Anyone remember the Ekranoplan?

[wuzak]

Like any WIG the problem would be getting it out of the water.

The KM used 8 "lift jets" pointed to under teh wing to assist in take-off. The cruise engines are the two on teh fin.

The A-90 Orlyonok has two jet engines directing their exhaust under the wing, while cruise power is supplied by a single turboprop atop the fin.

[maxmwill]

Yes, that is true.

Wouldn't two or more internally mounted turbojets, or, if it were updated to current standard, turbofans of the Olympus class be more preferable?

I know that, like the fan in wing concept, they would be dead weight(or perhaps not, if the jet blast could be routed to augment the upper mounted engines, but the intake(s) for the turbofans could be either in the nose, or on the top, although either way, there would be a certain amount of wasted space, as well as additional weight), but if a workaround could be formulated, wouldn't the buried engines provide the necessary additional oomph to get the craft up in GE(ground effect), by which time the wings would be able to supply the needed additional lift.

I mean, most heavy jets(airliners and military transports) carry an apu, which is just another small turbine, which when flying, is just more dead weight.

[wuzak]

You could have fans mounted in front of the wings, which can be tilted to help with lift and then reset for cruising flight. Something like this:




Another alternative is to use a prop to help accelerate the craft, using hydrofoils to help lift it out of the water.

Like the Piaggio PC7:
https://74fdc.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/piaggio-pc7.jpg

[wuzak]

The Bartini Beriev VVA-14 used 12 lift jets in the centre body to help it take off.





It could fly in ground effects or as a conventional aircraft.

[wuzak]

If you did have an aircraft carrier WIG, would you keep it flying or would you put it in the water, for flight operations?

A WIG carrier shoudl allow for very quick deployment, but I'm not sure that flight operations would be so easy with it in flight.

[maxmwill]

Well, flight ops shouldn't be that difficult, especially if the carrier is operating  at a speed in excess of the fastest surface ship(say, around a hundred knots).

Because an aircraft carrier, when flight quarters are initiated, will turn into the wind in order to give aircraft launching just a bit more assistance, in addition to the catapult(when I was on the Kittyhawk, the S2s regularly launched without aid of the catapult, just the wind that resulted from the birdfarm heading into the wind), and so a WIG shouldn't have that many problems launching pretty much any fixed wing aircraft.

Rotary wing aircraft, however, the WIG carrier might have to alight on the water, as I don't there that there ever would be a helicopter designed that could handle a hundred knots, even if the rotor blades are in full operation, although I might be wrong about that.

Yes, I do know that most helicopters can fly in excess of a hundred knots, but how could the structure of the rotor blades stand the force of hundred knot wind when they are not in motion?

If they were going to launch at speed, then the engine(s, depending on the design) would have to be running at more than idle speed in still air, such as in a hangar deck, but then, there would be additional safety concerns(there are reasons why birds don't normally start their engines in hangars or hangar decks, and all of them are safety related).

But, that's just mine own contribution of $.02.

Other opinions may vary.

[wuzak]

I'm thinking that launching and recovering fixed wing aircraft shouldn't be too difficult. Probably wouldn't even need a catapult and arrestor gear (though they probably would be required in case the carrier can't operate in ground effect).

I would think that deck handling of aircraft coudl be difficult. Surely it wouldn't be pleasant with a 100kn+ breeze coming across the deck?

[maxmwill]

Well, perhaps recovery could take place on a deck that is below the flight deck.

This would probably have to be necessary because up topside, even if the aircraft are tied down, which would prevent them from being blown off, they'd still have to have the tiedown chains removed prior to launch.

Of course, if they were recovered down below, in order for the respective aircraft be successfully trapped, this would necessitate extreme proficiency; the pilot would have to  be better than perfect.

Something like this would require avionics for an extreme automatic pilot; the landing sequence would have to be computer controlled.

Touch and goes would become things of the past.

And if the recovery takes place below, there'd still be need for elevators, lots of them, with each aircraft tethered to the deck with a shuttle pulling it along, to the elevator, thence up topside, where the shuttle would then tie into a hold down of some sort, until the pilot gets the "go" signal to launch, then the shuttle would release the aircraft.

But, something like this would precise to a fare thee well.

I suspect that although a WIG-type aircraft carrier could possibly be feasible(and expensive as  hell), the various systems, as well as the software controlling them are, I think, just not available now, not even possible.

Before something like this could be addressed with any measure of confidence, computer technology would have to catch up.

For now, we have Hollywierd magick to show us how it might work.