    Lockheed Wingship 2 small.jpg
    677.4 KB · Views: 265
  • Lockheed Wingship 1 small.jpg
    Lockheed Wingship 1 small.jpg
    363.7 KB · Views: 329
More of the Aerocon Wingship design:
 

Attachments

  • Aerocon Wingship 3 small.jpg
    Aerocon Wingship 3 small.jpg
    129.9 KB · Views: 390
  • Aerocon Wingship 4 small.jpg
    Aerocon Wingship 4 small.jpg
    183.8 KB · Views: 403
  • Aerocon Wingship 5 small.jpg
    Aerocon Wingship 5 small.jpg
    196.4 KB · Views: 441
Nice... but if it's the Aerocon design, why does the blueprint say "Northrop"?!?
 
As I suspected, this is not the Aerocon proposal, but a USAF proposal based on a Northrop design (ARPA Wingship Program Parametric Study - Preliminary Results -
Northrop Jul. 1993):

The two WIG concepts evaluated in this study are the DASH-1.6, 5000-ton Wingship created by Aerocon Incorporated, and a 3000-ton variant developed by the Air Force ASC/XREDT of a Northrop 800-ton concept. Details on these two concepts, as provided by their developers (References 2 and 3), are presented below.

The inboard profile drawing, shown earlier in Figure 2.1-4, for the Northrop 800-ton WIG depicts a nose visor door and rear port side doors for loading and unloading. No dimensions are given for these doors. It is assumed that the nose visor door will open completely to provide straight-in loading/unloading access to the full 28.4 ft wide and total 33+ ft high (14 ft upper, 19 ft lower, plus upper floor thickness) cargo compartment. The two rear loading doors appear to give full height access; the total width of the two doors appears to be about 60-percent greater than the height.
No ramps or other equipment are shown in the drawings for loading and unloading. Integral ramps, similar to those on the Aerocon concept, could be developed as a future design refinement.
 
Old WIG topic split.

Please use this new topic for WIG studies from Lockheed, Northrop, Aerocon, Bell, and so forth (NOT the Boeing Pelican, which already has its own topic).

There will be separate topics for Russian WIGs and small-size, general aviation type WIGs.
 
Hi,


here is many Ekranoplanes designs for small designers;


http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/EkrplUSA/EkrplUSA001.htm
 

Attachments

  • Masters & Greer.JPG
    Masters & Greer.JPG
    12.8 KB · Views: 628
  • McMullen.JPG
    McMullen.JPG
    6.3 KB · Views: 392
  • RAM-2.JPG
    RAM-2.JPG
    15.5 KB · Views: 263
  • RAM-1.JPG
    RAM-1.JPG
    11.7 KB · Views: 253
  • Wayland 3.JPG
    Wayland 3.JPG
    18.6 KB · Views: 234
  • Wayland 2.JPG
    Wayland 2.JPG
    17.4 KB · Views: 227
  • Wayland 1.JPG
    Wayland 1.JPG
    22.7 KB · Views: 229
  • Hanford.JPG
    Hanford.JPG
    17.1 KB · Views: 242
And many small companies;


one of them is the MIT,which its project was based on Boeing Model 747.
 

Attachments

  • MIT 747 WIGM.jpg
    MIT 747 WIGM.jpg
    10.7 KB · Views: 1,195
  • Malvestuto.jpg
    Malvestuto.jpg
    12.6 KB · Views: 1,401
  • Greer.JPG
    Greer.JPG
    11.8 KB · Views: 1,388
  • WIG STOL.JPG
    WIG STOL.JPG
    8 KB · Views: 1,173
hesham said:
one of them is the MIT,which its project was based on Boeing Model 747.

In what manner? I can't see an ounce of commonality between this weird design and a 747!
 
Also for a big companies;
 

Attachments

  • McDonnell Douglas.JPG
    McDonnell Douglas.JPG
    12.2 KB · Views: 438
  • Martin.JPG
    Martin.JPG
    14.3 KB · Views: 474
  • Grumman.JPG
    Grumman.JPG
    9.1 KB · Views: 1,133
  • General Dynamics.JPG
    General Dynamics.JPG
    24.9 KB · Views: 1,100
  • Boeing.JPG
    Boeing.JPG
    9 KB · Views: 1,182
Hi,


in 1961,the Office of Naval Operations Staff of the US. Navy had decided to make a
competition for design of Large Military Transport Amphibian aircraft,the competition
was attended by several US companies,but the winner was VRC Colombia.
 

Attachments

  • Colombia.JPG
    Colombia.JPG
    19.6 KB · Views: 477
  • Colombia 1.JPG
    Colombia 1.JPG
    23.6 KB · Views: 470
Stargazer2006 said:
hesham said:
one of them is the MIT,which its project was based on Boeing Model 747.

In what manner? I can't see an ounce of commonality between this weird design and a 747!


Before objection,please see the Translation;

Specialists MIT long worked to create the winged, which is a hybrid aircraft and ocean-going vessel.Finally, in 1995, they announced their project improved WIG W1GM.WIG, received the name «Fastship» (speed ship), be equipped jet engines on aircraft «Boeing-747".W1GM combined the possibility of obtaining a high flight speed and aerodynamic efficiency when driving in the zone of influence of ground effect, and outside of it.At higher altitudes the winged flight was designed to achieve transonic speeds.Power plant included turbojets general thrust 203 tons.
 
The only thing I learn from this very approximate piece of English is that they used 747 engines.

Hardly makes it a Boeing 747 variant, does it?

Also you misread the General Dynamics project as having a "Project D" designation... It doesn't. The "D" is the initial of the first designer.
 
Hi,


here is the HeliFerry,a WIG helicopter concept.


 

Attachments

  • HeliFerry.JPG
    HeliFerry.JPG
    14.9 KB · Views: 281

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom