Ada 294979

Wingship
Ä UI-^
flELECTE
Investigation
JUN 1 5 1995
VOLUM
Final
Report
APPROVED Coordinated and
Published for
FOR PUBLIC
RELEASE; Advanced Research Projects Agency
DISTRIBUTION 3701 N.Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203-1714
IS UNLIMITED
4
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of Worrrrfton is estimated to «»rag. 1 hour per response, including the ta. for revT^'™^\8earoh,,,8 T8'*«*** !S?rf2taSl
and maMaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this eohctnn of
ZZT^ZgTs^^nnî^^^ZHniio, Headquarters Se™c«. Directora* for Hormation Opera**»,andReports. 1215 Mima, Dav» H„hway. Su*.
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office d Management and Budget, Pai^rworkrûcfenP^^ (0704^188). Wash^«..!« 20503 __
I.AGENCV'USEÖNLY (Leaveblank, ÊPSHfBJfTT
9/30/94 Final Report
5. PUNDING NUMBERS
4. TltLEANb SUBTITLE
Wingship Investigation - Volume 1 - Final Report
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AN6 Abbük^ks) a PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)

3701N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22203-1714
9. SPöNSöRING/MöNITöRING A6EN6V NAMI(S> AND AbUHlss(Ls)
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)

3701 N.Fairfax Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22203-1714
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
N/A
i2b.E>läYRlBUTlöNcoüL
12a. DlsTftlBUTIoN/AVAILABIUTV slAlkMLKII
Distribution is Unlimited
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE-
DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED (A)
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) has completed an investigation of Wingship concepts
and technologies to examine their relevance and utility in future defense applications. A select team of
technical experts from U.S. Government and industry was formed by ARPA to assess Wingship-related
technologies and mission applications. The diverse group was comprised of Western experts in
Wingship-unique and related technologies, including flight controls, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics,
propulsion, and advanced structures. Transportation specialists and other mission analysts also
participated. The Wingship Investigation concluded that vehicles approaching the efficiency and capacity
required for strategic heavy lift are about 10 times larger (in gross weight) than any existing Wingship or
other flying water-based craft, and about five-times larger than most experienced Russian or American
experts recommend building using current technology. The study concluded that, while the cost and
technical risks of developing these very large Wingships are currently unacceptable, there may be some
promising military applications for Wingships in the 400- to 1000-ton range. Experience with these
relatively smaller vehicles could also permit a growth path for the technology.
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
14. SUBJECT TERMS
Aerodynamic ground effect, Wingship,
125
16. PRICE CODE
Ekranoplan (Russian) DTIC QUALITY IKSPECiî) a
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
NSN 7540-01 -280-5500 Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
296-102
Wingship
Investigation
VOLUM
Final Accesion For
NTIS CRA&I
DTIC TAB D
Unannounced D
Justification
Report By
Distribution]
Availability Codes
Avail and /or
Dist Special
M
APPROVED Coordinated and
Published for
FOR PUBLIC
RELEASE; Advanced Research Projects Agency
DISTRIBUTION 3701 N.Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203-1714
IS UNLIMITED
Table Of Contents
Volume 1 - Final Report
1. Executive Summary
2-1
2. Introduction
2.1 Background And Purpose Of The Evaluation -2-1
2.2 Wingship Definition "
2.3 Overview Of Transportation Systems *"
2.4 Wingship Promise "
2.5 Wingship Limitations And Risks "
2.6 Purpose 2 g
2.7 What The Report Contains
3. Methodology And Procedures 3-1
4. Ground Rules And Assumptions 4-1
4.1 General Classification 41
4.1.1 Focus on Non-Amphibious -
4.1.2 Consider Only Aircraft-Configured Craft With A Takeoff And Landing Aid 4-2
4.2 Technology Limitations "
4.2.1 Development Time Frame '
4.2.2 Low Risk Technology Application "
4.2.3 Risks Associated With Large Designs
5. Definition of The State-of-the-Art ^-1
5.1 Short History of Worldwide Wingship Developments ^
5.2 General Discussion of Large Russian Configurations >3
5.3 Principal Results of Earlier Studies "
5.4 Technology Levels And Uncertainties "
5.4.1 Aerodynamics....-v.. ,
5.4.1.1 Aerodynamic Efficiency • "
5.4.1.2 Basis Of Ground Effect Theory ^"°
5.4.1.3 Experimental Ground Effect Testing -5^
5.4.1.4 Lift In Ground Effect ^"jjj
5.4.1.5 Drag In Ground Effect ~"
5.4.1.6 Moment And Trim ~"
5.4.2 Stability And Control *~
5.4.3 Hydrodynamics "
5.4.4 Operation In Wave Environment "
5.4.4.1 Description Of Sea State ™
5
5.4.4.2 Floating And Drifting In Waves '^
5 31
5.4.4.3 Takeoff In Waves '
5.4.4.4 Landing Considerations ^_
5.4.4.5 Cruise Over Waves ™
5.4.4.6 Impact With Rogue Waves ™
5.4.4.7 Design Loads "
5.4.4.8 Hull Pressures ™
5-41
5.4.5 Propulsion
5.4.6 Air Injection ._._
D
5.4.7 Structures, Materials And Weights
5.4.8 Section 5 - References
6-1
6. System Evaluation ; 6-1
6.1 Long Range WIG Parametric Analysis • ^
6.1.1 Study Approach • 67
6.1.2 Parametric Study Results 67
6.1.2.1 Basic Vehicle Sizing '."."6-9
6.2 Operational Issues ^_9
6.2.1 Infrastructure 611
6.2.2 Traffic Management 6 u
62 3 Rogue Wave Detection And Avoidance
6.2.4 Reliabmty.MaintainabüityAndAvaUabUity
7. Mission Analysis 7_!
7.1 Mission Analysis Objectives "••;••••;"": 7_1
7.2 Mission Analysis Team Membership, Interfaces And Support î^;:";";;^
7.3 Approach ••••• 7.5
7.4 Military Applications Examined 75
7.4.1 Mihtary Transportation Applications • ......'....1-6
7.4.2 Combat Applications •••/• " 77
7.5 Wingship Lift Findings And Indications 7?
7.5.1 Force Closure And Rapid Insertion 79
7.5.1.1 Conventional Regional Deterrence
7 "5 1 2 Lethal Systems-Air Defense, Mlrs/Atacms ....... • •
7I! 3 ^positioned Assets In.Nearly Simultaneous Contingencies 7-
1.5AA Value When NBC Weapons Used On Air/Sea Ports £jj
7.6 Wingship Combatant Findings/Indications """.'."!"! 7-11
7.6.1 Naval Mine Warfare 712
7.6.2 NTACMS Variant Vs. Massed Maneuver Forces *.*.'.'.*.".'.'. 7-13
7.6.3 Strike Warfare """"" 7-14
7.6.4 Amphibious Assault 714
7.6.5 Theater Air Defense Capability !'".....7-15
7.7 Potential Commercial Applications ....7-16
7.8 Wingship Costs ::',v;;;:,""l;: '.7-17
7.9 Cost Performance OfWTET Audited Wingship "'"!!....7-18
7.10 Preferred Missions .............7-19
7.11 Conclusions g_l
8. Significant Technical Findings
9. Conclusions
10. Taxonomies Of Technology And Concept Demonstrators iu-j
11. Recommendations
Volume 2 - Appendices
A. Congressional Language, Official Correspondence
B. Other Approaches To Heavy Equipment Rapid Delivery
C. Assumptions Behind WIG Parametrics
D. Landplane And Seaplane Performance
E. Names and Contacts-v ,7. _
F. Database * •■•;$■-
G. Trip Reports
H. Reliability and Maintainability *v<
I. Description Of The Wingship Technical Evaluation Team (WTET) "\
J. Mission Application Studies
K. Propulsion
Volume 3 - Technology Roadmap
in
List of Figures
2-2
Hgurez.^-i Usefui Load Fraction of Aircraft ••• — •" 3-1

Ä?ta wSp Technical Evaluation Team (WTET) 3.2
ffitlb SnAnalysisTeamTaskAssignments ;;;;;;;;:;;;; 3.2
ngureîu Russian Participants 3-3
FigS!:! WpStudWorkBreak^ 3-3
Figure 3-4 Schedule...• • • • rjî;•■*•• 0^1^ Characteristics /«
Flure 4.1.2-1 g»SS wS afSeÄs.er) firs, flown in .9^ ••■■ «
S8""!^' öS DSte of Russian Configurations ••••• 5.6
Figure 5.4.^ / Albatross Type Seaplane .:v 5-28
Sfurasllt H££ Tolerance -Motion Sickness

^Z^ZZZ 5-33
k
lit! ^7pS Äfllnön-SeapVaneHuii:: —=&
Sit! feM^ÄÄvS' :::::::::«°
R£ES4M vS Density vsSmacmraJ Weigh. Fracüon ";;;;;ZZ^. 6-2
Piaiin»fil-1 Russian Spasatel 6-7
pfure 6 1 2 1-1 Parametric Sizing Results - 6-8
Fgureo. i.z.1 i pnic sizing Characteristics 6-9
Figure 6. .2.1-2 gjS?Q«d (PUGW) w/wmpty GW ;;; 6.9
FSIÜM gSGoai(PUGw)cn1iseMach ;;;;;;;;;;::::::::::::::: ^
ggSvif1"5 ^SÄs^nstyie^wÄ =:==. U

£ ' 5000 ton AEROCON Wingship.. 7.7
Fifuevt-l ForVe Closure, Notional Corps to SWA ••••;•■•;;; 7.8
figure /.J 1 ForCA Closure Comparisons •• 7-10
Figure 7.5-2 g^p^wr Comparison in SWA Scenano ; 7_12
Figure 101 AslmpSTaxonomyof'TechnologyDemonstrators »;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 10.2

