Talk:Hovercraft

message: From the article:  "... is a craft capable of travelling over land, water, mud or ice and other surfaces both at speed and when stationary"
how can any craft travel when stationary?  Those last three words doesn't seem to add any value to the sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superwesman (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Stationary Travel

message: Good example of the usual US 'world' view (like "'World' Series")... a British invention: no mention in introduction; first national mention is of a US inventor of a modification to one aspect of design.
All ready for a Hollywood film, like the one in which the US did the work on the WWII Enigma machine. Priceless entertainment!  Unfortunately, alo one of the main US sources of education.  (Aside: something like 75% of us citizens have never been outside their own country). 
BTW, today (11th June 2009) is the 50th anniversary of the first hovercraft flight
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.166.160 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Usual Bias

message: "This service ceased in 2002 when the Channel tunnel took over the fast transit of cross-channel traffic."
:Hold on there. The Chunnel is in direct COMPETITION with the port of Dover. It seems more likely that the hovercraft were retired because they were obsolete. They were replaced with SeaCats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee M (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 April 2005‎ (UTC)
The hovercraft was not retired through obsolescence: it was withdrawn thans to the collapse in cross-channel day trips resulting from changes in the "Duty Free" laws which hitherto facilitated the sale of cheap alcohol, cigarettes and perfume to the British at the French Channel ports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseOldBob (talk • contribs) 10:13, 26 August 2009‎ (UTC)
---
As one of the original editors of this page, now returned to see it all in mass confusion... 
The chief problem here is that no differentiation is being made between "surface effect vehicle" (the set), and "hovercraft" (the sub-set).  Clear that up and all the arguing would disappear.  It seems clear that there was literally decades of messing around with various "hovercraft-like" surface effect vehicles in several countries before the first "hovercraft" per se. was "invented."  
Sir Christopher was indeed the first person to invent a working hovercraft with all the bits that we would look for to identify any standard hovercraft today.  This is derided by some as being "He came to the market first" (but others "invented" it previously).  This would only be the case if separate individuals all invented the same thing at more or less the same time, but they did not.  
Charles Fletcher did not create a working hovercraft as far as I have been able to find out.  Even if he did, the annular ring of air and the skirt are the most identifying features of any hovercraft and as far as I am aware, he did not have those.  
The article should be restructured to reflect the difference between years of research in many quarters on surface effect vehicles, and to differentiate Sir Christopher as the single inventor of the "Hovercraft" (the one with the skirt and the downward facing blower etc. that we all know).     
Certainly, as others have pointed out here, if the Wright Brothers get credit for inventing the airplane, then Sir Christopher should get the hovercraft.  Nothing the Wright brothers did was original to them, they merely pieced together ideas gained from a tour of the airplane clubs of europe the summer previously.  
In Sir Christopher's case, his design used an annular ring of air assisted by a rubber skirt.  That was his input as far as I am aware, and the exact detail that differentiates a hovercraft from other failed attempts.  Anyone who can prove that those two things were included by others on their attempts, might have a case for prior invention but otherwise the win must go to Britain on this one.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.183.97 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2007‎ (UTC)
:The Cross Channel service was discontinued because of lack of availability of spares for the SR.N4 and the craft were by then well-used and almost worn out - BHC had by then ceased to exist and the current owners of what was BHC, Westland Helicopters, were no longer supporting the design.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cessation of cross-channel service

message: I'm preparing to add some information regarding Charles Fletcher, the American inventor of the hovercraft who designed a vehicle classified by the DoD during WWII in the U.S. well before his British counterpart who continues to get all the credit is said to have invented (or "re-invented") it.  I also intend to mention the patent lawsuit against the Americans that uncovered Fletcher's original invention.  Any discussion regarding the addition of this point?  —ExplorerCDT 23:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember WP:NOR, be ready to cite the heck out of it.  - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the patent case? I presume that British Hovercraft Company tried to enforce a patent that they thought they had so could get licence money from anyone else building hovercrafts but Fletcher proved his prior art. Equally Fletcher didn't cross the English Channel on his creation and his contribution to the modern hovercraft is actually minor. GraemeLeggett 14:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI, the US PACV's were all SR-N5s built at Cowes by Saunders-Roe and imported into the US. Bell then re-engined them with GE T58 engines (The original Bristol-Siddeley Gnome was a licence-built T58) and changed UK electronics, radar, fittings, nuts, bolts, etc., for US ones. Bell bought a licence to produce the SR-N5 but never actually built any, all the ones used in Vietnam were built in the UK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.71 (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Adding information about Charles Fletcher's invention.

