Talk:Ground-effect vehicle

message: Isn't ground effect an adjective in the phrase, "ground-effect vehicle"? Autodidact1 (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no hyphen?

message: Isn't it the fact that rogue waves occur much more frequently than previously believed that is the major problem with ekranoplans?
69.17.43.162 (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no rogue waves on Russian rivers, or the Black Sea, or even the Barents Sea Santamoly (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not on Rivers, but all large open bodies of water have rogue waves - Caspian, Black Sea and Barents sea included.NiD.29 (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no mention of rogue waves?

message: I've removed the following paragraph from the article for the moment because I don't see the justification for it.
:The term ground effect vehicle is often misapplied to hovercrafts, which use fans to form an air cushion (hence the correct term air cushion vehicle) rather than relying on true ground effect.
Firstly, the article is about ekranoplans, so it seems a bit out of place.  Secondly, I disagree with the paragraph's claims, the hovercraft's air cushion is very much a ground effect, otherwise a hovercraft would be able to rise to an unlimited height.  Both ekranoplans and hovercraft rely on an aircushion (a volume of pressurised air) to support them.  The main difference is that the ekranoplan uses the ram effect of its forward speed to produce the cushion below its wings whereas the hovercraft uses fans to produce the cushion below its body.  The difference is analagous to the difference between the aeroplane, which uses forward speed to produce lift, and the helicopter, which uses what is, in many ways, a large fan to produce lift.  As a result the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of aircushion vehicle are analogous to those of the two types of aircraft as well. -- Derek Ross
:I disagree - hovercraft do not use ground effect. "Ground Effect" is a specific term referring to an aerodynamic phenomenon resulting from an aerofoil operating close to the ground (as a rule of thumb, within one wing-span of the ground). A wing works by creating a region of high pressure below it and low pressure above it (the exact reason for this is complex, and is often simplistically explained as a result of Bernoulli's principle, although that is only a small part of the story. Anyway, it is largely irrelevant to this discussion). Because of the pressure difference, there is a tendency for the air below the wing to move to above it. It can't do it by going over the leading or trailing edge, but it can do it around the wing tip. Thus, what is known as 'spanwise flow' occurs, where air under the wing moves out towards the tip, while air above it moves in towards the root. At the wing tip, this creates vortices (these vortices can be very powerful - a heavy airliner's wing tip vortices pose a major hazard to smaller aircraft). Unfortunately, these vortices cause drag (known as induced drag) This is why winglets are fitted to some aircraft, to reduce the vortices. Another thing to consider is that behind a wing, there is a downwash - this is again a natural part of the aerodynamics of a wing - as the air passes over the wing, it is deflected downwards (this is a result of the Coanda effect, and is a major factor in the production of lift). However, this downwash also results in induced drag. As an aircraft speeds up, induced drag actually reduces. However, the other form of drag, known as parasite drag, increases.
:Anyway, lets get back to the topic of ground effect. When an aircraft is close to the ground, the vortices can't form fully while the downwash is also reduced, leading to a reduction in induced drag. Because the parasite drag is small at low speeds, an aircraft flying in ground effect experiences a lot less drag than it would flying out of ground effect. This means it can fly without using as much power, which is the major advantage of a WIG/GEV/Ekranoplan etc.
:This is the major factor behind Ground Effect. While there is also a cushioning, it is the significant reduction in drag close to the ground which is the major issue here. It is very different to the concept of the hovercraft. You are quite right to say the difference between the two is analogous to that between Aeroplanes and Helicopters - there is a major difference between Ground Effect Vehicles and Hovercraft, and it is a mistake to confuse them. Nick Moss 12:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: removed

message: I tend to doubt that American intelligence was bewildered by this if they got pictures of it. Ground effects flight is pretty well understood. What is the source of this info?
:I recall a documentary saying that US intelligence analysts were initially puzzled by the satellite photos which appeared to show an enormous, unfinished aeroplane.  They consulted technical experts, who conjectured the 'Caspian sea monster' was a ground effect vehicle.  I'll remove the 'confused' bit until someone can supply better information.  --Townmouse 00:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American intelligence "confused"? 