Figure 10-2 Product Taxonomy
IV
Acknowledgements
Col. Michael S. Francis USAF, ARPA Program Manager, organized this investigation. He
selected many of the participants, interfaced with Congress and provided executive level direction
during its course.
Several authors cooperated to write this report. Writing assignments were issued by topic and
section. The team of writers deliberately included talented people with different backgrounds.
Inevitably, there were differences in writing style and emphasis among the various writers. Also,
the writers had different experiences during the investigation. For example, not all writers visited
Russia. There was a fair amount of communication and cross reading between writers. And, in
the final event, a smaller team edited the whole document to fill in transitions, remove
contradictions, and make the style a little more uniform Consequently, the material in each section
is not exclusively attributable to a single individual. The following paragraphs, in alphabetical
order by author name, describe each author's contribution.
Eugene Covert wrote the expository section on the relationships and differences between
technology and concept demonstrators. His insight was key in sorting out some of the rationale of
the Russian programs.
Jim Camp wrote material on the history of the Russian development programs.
Dieter Czimmek wrote the initial material on structures. Burt Rutan provided structures
information. Mr. Czimmek also provided some critical information on rogue waves and their
detection and avoidance. At the time of his contributions, Dieter Czimmek was a senior technical
staff member at the Newport News Shipyard responsible for high speed vehicle structures.
Roger Gallington suggested initial document outlines, and wrote various transition sections such as
introductions, summaries, and results. He used comments of several outside reviewers to edit the
report. He wrote some of the material on PAR.
Joseph Gera wrote the material on stability and control. He also made contributions to the
aerodynamics section and served as a critical reviewer.
Eric Lister wrote all the propulsion material. He relentlessly sought out propulsion related issues
and solutions. Eric courageously produced the earliest draft of his sections and served as a
pathfinder for others.
Len Malthan computed the parametric results and wrote them up for this report. These early results
were key for the mission analysis team to get an idea of what kind of performance they could
expect from vehicles similar to the Russian LUN but of different sizes and proportions and with
improvements in propulsion and structures technology.
Balusu Rao researched the major characteristics of a wide class of seaplanes and WIGs. He also
made estimates of the propulsion performance improvements that might result from designing
engines specifically for the wingship application.
John Reeves wrote the aerodynamics sections. He took particular care to compare the various
analytical methods of predicting the benefit of ground effect. John also wrote the appended
sections on seaplane and landplane performance. Mr. Reeves received assistance from Stephan
Hooker and Hal Fluk.
Daniel Savitsky wrote the hydrodynamics sections. He paid particular attention to correlating
empirical relations used for estimation in design to similar relations used m Russia and found
substantial agreement.
C F Snyder coordinated the mission analysis and wrote that section with major contributions from
Frank Macauley of BDM Federal and Sam Finch of Lockheed Aeronautical System Company. He
also wrote sections of the Operational Issues. Mr. Snyder was at the forefront m establishing
relations with the Russian team to foster the exchange of mission information.
Stephan Hooker wrote a minority report on the performance characteristics of a large-scale

Wingship. This report is included in Appendix M.
Appendix I contains the resumes of authors, and other members of the investigating team.
VI
Wingship Investigation Final Report Executive Summary
1. Executive Summary
A wingship is a sea-based flying vehicle that exploits efficiency-enhancing ground effect by flying
most of its design mission close to the surface of the sea. The most recent large Russian designs
resemble stubby winged seaplanes. Congress directed the Advanced Research Projects Agency
(ARPA) to investigate the wingship vehicle concept and directed the Department of Defense (DoD)
to report back on whether it had a validated military requirement for such a vehicle. This report is
the result of ARPA's investigation.
To conduct the investigation, ARPA formed a team of technologists and-mission analysts. Some
of this team traveled to Russia for extensive fact finding. Some of the team witnessed a US funded
demonstration flight of a Russian wingship on the Caspian Sea. Some of the team did a parametric
analysis of Russian-style wingships to estimate their optimum performance and performed
technical audits of a 5000 ton wingship concept. During the course of the investigation, there were
numerous meetings for information exchange. The investigation offered funded opportunities for
US and Russian technical communities tö address some of the most troublesome problems. The
US technical community was responsive. Russia was-not.
The investigation found that: (1) By far, the largest wingship programs have been Russian; (2)
There have been no operational deployments; (3) A Russian wingship lifted the greatest weight
ever from the water; (4) Russian programs focused on tactical military missions ~ not the strategic
supply mission, which was the initial US emphasis; and (5) Several efficiency-reducing wingship
features detract substantially from the efficiency gains resulting from flight very near the sea.
The investigation concluded that: (1) several military missions which emphasize the speed and
persistence of a wingship are promising; (2) wingships approaching the efficiency and capacity
required for strategic mobility are ten times the gross weight of the largest wingship to date and
five times the gross weight that any experienced US or Russian design team would suggest; (3)
based on their evolution to date, and within the bounds of current andforseeable projected
technology and projected life cycle cost, wingships do not appear promising for the long range
strategic lift mission in the forseeable future; and (4) western technology and modern Russian
technology could improve the performance of Russian-style wingships.
The ARPA Programs Managers team recommends: (1) Complete the mission and utility analysis
emphasizing military missions which exploit the wingship speed and persistence; (2) Design a .
1-1
Executive Summary
Wingship Investigation Final Report _ . ■
wingship to perform the most promising of me military missions to obtain a better estimate of
X cost, and related technical uncertainties; (3, implement of a technology ^lopme"t
pro,!, to address key technical issues associated with the wingship concept; and (4) Complet
me ongoing analysis and initiate suggested experiments addressing the most important techmcal
S2* nch I the laxge power «quired for takeoff, found during ft» mvesttgauon.
1-2
Wingship Investigation Final Report Introduction
2. Introduction
This introductory section describes the background and purpose of this evaluation, defines the
wingship, describes a vision of its performance and utility, and describes the content of the rest of
the report.
2.1 Background And Purpose Of The Evaluation

This report summarizes the results of an Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) evaluation
of wingship technologies and concepts in response to Congressional direction (Figure 2.1-1) to
accomplish "experimental planning and related studies in association with wing-in-ground effect
vehicles." This study specifically supports a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to report
back to Congress on whether or not there is a validated military requirement for such vehicles in
projected defense missions.
To satisfy the Congressional tasking, ARPA crafted a program to accomplish the Mowing
objectives.
1. Evaluate technologies and concepts applicable to wingship type surface effect vehicles to
determine the development feasibility, risk, performance potential and limitations
associated with these vehicles. This evaluation should include technologies developed
by the former Soviet Union.
2. Plan experiments and studies to verify and/or validate these assessments.
3. Assess the mission utility of these vehicle types in satisfying defense requirements
(Congressional approval was given in late July 1993)
4. If outcome of the studies warrant, conduct experiments and studies designed to further
assess and/or develop wingship technologies and concepts.
This report and subsequent "briefing", along with final results, will be presented to the Secretary
of Defense to assist in his evaluation of wingship requirements and to support his report(s) to
Congress on this issue.
2-1
Introduction
W8nrh8n Investigation Final Report . . ■ " "
Congressional Direction
Pri^nllim^-Oylwl« funds iated for this
The conferees ^^«^"JE only for the Wingship project... The conferees
program element, $5,000,000 is avaUanie on^ Research Projects Agency shall not
Yemeni 1ÄÜÄ f Ä£- has added funds or which have been
designated as items of special Congressional interest
"funds to be made available for the «^tÄon^c^^^-
experimental planning and may no to *'^Ä^SÄ stage. No later than
which would commit the government g^^^l^ Congressional defense
May 1, 1993, the Secretary of D^^JSS^SStfor a wingship and how any
committees whether there is \^^^^Zpnve U.S. airlift and sealift
SÄÄ ^JS^^î^^V^ tether the Defense
Department would want to pursue a wingship program.
"^^Z^^^ for technical evaluation, utility analysis, and evaluation of

technologies developed by the former Soviet Union.
Tr^ p.,-.,,. Proiecf V m • Mminnr 19" «KM- ^ 1993.
Figure 2.1-1 Congressional Direction

Beeauseoftheir „niquea„d extensive invo—^
.«, three decades considerable attention has been paid to the results of developments m the states
2-2
Wingship Investigation Final Report _ ; Introduction
2.2 Wingship Definition

A wingship is a water-based flying craft designed to exploit drag-reducing ground effect by flying
the majority of its design mission very close to the surface of the water. This definition excludes
amphibious craft which can also take off and land on land or can taxi from land to water and from
water to land under their own power. Wingships are a subclass of wing-in-ground effect (WIG)
vehicles. This larger class includes all craft intended to exploit ground effect—independent of
surface being flown over (water, land, ice) and the basing.
To solidify definitions, Figure 2.2-1 depicts a large Russian WIG, two Russian wingships, and a
contemporary large wingship concept. Traditional names associated with this general technology
area are: ram wing; wing-in-ground effect (WIG); and ekranoplan (Russian). The specific
technique of aiding takeoff and, perhaps, landing by directing the efflux of forward mounted
propulsion units under the wing is called air injection in Russia and power augmentation or power
augmented ram (PAR) in the U.S. In the remainder of this report, we will use the term WIG to
refer to any vehicle designed specifically to take advantage of surface effect and the term wingship
to refer to water-based WIGs. We will use PAR and air injection interchangeably.
2.3 Overview Of Transportation Systems
To properly compare widely diverse types of transportation vehicles, one needs several fairly
general quantitative measures and ways of representing many of these measures together.
The productivity of a transport vehicle is roughly proportional to the product of the efficiency and
speed. The Karman-Gabrielli (K-G) plot is a convenient way to represent the efficiency (which is
proportional to range for fixed weight fractions), speed (which has value of its own), and
productivity (which is the product of the other two). Figure 2.4-1 is an example of the K-G plot.
This figure indicates the relative performances of aircraft, ships, and wingships. Figure 4.1.2-1
combines information from the Wingship Compendium (Section 5, Ref. 5.1-2) with 5,000 ton
wingship design goals. The figure includes demonstrated performance, estimated performance,
and performance goals. Wingships are potentially slightly more efficient than transport aircraft and
are much faster than ships.
2-3
Introduction
Wingship Investigation Final Report
400 Ton Wingship