message: Hey,
I'm thinking about writting an article about personal hovercrafts. There are kit-built ones used for leisure, there are race hovercrafts.. and hovercraft races... there are companies which sell personal hovercrafts which are in size bit more than an average boat... I think many ppl would be interested to know that for a reasonable price they can have a hovercraft for themselves :) What do you think? Should it be a separate article or part of this one? --Robert 11:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and go for it!  At best, we get an awesome new article about a relevant subject.  At medium, it gets merged back into Hovercraft, and at worst it ends up being deleted back to the stone age.  There are different articles for Trucks and Cars, right?  - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal hovercrafts

message: I recently discovered that the Bora Hovercraft was substantially heavier than the Zubr (1050 tons vs. ~550 tons + 150 tons cargo), so I corrected the article accordingly. Just for those who are wondering why the image captions changed... --Oceanhahn 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding that. I knew it was different in that way, but didnt know what name to give it. I presume you also edited the Bora page itself, so, kudos! --Oceanhahn 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy Hovercraft 

message: It would be nice to have a picture of the first hovercraft. I remember seeing archive film of this, so I'm sure photos exist somewhere. 
As far as I recall it was disc shaped with a central funnel-like fan and a cabin in front of the fan. 
I do not know how to add photos myself.
:Some pictures of the SR-N1 here:  but the copyright problems may be an issue. Someone may be able to use one under 'fair use' citing a 'historical event' for the rationale.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.111.181 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some colour picture of a model SR-N1 here that show the craft's configuration quite well:  - the model is an early Airfix 1:72 scale kit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.111.181 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Cockerell's channel crossing hovercraft? 

message: To the anonymous editor who last edited from 71.42.59.58:
You should read the page WP:REF, which discuss how to cite sources in a Wikipedia article. The "References" section of the article is to reference sources used in the creation of material in the article. It's not "Further reading", or "Related material" - that's why there's a big list of external links. If you used those books to contribute material to the article, then by all means include them as references (pointing out which material is sourced from them would be helpful in this case). But without that, sticking them at the top of the list just looks like advertising. Orpheus 02:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, blanking sections of talk pages isn't particularly constructive. Orpheus 04:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to books 

message: I believe, that until air cushion vehicle redirects here, we should not consider developments prior to 1956 "unimportant". Hence, I splitted "history" section into two subsections: "early air cushion developments" and "air cushion on hovercraft principle".Cmapm 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Air cushion

message: I just watched an early 1970's episode of Let's Make a Deal on GSN.  One of the prizes was an Air Cycle 720 made by Air Cushion Vehicles of Troy, New York valued at $1,495.  It could go up to 40 MPH.  What happened to this company?  Looks like a fun vehicle! 
Kfinto 02:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Hovercraft

message: :Image:Hovercraft 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hovercraft 1.jpg

message: :Image:Hovercraft 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hovercraft 2.jpg

message: Working with Cockerill, Bliss invented the segmented skirt which was the vital evolution from early versions of the hovercraft. It would be useful if anyone could find out more about this. Also Bliss went on to develop the test track at Cambridge, again more information would be really helpful as this was a fascinating and controversial major experiment. Excalibur (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Denys Bliss and the segmented skirt