message: Over the past few days, I have developed quite a big interest in the Ground Effect Vehicles. As a result, I have done a frightening amount of reading into them.
Unfortunately, when it comes to editing the Ekranoplan pages in wikipedia, I don't really have the confidence to put my money where my mouth is, even if my sources are good.
So, these are the sources I've found, which I'm confident could be used to good effect.
Scary documents:
Foreign Military Studies Office - The Tyranny of Time and Distance: Bridging the Pacific.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/bridge/bridge.htm
While this site is in Russian, and probably doesn't qualify as a notable source, it seems to have some pretty in-depth information about the Espa-Y class of Ekranoplan.
http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/mk_other/okb_mk/8309_ekranoplan.htm
This USAF study may be relevant in some way, but the complexity of it causes my brain to palpitate.
http://www.ndu.edu/library/ic6/95-S12.pdf
Other links
This site contains a diagram of the development of the various Ekranoplan classes.
It's in French, but its sourced as from "Science & Vie" (Science and Life) which is a French science magazine.
One problem is that it labels the first Ekranoplan as Utka, and the anti-ship Ekranoplan as "Lun Militaire", whereas the FMSO article (and another chart I have yet to find a reference for) describe it as Utka.
http://membres.lycos.fr/dracken/Ekranoplan/historique.html
AlphaSim have created an Ekranoplan for use in Microsoft Fight Simulator 2002 & 2004 
http://www.alphasim3.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=26&products_id=67
I currently have emails out to some people, who might be able to give me more reliable references, but I'm not holding my breath on it.
Kirai no Tenshi 14:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information on Ekranoplan? 

message: I am hoping that somebody can further verify this source. I can't find anything about the company or its founder on Google other than its own pages. Most of the boats they have for sale are CGI renderings, and their ekranoplan pages simply have photos sourced from elsewhere and obscure the vehicles' Soviet military origins. I remember reading an article a few years ago which said that the design bureau in charge of the Lun model was looking for a private buyer for the one that had been mothballed, but I haven't been able to find that article again; otherwise I would replace the Bentley link. Until then, I'm hoping somebody can get some more information on this company and their ties to the Soviet ekranoplans, if they're for real.
 oops, forgot to sign istewart 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veracity of Bentley Yachts 

message: Shouldn't there be a picture of an ekranoplan so anyone reading the page could identify what one looks like?
202.95.200.12 07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: "Commemorating the 85th anniversary of Rostislav Evgenievich Alexeev" doesn't work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.34.152 (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Just wondering. Can't remember seeing it. -albrozdude (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where in Metal Gear Solid 3? 

message: The Ekranoplan was featured in the mission "tokyo Executive transport" in the game Flight Simulator X
--Hornet94 talk 08:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ekranoplan in [[Flight Simulator X]] 

message: Two main solutions to this problem have been implemented. The first was used by the Russian Ekranoplan program which placed engines in front of the wings to provide more lift. The Caspian Sea Monster had eight such engines, some of which were not used once the craft was airborne. A second, more elegant approach, is to use some form of an air-cushion to raise the vehicle most of the way out of the water, making take-off easier.
In fact, KM used the second type of take-off. Rear side of it's wing was in water during take-off, so wing was air trap for engine's air waves. This solution was futher developed on Orlenok vehicles. Ходок (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: KM take-off

message: First: the current development section is a mess. I don't know what the guy who made it was thinking about. The beggining looks fine, but then someone inserted levels sorted by country, and after that someone esle inserted more levels.
Second: the wing configurations section has more problems. Someone put an Ekranoplan text at the bottom of the section wich doesn't have anything to do with wing configurations, it explains what an ekranoplan is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPeski (talk • contribs) 09:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure messed up

message: 118.208.0.199 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is solely for the discussion of matters directly related to the article itself and its improvement. As such, your questions are beyond the scope of this talk page. However, I find the question fascinating, and so I'll copy your question over to the talk page of your IP address, and respond there. - BillCJ (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fiction Novel 

message: This is interesting.--TraceyR (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wing in ground Kiwi! 

message: From the article:
 reaching a top speed of 300 kn (560 km/h; 350 mph) (400 kn (740 km/h; 460 mph) in research flight).
So... 300 or 400 kn?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.215.5 (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top speed of Soviet model ambiguous 

message: Near the end of the article, under History > GEVs since the 1980s, there is an image captioned "Sea Eagle", but there is no other info with the image and no mention of this craft in the text. Who built it? When? For what purpose? More info, please!
108.23.18.55 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Eagle? 

message: 'Screen effect' or 'screen glider'? This article and the Caspian Sea Monster article disagree; here we have 'screenglider' as the English translation of the Russian 'ekranoplan', while the KM article says the English translation is 'screen effect'. Can it be both? I don't say it's impossible. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:FC95:479:191E:1958 (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translation of 'Ekranoplan' 

message: They are intended to be flown just above the water, so they don't replace (or function as) air-travel, but sea-travel. Thus it makes no sense to compare it to other aircraft, but instead to compare it to sea-craft. To ships and hovercraft. GEV are essentially like hovercraft, just slightly further above the water. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the comparisons only to aircraft, rather than seacraft?