540 Ton Wingship Test Craft (Lun)
(Caspian Sea Monster)
5000 Ton Wingship

140 Ton WIG Transport (Concept)
(Orlyonok)
Figure 2.2-1 Two Wingships, One WIG, and . Wingship C.neept
as a fracdon of grcss «£^P-Z« alaoie and p^sion ,ecnno,og,
-I;^P^;-,^
payload.
2-4
Introduction
AERODYNAMIC CONFIGURATION TYPES:

■. SUPERTANKERS.. :..„>.. ;..|-
BULK CARRIERS \ o-'FRAME" (EXTENT)
:>;':LARGESÜBMARINESV:Vi':':V: • - AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION (EXTENT)
<:: y IARGE CARGO SHIPS.:; • A - 'COMPOSITE WING" (COMPOSITE)
D- AEROCON DESIGN (CONCEPT)
L/D 102 =
V. L/D - 21000 (NASA ESTIMATE)'. '^]''.\

r:y.UD* 15000 (FORECAST FOR 1995)
[— V.L/D = 13500(1965) .:...:..:..:.;.:.;
Vr^-V. ÜD«7500(1950)::\V"v*.-Vv.f.'.V:
105
103
V (KM/HR)
Figure 2.4-1
Karman-Gabrielli Plot Showing
Transport Efficiency of Diverse Vehicle Types
2.4 Wingship Promise
The central attractiveness of wingships has been the perceived improvements in aerodynamic
efficiency compared to aircraft. During the 1960s, numerous WIG vehicle technologists focused
on the apparent "hole" in the K-G plot as an opportunity for new types of craft. If vehicles could
be designed to fill this hole, they would have better range and payload performance than aircraft,
and speeds much faster than ships. WIG craft can arguably fill this void by flying very close to the
surface (less than one-tenth of the span). Cruising at this altitude reduces drag by about 25% and
2-5
Introduction
reduces speed by about 20%. Therefore, for the open ocean application with given wave heights,
bigger is better.
Another key argument for the viability of wingships is the avoidance of the requirement for airports
and runways. Since over two-thirds of the planet is covered by water (much of it in large
contiguous bodies), this fact also is a compelling argument to consider these types of flying craft.
< .
O CO
-J to
_JO F - CONSTELLATION • ACTUAL VALUES
3d A-WRIGHT FLYER
u.
wo B-JN-4H G-707-120B
CO C-JUNKERS F-13A H-747 . SQUARE/CUBE
D CALCULATED VALUES
D - DC-3 I - C-5A
E - C-456
0.01
10' 10J 10c 10'
10' 10==
DESIGN GROSS WEIGHT - LB
Figure 2.4-2. Useful Load Fraction of Aircraft
—- >„. ■■■>■
2-6
Wingships and seaplanes are waterborne platforms that take advantage of the broad water surface
for takeoff and landing. This gives the platform the advantage over landbased aircraft of not being
limited by landing field location and dimensions for operation. Militarily, they can operate in areas
with non-prepared landing surfaces as long as the payload can be unloaded. They may be
commercially viable since many of the commercially important cities worldwide are located at a
shoreline. The expanse of the water also lets the wing span of the platform be larger than limits
placed by standard runway widths, allowing spans of greater than 200 feet. It also allows longer
takeoff distances if needed. The largest wingship built to date uses captured air pressure under the
wings provided by a separate power system to augment the dynamic lift provided by the fuselage
in contact with the water and aerodynamic lift on the wings to achieve lift-off. The seaplane gets
its takeoff lift from water dynamic lift on the fuselage and aerodynamics. The choice between
which platform is selected for the mission is based on aerodynamic performance, power required
for takeoff and cruise, fuel usage rate, and payload fraction.
2.5 Wingship Limitations And Risks

Since the wingship depends on surface effect to increase its lift and obtain relatively long range, it
is useful only on routes that have a long run of naturally and reliably smooth surface, such as
water. This study has concentrated on over water applications. Special care has been taken to
assure practical cruising heights with respect to the natural state of the ocean.
In Russia, as in the US, there are differences of opinion on the performance and technical
requirements of wingships. These differences are made apparent in the trip reports (Appendix G).
However, description of the performance actually achieved so far and descriptions of how the craft
operate were remarkably uruforrrr:
2-7
Introduction
Wingship Investigation Final Report _ . —
Practical considerations, such as reduced cntise speeds (compared to landplanes) ancI oversized
Lines (reladve to cruise power requirements) tend to detract from the prormse. Therefore any
2T5L» - «hSe types must include these negadve aspects as well as the posmve
increase to aerodynamic efficiency.
Among the remaining technical risks or uncertainties are the design of structure to tolerate water
£SL« and overal, craft accelerations associated with clippingthe tops of waves at cru.se
spLs Also, mere is some remaining uncertainty as to how to design for the rogue wave
phenomena.
The Russians currently use aviation engines adapted for the sea environment. Future Wta«
Synced and designed for the large difference in power requirements etween takeoff and
cm" and for engine shutdown, if required. Designs must achieve adequate rehahthty,
maintainability, and availability.
2.6 Purpose
This ARPA report will strive to:
, Provide an objective assessment of the feasibility, performance potential and limitations of

wtagsmp-type, surface effee, vehicles, incorporating considerations of bo* avariable and
defense, heavy lift needs, and other potential missions, considering both avariabie and other
projected defense assets; and
3 Provide a preliminar, «commendation for future development activities (roadmap) based on

performance, mission utility and development risk reduction.
2.7 What The Report Contains
At fine top level, this evaluation addresses two primary questions. First, with some technology
^Twhat tod of performance can we expect to achieve with wingshtps? Seeond doe that
L'Xrformance produce a significant improvement in capability when compared to other
2-8
methods of accomplishing the same transport job (Appendix B). Preliminary issues and questions
are addressed in this context.
In this report, Section 3 describes the methodologies and procedures used to arrive at our
conclusions. Section 4 is a discussion of certain ground rules and.assumptions used to define and
limit the scope of this study so quantitative, confident, and valuable results are produced. Section
5 describes the state-of-the-art of the most important technologies influencing the performance and
utility of this type of craft. Section 6 synthesizes the technical results into an overall evaluation of
technologies and concepts. Section 7 encompasses a preliminary evaluation of mission utility,
including a comparison of the wingship to other ways of meeting the requirements of the long
range supply missions. Sections 8, 9, and 11 are the results of our study. They are, respectively,
Significant Technical Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Section 10, Taxonomy of
Demonstrators, is between Conclusions and Recommendations to provide context for the
recommendations and clearly explain the Russian programs in language familiar to our research
and development community.
Thirteen appendices support the conclusions and assertions in the body of the report.
2-9
Wingship Investigation Final Report Methodology
3. Methodology and Procedures
To conduct this initial investigation, a panel of experts convened to examine concepts and
technologies. An initial technical group, known as the Wingship Technical Evaluation Team
(WTET) was formed on March 1,1993. (See Figure 3-la) A second panel known as the
Wingship Missions Analysis Team (WMAT) was formed in August 1993 to investigate this area.
Figure 3- lb shows the institutions and WMAT with their general areas of expertise and
responsibility. As of this report date, the efforts of the latter group are ongoing. These include
definition of potential missions and comparisons with competing approaches. A variety of
disparate missions including heavy lift, missile carrier and launcher, delivery of special operations
forces equipment, and delivery of deep submergence rescue vehicle are considered. Due to late
Congressional approval, this report contains only a preliminary evaluation of wingship
applications.
The study team included nationally recognized specialists and generalists representing many
different organizations. Various government defense organizations as well as shipbuilding and
aircraft industries, and academia were represented. The team included expertise on all critical
vehicle technologies. The investigation included extensive interaction with the Russians [see
Figure 3-2] since they have invested great time and effort in recent development of these vehicles.
Numerous
Trip Reports
PARTICIPANTS are in
Program Manager Col Michael S. Francis Appendix G.
Technical SETA Roger GaUington, SAIC
Support SETA Glenn Goodman, SRS Tech
Navy Liaison / Russian POC CAPT Ed Pope, USN, OCNR
Navy Liaison John Fraas, USN, ONR-SOP
Technical Evaluation Team
WIG Expert Bob Wilson. DTRC

Flight Controls Joe Cera, NASA • Drydcn
Structures / Aircraft Design Burt Rutan. Scaled Composites
WIG Designer Len Malthan, Northrop
WIG Expert John Reeves, NAWC - AD (Warminster)
Aerodynamicist / Designer Stephan Hooker, Aerocon Inc.
Aeronautics Expert / Aerodynamicist Dr. Eugene Covert, MIT
Infrastructure J Support fc Hal FluW, NAWC-AD (Ukehurst)
Propulsion Expert» - Eric Lister, SRS Technologies
WIGSpecialist Jim Camp, DTRC
Ship Structures Dieter Czimmek, Newport News Shipbuilding
Hydrodynamicist / Seaplane Expert Dr. Dan Savitsky, Stevens Institute of Technology
Mission Analyst (Seallft) C.F. Snyder, DTRC
Figure 3-la. Wingship Technical Evaluation Team (WTET)
3-1
w8nf,«hip Invention Final Report
Strategie Lift Analysis, Co« and Effectiveness

Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-
Patterson AFB
Strategic Lift Analysis, Impact on Warfighting
BDM Federal, Inc. Capability, WIG Combat Applications» Assist
wfch Final Report
Strategic Lift Analysis,
DSA,Inc Contingency Response
Lockheed, Aeronantieil Syitenu Strategic Lift Analysis,

LoadabOity, Warfighting Impact,
Company Force Oosore, Lift Cyde Costs,
Commercial Operations
Strategic Lift Analysis, Loadability,
Military Traffic Management Deployabffity
Command, Transportation
Engineering Agency
VIG Military Mission Applications
Naral Air Warfare Center,
Warminsttr
MAR Team Leadership, life Cyde Cost
Naral Surface Warfare Center, Estimates, Final Report
Carderock
WIG Military Mission Applications
Naval Surface Warfare Center,
White Oak
Wig Concept Design, Technical Assessment,
Northrop Corporation Military Missions
Review of Strategic Lift Analyses, Assist with
Stanley Associates
Final Report
' Figure 3-lb. Mission Analysis Team TasK Assigning
Russian Participants
Government
Capt(CÂ»dr«U*vinenko ^ l^^ng In«. MoD

C^ (Col) Mikhail NUlysbev Navy Wingthip Office
Capt (Col) Nikolai BaranoT
Industry
Central Hydrofoil (Alexeev) Derign Bureau

Volga Plant (Fabrication)
Beriev Design Bureau
Kazan Engine Design Bureau
Elektro • Pribor (Autopiloo) of St Petersburg
Institutions
St. Petersburg Marine Technical University
Krylov Shipbunding Besearch Insnmte

Irkmsk State University
The Engineering Academy of Russia
Figure 3-2 Russian Participants
3-2
Wingship Investigation Final Report Methodology
Plan Data Gathering and Russian Program

Evaluation of Evaluation Takeoff
Russian Systems Fact-Finding Trips Technology
• Develop Question s end Vehicle Demonstration • Improve Under-The-
Data Requirements Exchange of Presentations
Wing Blowing
• Identity Sources Small Discussion Groups (U.S.
• Plan Trips and Russian)
• Takeoff Innovations
Assemble PAR-WIG
Data Base Initial Mission Analysis I* Broader Applications
Studies
All Sources to Support Final Strategic Mobility
Report Requirements • Missile Launcher
Indexed by Technical Cost-Constrained Performance • Special Ops Equipment
Disciplines and Other Keys Comparisons Delivery
Provisions for copies to Study Equal Performance Costs • DSRV Delivery
Participants Comparisons
Initial
zfe
Recommendations
m Technology
Roadmap
• Propulsion
• Takeoff Akte
• Structural Loads
Review / Evaluate
Technologies & Designs Validation and Test Program
• Parametric Study Broader Applications Study
• Point Design Plan Future Program
• Technology State-oMhe-Art
• Special Problems
Figure 3-3. Wingship Study Work Breakdown
1 993 1994
N| D M| A M J J A s | o
'I"
Activity Name F Ml A M J J A | S 0
■f-
Technical Evaluation
- Understand •State-of-the-Art
- Assess Development / Operational Risks
WTET Meetings A ▲ ▲ A AA 4i
+" -
A
- - ...
II.«
Russian Trips II
— —I
Mission / Utility Analysis
- Understand Potential DoD Rote
—
Team Meetings A A
Recommendations to Secretary of Defense A 4
Final Recommendations «;
I ._. —I—I—
Figure 3-4. Schedule
3-3
„. , ™ * Methodology
Wineship Investigation Final Report .
Figure 3-3 depicts the top level task flow of the study. Figure 3-4 depicts these activities in a
schedule format.
Among the first activities was the development of an extensive bibliographical database. This
database provided the WTET with all references relevant to the evaluation and with reliable data
and analysis to support all technical assertions and projections in this report.
The specific tasks for the Technology/Design Assessment Team were:
Conduct literature review of all pertinent literature related to/oriented toward wingship
1,
concepts.
2. Synthesize results to surface strengths and limitations.
3 Prepare plan for assessment of Russian activities/progress in wingship development.

. Lay groundwork for initial visit including coordination with key Russian
industry/government players.
4. Visit Russian facilities and personnel - provide preliminary assessment of capabilities
and Russian 'state-of-the-art.'
. Conduct interviews with Russian designers and technologists
• Review available documentation.
. Review Requirement for additional visits including nature and scope of follow
on activities.
5 Synthesize initial results of wingship technology assessment with other recent
technological developments/trends which may enhance wingship performance and/or
operability or which reduce development or operational risks.
6. Provide continuing coordination and interface with the mission analysis team.
7. Support integration of results with mission analysis to generate recommendations.
3-4
Wineship Investigation Final Report Methodology
The specific tasks for the Mission Analysis Team were:
1. Provide initial operational analyses of several viable candidate wingship concepts to

assess mission effectiveness and utility in candidate mission scenarios. Mission areas
to be considered include:
• Heavy lift applications
• Missile carrier and launcher
• Delivery of special operation forces equipment
• Delivery of deep submergence rescue vehicle
2. Identify system requirements necessary to assure wingship concepts are competitive

with other related systems, incorporate full range of mission parameters including:
ingress, egress, loading, unloading and infrastructure considerations. Also incorporate
survivability/vulnerability considerations in the analysis.
3. Identify limitations/shortcomings arising from these analyses.
4. Provide continuing coordination and interface with the technology analysis team.
5. Support integration of results with the technology assessment leading to

recommendations on further activities.
3-5
Wingship Invpîâtion T?-
Finali »
Report* Ground
orouno Rules
nun* And
«, Assumptions
K
4. Ground Rules And Assumptions
To provide a competent and credible evaluation in the available time, it was necessary to limit the
scope with a rational set of ground rules and assumptions. A different set of ground rules and
assumptions could lead to other conclusions. Therefore, the reader should attempt to understand
the implications of these ground rules and assumptions.
4.1 General Classification
This study considered only craft whose design was greatly influenced by aerodynamic ground
effect Our parametric study considered only craft that were intended to operate in strong ground
effect over the open ocean for a large fraction of their missions. Water basing alone has potential
military utility, whether or not the vehicle concept uses ground effect. This study did not consider
these more general types parametrically. In any design driven by a set of mission requirements,
designers should certainly consider various arrangements of hydrodynamic features, under the
wing blowing, and conventional ground effect to design the least expensive craft that meets their
mission requirements.
The parametric study generates a family of craft geometries of various sizes and performances from
which the utility and mission analysts can choose to do their analysis. Depending on the mission
scenario smaller or larger craft may be desirable. Each design in a parametric base is optimum by
some measure. We chose to optimize the performance parameter range because our initial focus
was on strategic supply missions.
4.1.1 Focus On Non-Amphibious
The study focused primarily on non-amphibious WIGs. By non-amphibious we mean that the
craft (1) cannot take off or land on land; (2) cannot taxi from the water to the land or from the land
to the water on self contained beaching gear. The reason for this limit is that providing amphibious
capability increases empty weight fraction and detracts from performance. There were some
exceptions. For example, the Orlyonok vehicle which was demonstrated and is discussed in this
report is an amphibious vehicle.
4-1
Ground Rules And Assumptions
Winflship Investigation Final Report
4.1.2 Consider Only Aircraft-Configured Craft