message: I wonder if anyone knows where the following comes from: 
"The skirt was an independent invention made by a Royal Navy officer, Latimer-Needham, who sold his idea to Westland (parent company of Saunders-Roe), and who worked with Sir Christopher to develop the idea further."
That may be true at least in part - this was a complex project and lots of engineers contributed. Nevertheless it would be useful to allocate due credit for each invention - the list of patents is formidable: according to:
 - and I'm relying on the google cache as the main site appears to be offline:
Sir Christopher Sydney Cockerell
C.B.E., R.D.I., F.R.S.
4th June 1910 - 1st June 1999
Hovercraft patents
(Some titles have been shortened.)
Dec. 1955                854211 Basic air curtain case.
May 1957                893715 Air cushion platform.
May 1957                894644 Landing air cushion for aircraft.
May 1957                895341 Air cushioned aircraft carriers.
Jun. 1958                944501 Side wall vehicle-curtain end seal.
Sept. 1958                935823 Injectors applied to vortices.
Sept. 1958                935824 Pressure induced outboard recovery.
Apr. 1959                919350 Inboard recovery of curtain air.
May 1963                935824 Outboard recovery-to form a second curtain.
May 1963                935826 Outboard recovery-to form a second curtain.
Sept. 1958                935825 Flexible skirt/curtain cushion seal.
Apr. 1959                924496 (With R. Stanton Jones) Recirculation using injectors.
Mar. 1959                944502 Stability and trim control by compartmentation.
Oct. 1959                965748 Variable incidence surfaces for aerofoils.
Aug. 1963                944503 Stability cushions distributed around primary cushion.
Aug. 1963                944504 C.P. Shift.
Jun. 1959                959025 Steering and propulsion.
Mar. 1959                946917 Stabilization of airflow and prevention of negative lift.
Oct. 1959                959825 Cushion (heave) control for travelling over waves.
Oct. 1959                966135 Recirculation by Coanda effect.
Jan. 1960                968194 Vortices generated by rotating pads.
Mar. 1960                968381 Side-wall vehicle with paddle wheel/air pump.
Apr. 1960                973072 Propulsion by blowing into a cushion.
Apr. 1961                975558 (With D. Hardy) Recirculation-tapering duct arrangement.
Apr. 1960                977060 Recirculation-induced recovery system.
Apr. 1960                975241 Reinforcement of rear curtain by ram air.
May 1960                972068 Hovercraft with inflated side parts.
Apr. 1960                975242 Flexible rod skirt.
Apr. 1960                977061 Positive displacement pump at periphery.
May 1961                983446 Recovery of front curtain air to form a rear cushion.
Aug. 1960                995127 Rail car.
May 1961                997943 Protective air cushion for aerial body.
Jun. 1960                983142 Air bearing.
Oct. 1960                989222 Air pump-fluid brakes.
Jun. 1961                989534 Water separation from recovered air.
Jan. 1962                990745 Inflatable load lifting devices.
Jun. 1961                1002572 Sponge support members.
Jan. 1962                1000771 Controlling flow of fluid by a fluid curtain.
Oct. 1961                1029960 Travelling waves on sidewalls for propulsion.
Dec. 1962                1056070 (With L.A. Hopkins) Flexible wall, inflated parallelograms.
Nov. 1962                1064221 Flexible skirt with coandering fluid curtain.
Dec. 1965                1064222 Inflated skirt, perforated wall, forming skirt deflecting cushion.
Jun. 1963                1073731 Controlled vertical movement of wall to correct roll and pitch.
Jun. 1963                1087734 Flexible wall actuated by fluid flow.
Oct. 1966                1072732 Inflated bag/segment wall.
Nov.1963                1103191 Guiding means for docking (vertical).
Apr. 1964                1095756 Propulsion by surface effect W (free belts).
Apr. 1964                1110212 Propulsion by surface effect 'B' (discs).
Apr. 1964                1095775 Propulsion, radial members (flails).
Jan. 1965                1092816 Propulsion by modified paddle.
May 1964                1075662 Spray prevention.
Apr. 1965                1135768 (With Messrs Grace & Boutland). 'Boiling water' cushion.
Apr. 1965                1138532 Air-feed flexible duct within cushion space.
July 1967                1236571 Trim control-tapered roller.
Feb. 1967                1216475 Hovertrain-ram air deflectors.
Jul. 1967                1239745 (With D.S. Bliss). Anti-ditch shift of cushion C.P.
Feb. 1967                1219285 A.C.V with wave-top slicer.
May 1967                1228588 Hovertrain-{;one or belt current pick-up.
Oct.1981                1584154 Cushion seal for A.C.V.
:C.H. Latimer-Needham has an article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denys Bliss and Latimer-Needham

message: In the UK the RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) operates a hovercraft as its rescue vehicle on Morecambe Bay. Morecambe Bay lies between Lancashire and Cumbria, and reduces to vast areas of mudflats and quicksands at low tide - a hovercraft is therefore ideal for rescues that might include people stuck on sandbanks who might perish before the water became deep enough for a conventional lifeboat to reach them. NorthernSpinney (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses 

message: Would someone like to write an article on this manufacturer of hovercraft? These things are a bit outside my areas of knowledge and I don't feel I'd be able to write a high enough quality article. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of them. If you have some reliable online sources, post them here, and I'll look at them, and see if the company qualifies as notable. I'm not a great from-scratch writer, but I can try at get something started anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlas Hovercraft Inc.