With A Takeoff And Landing Aid
Figure 4 1.2-1 compares the required thrust-to-weight ratio and the design aspect ratio of a number
«bid craft Loweraspectratio is desirable to reduce wing stmctural we.ght. Inclusion
craftdesigned
ii^^
for altitude flight have significantly higher aspect ratios.
Hieh craft density and high weight-to-thrust ratio are especially important for wingships (as
ZtZfä to Imft) in o'der to achieve the speed required for productivity, the engme efficiency
landing.
Even limiting our attention to wingships with takeoff and lading aids does not ^ ™
Lin class to permit good estimates of achievable performance over a wtde rang of srzes and
ZfnionT Cogently, we chose to further nmit the parametric par. of the evaluate to the
airplane-type configurations (i.e., wing, body, and tail) with air injection.
* Seaplane (amphibious)
20 -r DP-6M 0
Hun Seaplane
18 ■
4> WIG (built)
16 • * WIG (design)
1
OCataima Shin
14 ■ A WIG (experimental)
• 12 ■
• A -40
0 0 314-A
at
D Stunden
O
Aspect
O CL-215
09
pLUN
6 ■ pOrtyemk
4 ■ ORAM-I Q Cyon»-U
♦▼♦Cygrw-10 AX-114 A SEABEE
* Northrop ♦ OAAM4 ODTNSPDC
2 ■
LuvWl
—H r-
0 1 0.55
0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
0.2 0.25 0-3
0 15
Thrust/Weight Ratio
Figure 4.1.2-1. Comparison of WIG and Seaplane Characteristics
4-2
w^cip Investition Final Report _ Gronnd Rnles And Assumptions
A limitation resulting from this ground rule is the parametrics do not accurately represent other
configuration types, such as flying wings. Since the optimum very large wingships might have a
significantly different type of planform, our parametric results are not totally comprehensive.
4.2 Technology Limitations
We have limited our attention to foreseeable technology available dates, to low technical risk, and
to a scale range bounded on the lower end by the largest modem wingship and at the upper end by
a 5000-ton concept.
4.2.1 Development Time Frame
We limited technology stretch to about 10 years. The following section on wingship development
history indicates that vehicles developed to date are not nearly big enough and do not have enough
range and payload performance to be of much interest for strategic mobility. Further, it is apparent
that simple scale-up of existing designs does not result in adequate performance. Part of the reason
for this inadequacy is that the existing large designs do not use rrTodern high performance engines
and the materials and structures are not as light as they could be. Therefore, for the purposes of
this evaluation, we had to select a reasonable level of technology stretch. We based out
parametrics on technology we expect to be available to support a design in about five years.
Assuming that it would take at least another five years to design and build the first example, we are
considering craft that could be in service about 2005.
4.2.2 Low Risk Technology Application
We generally took a low technical risk approach because the smallest craft that could be attractive
on the long range missions are large enough to require major capital investment and would have to
be "right" the first time. So that our evaluation is even-handed, we assumed the same level of
technology (structures, propulsion, etc.) for other vehicle (e.g. seaplanes) approaches to the same
problem.
4-3
4.2.3 Risks Associated With Large Designs
Knowledgeable Russian designers estimate the maximum increase they would be comfortable with
is from the present 400 metric tons to a range of 800 to 2000 metric tons, depending on the
individual. Significantly, Dr. Sokolov, a man with extensive hands-on experience (he survived the
recent crash) suggested 800 tons. He said that the 800 ton machine would be a flying wing if it
was to carry passengers. (Ref. Appendix G) A flying wing of this size would not have large
enough internal dimensions for military vehicles. A 1200 ton estimate, again a flying wing, came
from an academician, Logvinovich, who generated scientific data for wingship design. (Ref.
Appendix G) The 2000 ton estimate came from Dr. Chubikov, the director of The Central
Hydrofoil Design Bureau. (Ref. Appendix G) The sense of our committee is that an increase of a
factor of two in gross weight is risky. That is not to say that some level of research and design
study should continue on the very large craft. It does say that the technology does not support a
very large design that could be built before 2005.
4-4
Wingship Investigation Final Report Definition of State-of-the-Art
5. Definition of The State-of-the-Art
Three important elements must be reviewed when describing what defines the state-of-the-art for
wingship science and technology: the history of wingship development which resulted in
significant test or demonstration craft; previous technology and applications studies; and the
various technologies supporting wingship design.
5.1 Short History Of Worldwide Wingship Developments
In 1929, the Dornier DO-X seaplane was constructed. In 1930-31, this 56-ton seaplane used the
ground effect to increase its range and payload during transatlantic flights (Ref. 5.1-1).
In 1935, Toivo Kaario of Finland built an experimental wing-in-ground effect vehicle. It was
powered by a 16 hp engine and carried a man over the snow at speeds up to 12 knots (Ref. 5.1-1).
He obtained the first patent for a surface effect craft (Ref. 5.1-2 pg 6).
In 1958, R. Ye. Alexeyev began a project to create bis first wingship model for the Russian Navy
(Ref. 5.1-2 pg 12). This work led to the construction of the SM-series ekranoplan test vehicles,
most of which were built/tested in the early- to mid-1960's (Ref. 5.1-2 pg 15).
In 1961, the SM-1 achieved a speed of 200 km/hr and demonstrated wingship stability and
dynamic parameters near the surface. Major disadvantages proved to be high takeoff and landing
speeds, and over-sensitivity to surface roughness (Ref. 5.1-2 pg 16).
In 1962, Alexeyev was the first to incorporate under-wing blowing to improve the takeoff and
landing aerodynamics of the SM-2 model. The blowing system, however, aggravated the pitch
stability problem in a tandem wing configuration (Ref. 5.1-2 pgs 16,20).
In 1962, Kaario developed the Aerosani No.8, a two-man sled capable of speeds up to 43 knots
(Ref. 5.1-1).
In 1963, Dr. W.R. Bertelson of Illinois, designed the GEM-3, a four-seat ram-wing vehicle
capable of speeds, up to 95 knots over snow or water (Ref. 5.1-1).
In 1963, Alexander Lippiscli of wisfGermany, developed an experimental WIG vehicle, the

X-l 12, at the Collins Radio Company in Iowa. Initial testing demonstrated the vehicle to be stable
in both free flight and ground effect (Ref. 5.1-1).
•' ''"' 5-1

Winsship Investigation Final Report ~ ^ Definition of State-oMhe-Art
In 1963 Alexeyev devised a pitch stability solution by taking the aft wing away from the influence
zone of'the forward wing, and out of the blowing zone. This led to the airplane-type configuration
used in most of the subsequent Russian designs, characterized by forward wing-in-ground-effect
employing underwing blowing and an aft wing out of ground effect. During this same year, the
SM-2P, which used this configuration, was built and tested (Ref. 5.1-2 pg 20).
In 1963-65, additional self propelled models, the SM-3, -4, -5, and -8, were constructed and
tested. These prototypes represented important developmental steps in the ekranoplan design
process and provided the data necessary for the construction of a much larger ekranoplan (Ref.
5.1-2 pg 20).
In 1966, Project KM (known in the

U.S. as the Caspian Sea Monster) was
constructed and launched. Extensive
testing between 1966-69 confirmed
design data for large ekranoplans, thus,
KM became the model for future
Russian ekranoplan development. In
particular, the tests confirmed flight in ^ ^^
ground effect at speeds over 500 km/hr project KM (Caspian Sea Monster)
(Ref. 5.1-2 pg 26). See Figure 5.1-1. first flown in 1966.
In 1967, a crew training ekranoplan, named the UT-1, was designed and constructed under
Alexeyev's supervision (Ref. 5.1-2 pg 20).
In 1970 Lippisch developed theX-U3underajoint program with the West German government
and Rhein-Fleuzeugbau. In 1971-72 the vehicle was extensively tested to collect data on sea states
with waves approaching 1 m and winds up to 25 knots (Ref. 5.1-1).
In 1972. the SM-6 was designed as a prototype for the ORLYONOK ekranoplan. This vehicle
was approximately one-half scale (Ref. 5.1-2 pg 26).
In 1972, HFL-Seaglide Ltd. of England, under the direction of Ronald Bourn, developed a
three-sea, aerodynamic tarn-wing vehicle called SEABEE. The vehicle was ™«^
aircraft-type elevon on the horizontal stabilizer and twin aerodynamtc rudders. It was tested tn the
ground effect mode only (Ref. 5.1-1).
5-2
In 1978, NSRDC tested a PAR-WIG radio controlled model which was powered by two 1 hp
model aircraft engines. It cruised at an altitude of 3 inches and a velocity of 20 knots (Ref. 5.1-1).
5.2 General Discussion Of Large Russian Configurations
Project KM (known in the U. S. as the Caspian Sea Monster)
This was a one-of-a-kind test vehicle with the purpose of demonstrating that ekranoplans of large
size could be designed, constructed, and flown to theoretical performance levels. It was built in
the early- to mid-1960s and flew until its crash and destruction in the early 1980s.
ORLYONOK (known in the U.S. by its NATO designator ORLAN)

Several of these vehicles were constructed from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s to demonstrate
an amphibious ekranoplan capability. Flight tests for these vehicles may have been conducted
from the late 1970s until the present. One of the vehicles was reported to have crashed in the
summer of 1992.
LUN (known in the U. S. by its NATO designator UTKA)

This one-of-a-kind vehicle, which was designed to demonstrate the concept of launching surface-
to-surface cruise missiles from an ekranoplan, was constructed in the mid-1980s, and may have
been flight tested from the late 1980s until the present. Presently under construction is a second
version of this configuration, the SPASATEL, which is intended for rescue work.
Year Length(m) Span(m) Speed(km/hr) Total Thrust(MD Displacement (MT)
Project KM 1966 92 36.4 400-450 no 540
ORLYONOK 1972 58 32 350 37 120
LUN 1980's 73.8 44 450-550 104 400
SPASATEL 1990's 73.8 44 450-550 104 400
Figure 5.2-1
General Characteristics of Russian Configurations
5-3
„. . n _» Definition of State-of-the-Art
Wingship Investigation Final Report , ?"""""
5.3 Principal Results Of Earlier Studies