message: Quote: 137.4 km/h (85.87 mph), 34.06 secs measured kilometre
Can anyone verify this? It's clearly wrong since 34.06s/km = 104.696 km/h. 137.4 km/h = 26.201s, so not an obvious typo.
Not only that, but 137.4 km/h (@1.609344 km/mile) = 85.376 mph. Also, no sources are cited.
--PuzzleScot (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records 

message: This article opens with an anomolous understanding of what is patentable. Thus Although he filed a number of patents involving air-lubricated hulls in 1957, no practical applications were found is wrong.
You cannot patent a principle or a bright idea, only the application of a principle or idea is covered by a patent. Sir Christopher Cockerell's original patent spelt out precisely how he had applied principles he had discovered in order to built the first Hovercraft. He would have had to disclose all details of each practical application in order to get the provisional patent he sought. In fact this first application disclosed the use of a 'skirt' and includes a sketch so there can be no doubt that flexible skirts were part of Cockerell's Hovercraft concept. I mention this because many seem to think that this idea came later. In fact there were no Hovercraft before Dec 1955 as Christopher Cockerell and his wife Margaret coined the word while living at their boatyard in Somerleyton in Suffolk.
In paragraph 7 it says 'However, Colonel Melville W. Beardsley (1913-1998), an American inventor and aeronautical engineer, received $80,000 from Cockerell for his rights to American patents.' What evidence is there for this statement, is there a date? I can find no evidence that Sir Christopher Cockerell ever bought patents from Col Beardsley, he was personally barred from doing anything of the kind following his agreement with NRDC/HDL. I have to conclude it did not happen, it seems very wrong to make such an assertion without a date and a reference. Can anyone help please?  
I have now read the whole Hovercraft entry, there are many errors throughout and I feel it should be removed pending substantive review.
highlight (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An article by M.W. Beardsley in a 1965 Flight 'Air Cushion Vehicles' issue here;   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The history section contains extensive details and even extended quotations from the work of Russian scientists/engineers, but appears to dismiss or even belittle the work of non-Russians. In particular, dismissing Cockrell, most famous for his work on the hovercraft, with the single sentence "However, today, in western culture, hovercraft is often considered as the brainchild of Sir Christopher Cockerell" shows clear bias, and is unacceptable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.184.185 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian bias in History section

message: For what it's worth:
Frank Black's Los Angeles (Frank Black song)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDVgfnyHP0c
Civic Cat (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: hovercraft in a music video

message: Any information (including pics) about Larus (reg. CH-AHL) hovercraft which was based in in Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., Canada in the late 1980`s?
This ACV was sold from Finland to Canada in mid 80´s.
What is the fate of this finnish-made ACV?
What happened to the company Arctic Hovertrans Ltd.?
http://www.esrfunds.org/documents/ESRF_095.pdf
(see pgs. 78-79)
83.145.225.152 (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wärtsilä]] Larus PUC 22 hovercraft in Tuktoyaktuk

message: This article claim Levkov's vehicles as GEV. It is not correct, because GEV principle has no lift engines and fans as main regime. Maybe as start device, not all the time. Levkov's vehicle use lift engines and fans. Ofcause, it is not usual sheme, it is something between GEV, hovercraft and tunnel-hull catamaran, but it is not GEV. And russian sources describe start of Levkov works as early as 1930, a couple years after publication of Tsiolkovsky book, which lay ground of his work, not finnish vehicle. AFAIK, this finnish vehicle was the first attempt to build true GEV, not hovercraft.Ходок (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Levkov design

message: Can the Hov Pod be mentioned ? Also mention the cost: about 19500 €, see http://www.gizmag.com/go/3543/ , http://www.hovpod.com/hovpod/hovpod.html
What would also be handy is a propulsion comparison; ie between an airplane, hovercraft, airboat and a boat. My guess is that ie airboats are much more efficient (ie they skim the watersurface better). 
91.182.175.107 (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreation

message: While I don't have any real position on the issue, it does seem somewhat inconsistent that the current introductory paragraph of this article specifically states that hovercraft are not considered aircraft, yet the article still features an aircraft series box.  Can someone with more knowledge on the topic please resolve this inconsistency? DoC352 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK hovercraft were classed initially as aircraft and had specialised aircraft registrations, thus GH-xxxx.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft? 