Due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, certain portions of the Principal Results of
Earlier U.S. Studies will be disclosed only in Appendix H.
October 1956- Douglas analysis demonstrates that when operated in ground effect, a low aspect
ratio wing develops a greater percentage improvement in lift than a higher aspect
ratio wing of the same area.(Ref. 5.3-1)
1963: Alexeyev develops underwing blowing, later called power augmented ram (PAR)
in the U.S.
Winter 1963- Lockheed conducts wind tunnel tests of low aspect ratio wings to support Lockheed
' Marine Vehicles Division (ASW and Ocean Systems Organization) under contract to
DoD.
Spring 1964: Lockheed publishes results of tests (Ref. 5.3-2). Report demonstrates significant
aerodynamic efficiency to be gained from ground effect flight.
1966-69- Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau (CHDB)/Soviet Navy confirms that ground effect
flight with a large-scale ekranoplan (Project KM) is possible at speeds over 500
km/hr.
1970s- No significant U.S. interest with the exception of Lockheed and Douglas Aircraft
Companies' studies of ANVCE PAR WIG designs. These designs demonstrate
that favorable empty weight fractions are possible and small sizes chosen are unable
to improve performance significantly by using ground effect over the open ocean.
1980's NSRDC conducts design studies to examine 2,000 ton PARWIGs for payload
rapid delivery. The studies were conducted for the Marine Corps and NAVSEA
under the CONFORM program. . .,
5-4
5.4 Technology Levels And Uncertainties
The current level of technology, including uncertainties in aerodynamics, stability and control,
propulsion, structures, and hydrodynamics, greatly affect the ability to design capable vehicles.
For this application, hydrodynamic technologies include takeoff and landing aides such as under-
the-wing blowing and hydroskis.
5.4.1 Aerodynamics
The existence of a ground effect has been recognized since the earliest days of flight. Attempts to
quantify its impact on lift and drag were first published by NACA in 1922 (Ref. 5.4-1). For
commercial and military aircraft, ground effect is a phenomenon which is encountered only briefly
during takeoff and landing, lasting 20 to 6.5 seconds during takeoff and less during landing. While
in ground effect, aircraft are usually at moderate to high angles of attack with landing gear and lift
augmentation devices deployed, all of which contribute significantly to high profile drag. For an
aircraft designer, ground effect is considered to ensure that sufficient elevator effectiveness, aircraft
rotation, and climb attitude control are provided during takeoff for all anticipated e.g. positions.
During landing, the influence of ground effect on elevator control is considered, as well as its
influence on the nose-down pitching moment due to flap deflections.
When a wing nears a surface, a change occurs in the three dimensional flow pattern because the
local airflow has no vertical component at the surface. As the vertical or downwash velocity is
reduced, the so called "induced angle of attack" is reduced. As the induced angle of attack is
reduced, the slope of the lift curve increases, so that for a fixed angle of attack the lift is increased.
Further, the reduced value of induced angle of attack also results in a reduced value of the induced
drag. A smaller angle of attack is required near the surface to produce a given amount of lift versus
that required in freestream conditions at altitude or roughly one span height or more (depending on
the planform) above the surface. For the same lift the induced drag is reduced, reducing the thrust
required for a given lift. When an aircraft is sufficiently near a surface, the flow in the confined
region beneath the wing and wake approach a two-dimensional channel flow with known
boundaries and known mass addition, coming from the flow tangency boundary condition on the
lower surface. (The lift coefficientof the wing, with the upper surface neglected, is only a function
5-5
Definition ot Rtate-of-the-Art
drag has prompted engineers to conceive platforms usually reterrea

ground effect.
• * >u ort wflv discusses- aerodynamic efficiency; the basis for ground effect
This section of the report briefly discusses, aeroayn j Section 5.4.6 discusses
theory; experimental technique; lift; drag; and moment and trim of WIGs. Section
the air injection feature that is applied to Russian WIGs.
5.4.1.1 Aerodynamic Efficiency
„Uta, aircraft and between 13 and 20 for «™£££ 0*^ ^

aerodynamic efficiency dam a. cruise ranged between 15-18 fo"™«W 2Q.
,wT, ,, ,- ,ted ,,,,-

s^~-Ä^-- -r " " ~
L/DoftheX-113. Out of ground effect UD is estimated as 9.9.
h/b = Trailing Edge Height to Span Ratio
Force or Movement Coefficient
Figure 5.4.1-1 #
Force and Moment Coefficient Variation
5-6
Wineship Investigation Final Report Definition of State-of-the-Art
Figure 5.4.1 -1 shows the variation of force and moment coefficients for a WIG configuration wind
tunnel tested in 1965 (Ref. 5.4-5). As can be seen, the most predominant improvement in CL, and
therefore UD, occurs at trailing edge height/wing span (h/b's) between 0.0 and 0.2. The
improvement increases more rapidly as the lift coefficient increases and as the surface clearance
decreases. The high lift coefficients imply that for WIGs to be efficient, they must be slow speed
platforms, (slower than airplanes) unless high wing loadings can be used
Reference 5.4-6 showed that there was a significant correlation between heave accelerations and
the significant wave heightfor Hovercraft. When the waves encountered the hard structure, heave
accelerations increased dramatically, Thus, for the WIG, an appropriate ground rule is that the
height of the wing bottom surface above the bottom of the endplate, pontoon or hull (whichever is
lowest) should be equal to the significant wave height for takeoff and landing.
Figure 5.4.4.1-1 shows wave heights corresponding to various wind speeds. As the sea becomes
rougher, greater wing clearance heights are required. Greater wing clearance heights (which in
cruise is roughly the median height between the wave trough and crest + the normal cruise height)
reduce aerodynamic efficiency. Thus, for a WIG to have significant rough weather capability, it
must be large.
Wind tunnel tests of isolated wings such as those in Reference 5.4-7 usually show extremely high
L/Ds, especially when close to the ground board. When a complete conventional aircraft
configuration is tested, however, UD is substantially reduced and may be one-half to one-quarter
of the isolated wing. The primary reasons for this are the additional drag of the hull or fuselage,
the addition of endplates, and finally, a large stabilizer to trim out the pitching moments
experienced in ground effect. In addition, the flow field over the fuselage modifies the spanwise
load distribution over the wing, possibly increasing drag. When the fuselage or hull is designed
similar to a seaplane hull, an increase in drag results. This increases the drag relative to an isolated
streamlined fuselage used on modern airliners. The result is a loss of UD between 7 to 15% (Ref.
5.4-8) relative to a well designed commercial aircraft.
As previously stated, ground effect has been considered as a low speed phenomena in the West,
therefore, very little is known with regard to ground effect at high subsonic Mach numbers.
Reference 5.4-9 suggests that improvements in UD at high subsonic Mach numbers may be
obtainable. References 5.4.10 and 5.4.11 contain some evidence supporting this possibility.
High subsonic cruise, however, would require even greater wing loading thus making the takeoff
problem more difficult.
5-7
.. Investigation
Wingship T .. *. iTj—1 Report
Final R^nnrf Definition
, of State-of-the-Art
.
m
5.4.1.2 Basis Of Ground Effect Theory
As a first approximation, a high aspect ratio wing is modeled by a bound vortex and two trailing
vortices The effect of a ground plane on this "horseshoe" vortex system is represented by placing
a mirror image of the vortex system two ground plane heights below the vortex system
representing the wing. The resulting plane of symmetry satisfies the boundary condition of zero
vertical velocity at the ground plane. Away from the ground plane, the downwash of the two
trailing vortices contributes to the wing drag due to lift by rotating the force vector rearward. Near
the ground plane, however, the trailing vortices of the image vortex system have an upwash
component. The upwash component reduces the downward rotation of the flow caused by the
wing trailing edge vortices, thus reducing induced drag, or wing drag due to lift. The classical
treatment of this effect is given by Wieselsberger (Ref. 5.4-1). This approach was extended to
consider the induced effects of the image bound vortex. (Ref. 5.4-12) Both of these approaches
are summarized in Reference 5.4-13. The bound vortex of the image-vortex system reduces the
longitudinal velocity component at the wing bound vortex thus modifying the circulation of the
wing bound vortex. These effects, including a possible profile drag reduction, become more
predominant as the height above the ground is reduced.
Theoretical analyses of ground proximity have been formulated by using lifting surface theory and,
because of its general nature, computer programs have been generated to facilitate computations.
More recently, numerous computational fluid dynamics codes have ^^^f™^
adapted to investigate the phenomena. A significant effort summarized by AshUl (Ref 5.4-14)
provides a method for calculating induced drag in ground effect äs well as suggesting how induced
drag formulations may be applied to wings with endplates. For performance calculates, these
higher fidelity methods and the simpler methods agree well enough that either can be used.
5-8
5.4.1.3 Experimental Ground Effect Testing
Wind tunnel investigation of ground effect is approached, usually, using one of four testing
techniques:
(1) Fixed Ground Plane

(2) Moving Belt Ground Plane
(3) Image Model with Respect to a Fictitious Ground
(4) Boundary Layer Removal from the Ground Board
The fixed ground plane technique is the most straight forward. However, this method does not
give a true representation because of the lack of motion between the ground plane and the model.
This lack of motion permits a boundary layer build-up which leads to higher than anticipated lift
coefficients (Ref. 5.4-15), which may be due to reduction of the gap by the boundary layer
displacement thickness. However, drag coefficient and pitching moment coefficient appear to be
unaffected.
The moving ground belt eliminates this problem but is expensive to build, operate, and maintain.
When small clearances are, required, problems occur in maintaining a smooth belt surface under the
model because of the difficulty of providing guides in the vicinity of the model.
The third technique, the image model method, has the disadvantage of cost since an additional
model is required to be duplicated to simulate the mirror image of the test model but the procedure
works well.
The fourth method involves controlling the ground board boundary layer, using a method of
blowing or sucking through slots to replace the momentum lost by the boundary layer. The
thickness of the boundary layer can, to some extent, be controlled by a flap on the trailing edge of
the ground board although care must be taken here not to alter the circulation around the ground
board. These methods are not conunonly used owing to their complexity and cost. When a
configuration nears finalization a moving ground board is used. As might be expected, results
using different testing techniques yield somewhat different results for the same configuration. The
lack of agreement between various wind tunnels as well as wind tunnel versus limited flight test
results is shown in References 5.4-16 and 5.4-17. This is consistent with Russian experience.
5-9
„ , „ , Definition «' si.te-of-the-Art
Wingshlp Investigation Final Rennrl ,
5.4.1.4 Lift In Ground Effect

The unique feature of flying close to a surface is usuaUy (but not always) an increase to-Uftfora
L, angle of attack. Reference 5.4-18 discusses the effects of angle attack m ground eft* Tta
eZ of fte ground, usualiy, is to increase the «ft curve slop« andiecrease fte angle of attack for a
^nft (Tund effect may decrease ftemaximumCL available and tins charactenstic ,s
ZX a function of planform. Ground effect may also reduce the CL avaiiable at low angles of
Lack. Reference 5.4-7 shows fta. the maximum CL in free air is a ft.nc.ion of4*pec. *»££
ratio and thickness chord ratio. Ifendpla.es am fitted the CW may decrease shghtly. Reference
5 4-7 suggest that OGE (Out of Ground Effect, OW* for wings without flaps varying. mâspect
atio from 1.0 to 4.0 may vary from 0.9 .o 1.2 with 1.4 being achieved by an Aspect Ra.,o 2.0
„flout 1 6 independent of aspect raüo with a flap deflection 0f45 degês. The OM.TONOK
Lrn the demonstoaüon achieved a lift-off CL of approximately 1.33 wrft injected arr m use.
Both Russian literature (Ref. 5.4.9) and statements by Russian ^^J*^™ 26%
reduces fte takeoff speed by 8 to 11% corresponding to an mcrease m hft c«ff c en, of 8 o 2 %•
The parametric study of this report assumed simflar values of CW The calcula d CL at hft off
based on discussions for fte LUN/SPASATEL is 1.25. This compares to takeoff hft coefflcents
of about two for highly developed transport wings with double fowler flaps.
Reference 5 4-9 shows fte pressure distribution on a rectangular, aspect ratio 2, wing-in-ground-
efitr Of n em t is that as fte ground is approached the veiocity and, therefore fte hft of the op
rface°s mduced. However, this is no. the case for delta wings. As the ground „ approache the
vefoX ncmases on fte upper surface and the overall effect is that the delta w,ng sees a greater
^taZorlu, in groTdeffect (Reft 5.4-,9). ,n addition, flight «perience,.hows ground
effect is much mom noticeable on del« wings a. low angles of attack (Ref. 5.4-20).
5.4.1.5 Drag In Ground Effect
The primary benefit of flight in ground effect is a reduction in induced drag. To estimate the drag
TsoLrwith lift in surface effec, ,o support fte pammetoic analysts fiv• «~»™
A xr „~c *A 1 2 and 5 4 1-3 show the comparison with and without endplates,
profde drag coefficient <CW and fte induced drag coefficient (C„). Q» was obtamed ft™ fte
wind tunnel results and CDi was estimated using the methods descnbed m References 5.4-1,
5-10
Wingship Investigation Final Report Definition of State-oMhe-Art
5.4-14, 5.4-21, 5.4-22, & 5.4-23. The expressions presented in the references, except for
Reference 5.4-14, were derived for wings without endplates. However, it was noted by
Gallington (Ref. 5.4-24) that with the introduction of endplates to a wing configuration, the tip
vortex was displaced to and shed from the bottom of the endplate. Therefore, the bottom of the
endplate rather than the trailing edge height is the controlling height for all the methods considered
when the wing is equipped with endplates. This was further confirmed by AsbilTs work in
Reference 5.4-14 and his unpublished thesis. Thus for wings with endplates the methods for the
previously cited references were used but the reference height was taken as the height from the
ground board to the bottom of the endplate at the trailing edge of the wing.
Figures 5.4.1-2 and 5.4.1-3 show Wieselsberger's theory is the most optimistic. However, in the
parametric analysis an Oswald Efficiency of 0.85 was used which is lower than that achieved by
the lower aspect ratio wings tested by Lockheed. Assuming no adverse interference by the
fuselage the difference in the Oswald Efficiency compensates for the optimism of the
Wieselsberger theory when compared to the wind tunnel results reported in Reference 5.4-7. In
comparing Wieselsberger's theory with the Lockheed results for all wings tested, Wieselsberger's
theory proved optimistic in terms of reduction in induced drag.
Wind Tunnel and Theory Comparison

AR 2.0, t/c ■ 6%, No Endplates
CDt
o.oi2 r
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.00 0.05
h/b
Lockheed Data, q=80psi, Re=2,550,000
Figure 5.4.1-2
CDt versus h/b (with endplates)
5-11
Definition of State-of-the-Art
Wind Tunnel and Theory Comparison

AR 2.0, With Endplates, t/c = 6%,
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000 0.30
0.00 0.05 0.10
Lockheed Data, q=80psi, Re=2,550,000
Figure 5.4.1-3
Cot versus h/b (no endplates)
However, none of the other theories consistently matched «he Lockheed results. Therefore w.nd
^TLtfAed Oswald efficiency, along with a theory supported by data whtch represent the
wi in terms of wing section, planform and endplate configuration ,s approve for
crating infuced drag in ground effect where wind tunnel results are no. avatlabie m ground
effect for the configuration under consideration.
Discussions with Russian scientists and engineers pointed to a possible reduction in profile drag in
ground effect. Reference 5.4-25 suggests a reduction in wing profile drag of 16% a. 0.2 h/c
TIL edge height/geometric average chord) while Reference 5.4-26 shows a profile drag
edu Ilo be a function of .if. coefficient. The reduction in wing profile drag was shown to be
of «he same order 13 - 15%, as «ha. given in Reference 5.4-25. However, no ev.dence of such a
tZ ZIZ a. the lift coefficients analyzed in me Lêed da.a. The reducfon ,n .o.al drag
^leCucüon in pnofde drag is a. mo, 4% because wing profile drag » about one-
quarter the total drag.
5-12
Wingship Investigation Final Report Definition of State-of-tbe-Art
The possibility of laminar flow on the underside of the wing was also mentioned to the Russians.
This possibility was first suggested in Reference 5.4-27. A recent investigation (Ref. 5.4-28)
using the MIT ISES code shows the likelihood of laminar flow, especially for relatively thin
symmetrical section wings, of the order of 5% in ground effect The Russians have continually
stressed the importance of using thinner wings as the ground is approached without providing a
reason. We believe the reason is for better height stability. They have also admitted that TsAGI is
investigating the possibility of extending the amount of laminar flow on wings in ground effect.
Generally speaking transition occurs at about a Reynolds number of 1,000,000 and the modelling
done in Reference 5.4-28 was for a Reynolds number of 30 million. Full scale wing Reynolds
numbers will approach Reynolds numbers of around 500 million. Roughness also impacts
transition from laminar to turbulent flow. At sea level the limits of roughness are such that the
surface finish must be much better (smooth and devoid of even the smallest waves) than at altitude.
For example, at 50,000 ft and Mach 1.0 the tolerable roughness is the same as for a flight Mach
number of 0.17 at sea level (Ref. 5.4-29). This suggests, at sea level, laminar flow may be
difficult to achieve and perhaps maintain.
Finally, discussions with Dr. P. R. Ashill confirmed the possibility of reducing drag by designing
endplates to exhibit leading edge suction. This improvement may be incompatible with the
hydrodynamic shaping requirements on endplates. The possibility of a reduction in form drag in
ground effect was suggested. Also, small wing camber changes were noted to make significant
increases in L/D as noted in the wind tunnel tests reported in Reference 5.4-30.
During the study, concerns were voiced about achieving a low Cot needed for long range, at
extremely high Reynolds numbers. At very high Reynolds numbers, of the order 500 million
representative of a wing chord of 150 ft, the reduction in skin friction coefficient with Reynolds
number may not be maintained if the roughness on the wing is equal to 1/3 the boundary layer
displacement thickness.
Reference 5.4-31 discusses profile drag issues on subsonic aircraft. It reinforces the point
previously made that even if the boundary layer is turbulent everywhere, the skin friction drag is
dependent on the uniform roughness. Beyond a critical Reynolds number based on mean
roughness height, the skin friction rises above the value predicted for a smooth surface instead of
progressively decreasing with increasing Reynolds number. There is a tendency for it to remain
constant with Reynolds number. Reference 5.4-30 also shows that a delta wing aircraft can have
much less incidental profile drag than other configurations.
5-13
W^Hn Investition ^ ^nort Definition of State-of-the-Art
Areas that need significant attention during the design and development of aircraft and therefore of
large WIGs include:
(i) excrescences, surface imperfections, roughness etc., items which typically at present
contribute drag increments amounting to 15 - 24% of the estimated profile drag (but only
8% in one case),
(ii) Mach number effects at CL cruise between low Mach number and M cruise which
typically contribute about 10% (but only 5% in two cases), and
(iii) nacelle interference which, even at low Mach number can contribute 40 - 80% of the
estimated nacelle profile drag. " -*''
To these can be added wing body interference for medium to low wing layouts and rear fuselage
drag. To insure that the profile drag is not affected in an adverse manner, a procedure can be
implemented that establishes drag budges and surface finish standards (step hetghts, gap wtdths,
2^mess, pain, smoothness, flush rivet head promaion limits) as a funcüon of atrcraft zone
«dererled by a C, (Pressure Coefficient) survey of the compiete aircraft a, representanve cnnse
UftTefiTcients andLdary .ayer momentum surveys (shows how the skin friction coeffic.en, ,s
varying) over critical areas of the configuration.
In summary the drag prediction of a complete configuration still has its unceruunties. However,
Effect, the" ppears to be the opportunity of reducing the profile drag through judtcous
use of advanced analysis and design techniques for future WIG configurations.
5.4.1.6 Moment And Trim
As mentioned above, the unique feature of flying Cose to a surface is tine genera, increase£,m
The increase in lift is generally accompanied by an increase m magmmde of *nortna^meg^ve
(nose down) pitching moment coefficient. With landplanes uns becomes a des.gn e nd,mnfor
setting tire 1 of tire horizontal stabilizer. Thus if natural stabilrty >s to be requtr ^ *—
stabilfzer must previde the natural stability and the ability to trim the platform tn all fltgh and
Soff Ld ling conditions, m the takeoff and landing conditions trim may be prov.ded through
additional means.
5-14
WingShip Investigation Final Report Definition of State-oMhe-Art
For a water-based WIG of conventional airplane configuration, the horizontal stabilizer must be
larger in order to accommodate the greater pitching moment coefficients (neglecting hydrodynamic
moments) experienced during takeoff and landing when the wing is in strong surface effect and
during cruise flight to achieve adequate longitudinal stability. The increase in size of the horizontal
stabilizer over a conventional aircraft for the same moment arm with conventional wing planforms
will be range between 25 and 80% based on data in Reference 5.4-7 depending on wing aspect
ratio and allowable fuselage pitch angles for takeoff and landing. This increase in horizontal
stabilizer size increases both drag and structural weight fraction but could be somewhat reduced by
limiting the e.g. travel or eliminated by the use of new innovative control concepts.
In cruise, the cruise height can have a significant impact on trim drag owing to the variation of
pitching moment coefficient with height above the surface. From the discussions with the
Russians no obvious concern was shown, perhaps, because the Russian WIGs are primarily short
range vehicles. Reference 5.4-30 showed a reduction of 42% in cruise L/D owing to trimming out
the pitching moment for a WIG with an aspect ratio of 0.5 using augmented endplates. Approaches
to reduce the trim drag include fuel transfer to optimize eg location, and/or using a combination of
more sophisticated wing planforms, wing sections and new innovative control concepts.
5.4.2 Stability And Control
The basic operating mode of wingships is relatively high speed flight, preferably in excess of 200
knots at an altitude equal to 10-30 percent of the wing mean aerodynamic chord. While there have
been many different types of WIG vehicles envisioned for high-speed, over-water transportation in
different countries, the wingship configuration that has reached the highest level of technical
maturity is the Russian "ekranoplan." This configuration includes the ♦'power augmented ram," or
PAR concept, and may have capability for out-of-ground-effect flight. The stability and control of
wingships has been analyzed by several investigators during the past 25 years. One of the earliest
(1967), and most complete analyses of the dynamics of wingship motion was performed by
Kumar (Ref. 5.4.2-1). A thorough review of early Soviet efforts was performed by Hooker (Ref.
5 4 2-2) Some of the analyses by Russian authors, such as Vachasov and Kurochka (Ref.
5 4 2-3) and Irodov (Ref. 5.4.2-4), employed simplifying assumptions that led to such incorrect
conclusions that for longitudinal stability, the center of gravity of wingships must lie behind the
5-15
_ , _ _ Definition -f Slnte-of-lhe-Ar'
Wingship In.««U«»Hon Final Report
trailing edge of the mean aerodynamic ehord. All of these analyses made use of the equations of
lourin S wem linearize* about a trimmed, straight and leve! flight path, although Staufenb.e.
(Ref. 5.4.2-5) retained some nonlinear terms.
K wh, WTET during its recent visit to Russia. In the Wingship Compendium the actual
ORLYONOK and of the 450-menie ton LUN, am descnbed. In Reference 5.4.2 7 me des.gn
development of the autopilots for the ORLYONOK and LUN is presented.
to the following paragraphs the state-of-the-art of wingship stability and control and the mom
discussed in additional detail.
weathemock stabffity ofconvenuonal airplanes. For w ngships ™*