message: Re: Post-War Progress
Please note that the KM Ekranoplan (aka Caspian Sea Monster) and the Lun class Ekranoplan are different designs. Two obvious differences are the 'V' shaped 'T-tail' of the KM (Lun's is flat) and the three dual missile launchers on the Lun (absent on KM).
As I am only a novice Wikipedian, I have changed the name in the link (Post-War Progress section) to match the linked page (Lun class). A more experienced editor might like to change the link AND the text to point to the KM page, as the KM is arguably more famous, being the first large Soviet WIG sighted by the west. 
That said, the KM page does not currently have a picture and the interesting anecdote about missile launchers would no longer be relevant.
Up to you guys.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.95.69 (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of Ekranoplans 

message: Not a classic Swedish name from the 18th century, S V George VEMPADAMTHARA, I suspect vandalism?
Alexmcfire (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: There was a chage to the intro from high pressure to "low pressure, high volume" in May 2013. This seems pretty impossible to me. This was by 64.184.102.150 . I'm going to change it back.76.218.104.120 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Low pressure, high volume is correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been changed by someone, perhaps you, to "Although above ambient pressure, this is low-pressure, high volume air", which makes more sense. Great.76.218.104.120 (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It now says that it produces 'lift', which is seriously misleading as it implies a similarity to aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I'm sorry, though I'm not the person who changed it to that, and I'm not an expert on aircraft. But 'lift' is not as misleading as 'low pressure', when used without the qualification "higher than ambient pressure."... By the way, in the popularization ""Profiles of the Future"", Arthur C. Clarke, who was very enthusiastic about hovercraft, stated that what made hovercraft hover was the same force that made helicopters fly, except much more effective in the case of hovercraft since they were closer to the ground. This was a popularization, so it may have been incorrect technical language. But Clarke was a science writer, so making things clear and not making misleading statements was probably something he was good at. If you're sure lift is wrong, I think it would be helpful if you removed it.76.218.104.120 (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  low pressure high volume?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hovercraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090919030732/http://www.scvo.org.uk:80/scvo/NewsAndEvents/TFNetArticle.aspx?pid=4406 to http://www.scvo.org.uk/scvo/NewsAndEvents/TFNetArticle.aspx?pid=4406
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091002094320/http://www.stagecoachbus.com/fife/forthfast.html to http://www.stagecoachbus.com/fife/forthfast.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can somebody provide more detail or a link to another article that explains how a hovercraft hovers or how an air cushion works? For example, I suspect that if one pumps high-pressure air into an inverted, empty tin can that the can will not hover. Rather, it will tilt to one side to allow the air to escape, with part of its rim resting on the ground. Why doesn't a hovercraft do that? Does hovering depend on a large width-to-height ratio? Would a garbage can lid hover? Why? When a hovering mass starts to tilt, what feedback mechanism levels it again? IOLJeff (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth asking your question here Polyamorph (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  But how does it work? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hovercraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090919030732/http://www.scvo.org.uk:80/scvo/NewsAndEvents/TFNetArticle.aspx?pid=4406 to http://www.scvo.org.uk/scvo/NewsAndEvents/TFNetArticle.aspx?pid=4406
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hovercraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160213052802/http://www.colheli.com/news/the_hover_barge/ to http://www.colheli.com/news/the_hover_barge/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hovercraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009235953/http://homepages.fh-giessen.de/~hg6339/data/ah/minor-crafts/1915_ah-gleitboot/tec_versuchsgleitboot-1.htm to http://homepages.fh-giessen.de/~hg6339/data/ah/minor-crafts/1915_ah-gleitboot/tec_versuchsgleitboot-1.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.defencemanagement.com/article.asp?id=409&content_name=Maritime&article=13614
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208073153/http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Fleet/CCGS-Mamilossa to http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Fleet/CCGS-Mamilossa
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208063150/http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Fleet/CCGS-Sipu-Muin to http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Fleet/CCGS-Sipu-Muin
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222101202/http://www.harpoondatabases.com/Encyclopedia/Entry3065.aspx to http://www.harpoondatabases.com/Encyclopedia/Entry3065.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: from the article: 
"Over time, this design evolved into individual extensions over the bottom of the slots in the skirt, known as "fingers"
Is there a source for this? 72.73.30.202 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  skirt fingers