that the derivative of rotting moment with respect to roll atutude be negauve.
Wheni,comes,oe,pressingmenT7;d —
5-16
behavior. That is, the designers are seeking a machine that is naturally stable. The fact that none
of the more recent methods of linear system analysis has been utilized to express the conditions for
dynamic stability stems from the fact that only the two large Russian wingships utilize feedback
control for artificial dynamic stability. Before dealing with the control problems of these vehicles,
the reader should note that the equations of motion of wingships require the simultaneous solution
of a kinematic equation along with the usual dynamic equations. These equations are normally
ignored for conventional airplane stability investigations. Since for wingships the forces and
moments depend on both altitude and roll angle, the differential equations for these quantities must
be appended to the usual equations of rigid body dynamics. The extra kinematic equations give
rise to the increased, i.e. fifth order of the characteristic equations for both the longitudinal and
lateral-directional axes.
The requirement of height stability for wingships has resulted in configurations that differ
somewhat from the layout of conventional airplanes. Staufenbiel shows that for positive height
stability the horizontal tail should be out of ground effect and the horizontal tail volume should be
large. (Ref. 5.4.2-8) These characteristics'are obviously apparent on the large Russian wingships,
the ORLYONOK and the LUN.
There is no operational experience in the United States with wingships of any size; however, in
the opinion of several highly experienced NASA test pilots manual control of a wingship over
extended periods of time would be a very demanding task even in benign weather and day-time
conditions. Verbal contacts with the Russian wingship technical community confirmed the opinion
of the American pilots. Analytical results relying on wind tunnel data on a relatively small
wingship (Ref. 5.4.2-8) show that at intermediate heights while transitioning between free flight
and flight in ground effect the long-period, phugoid-like motion of the wingship is slightly
unstable, and cannot be trimmed for steady, equilibrium flight. Another analytical study (Ref.
5.4.2-9) into the effect of wind shear on the longitudinal stability of conventional airplanes shows
that the phugoid mode can be destabilized in wind shear, depending on the direction of the wind.
Since in windy weather wingships fly in the planetary boundary layer- with wind shear, one would
expect that the wingship long period motion would be similarly affected. For these reasons it is
generally agreed that wingships could be utilized for extended flights in ground effect only if they
possessed stick-free stability.
For the technology area of providing artificial dynamic stability for wingships, the visit of the
WTET to Russia proved to be very valuable. The Russian experience with what they term as
"automatic motion control system" or AMCS is described by Diomidov (Ref. 5.4.2-7). It is clear
that the requirement for artificial stabilization was realized and established by the Russian wingship
designers as early as 1964. Both the ORLYONOK and the LUN are equipped by AMCS which
5-17
Definition o* State-of-the-Art
Wineship Inv*«p«»«"" Ft»»* RePOrt
■ " "
• , K ,H rvntnd Research and Development Institute "Electropribor." The total flight
were designed by the Central Research andi* P of tee tems
time accumulated by these systems is reported to be 1,500' *«*™ gn
— freely fromme^^
-^
ORLYONOK wingship:
- Pitch, roll, yaw, and altitude damping

- Altitiide, pitch and roll attitude and heading "Hold"
- Altitude, pitch attitude "Select"
- Altitude, sinking speed, and wave height estimation
- Cockpit displays
- Envelope limit warning
- Aerodynamic surface trimming
- Redundancy management/faUure annunciation
functions, plus the following:
-Air speed "Hold" and "Select"

- Envelope limiting
- Aerodynamic surface coordination
- Fly-by-wire control of the PAR nozzles
- Altitude change predictor
airplanes of comparable size.
5-18
of the Russian wingships, but, according to Diomidov, they would free wingship designers to
concentrate on configurations with,greater aerodynamic efficiency and operating economy.
The amount of information on wingship operation until recently has been very meager, even
though the first flight of the Soviet KM, or the Caspian Sea Monster, took place over twenty years
ago According to the information gathered by the WTET in the course of three separate visits to
Russia earlier this year, only the wingships ORLYONOK and LUN have been turned over to the
Soviet navy, and the use of both types were apparently confined to the Caspian Sea. Since the
breakup of the Soviet Union neither type has flown with the exception of an ORLYONOK with tail
number 26. The latter vehicle was used as a demonstrator to the WTET during its recent trip to the
Caspian Sea. The other type of wingship that was also demonstrated during the first two Russian
visits of the WTET (to the CHDB in Nizhny Novgorod) is the small, two-men "Strizh." Although
a considerable amount of information has recently been made available by the Russians on
wingship operations, we remain unsure of the sustained out-of-ground-effect capability of the
Russian wingships. During the flights we observed, both the Strizh and the ORLYONOK stayed
within 30 feet of the surface and were out of ground effect for only a few seconds.
The Russian designers of the ORLYONOK and LUN stated that the design envelopes of these two
vehicles had been completely cleared. No adverse weather or night operations to date have been
conducted, although wind limits of 20 m/sec with a cross wind component of up to 5 m/sec have
been established. Turn rates of the larger wingships are in the neighborhood of 2.5 deg/sec; the
Strizh can probably turn faster because of its lower cruise speed. Since both the altitude and the
wave height are critical measurements not only for height stability and aerodynamic performance,
but also for flight safety, an attempt was made during the WTET Russian visits to determine how
these parameters are measured on the large Russian wingships. According to Viktor Sokolov, the
general director of the CHDB, three measurement techniques are used, the preferred one being
radar altimetry. The location of the Doppler radar receivers and transmitters on the wingship
ORLYONOK is shown in the accompanying Figure 5.4.2-1. The other two techniques involve
sonar devices and the measurement of the earth's electric field strength by ionizing the air with
small samples of radium. The ionized air in the vicinity of the radioactive material allows the
5-19
measurement of the potential associated with the electric field of the earth. (See Ref. 5.4.2-10)
Since the latter is a function of altitude this technique can be used for the determination of altitude
or aircraft attitude if multiple radioactive probes are used.
Figure 5.4.2-1
Location of Doppler radar
transmitters and receivers on the Orlyonok
5-20
Wingship Ipvestigation Final Report n.finition of State-of-tbe-Art
This section of the final report of the WTET on wingship stability and control may be summarized
by stating that the feasibility of the wingship concept up to an approximately one million pound
takeoff weight has been demonstrated in the former Soviet Union during their wingship
development spanning the past thirty years. In the area of stability and control the current state-of-
the-art is at a point where the technical risks are irdnimal. Those areas of flight controls
technology, such as digital fly-by-wire controls, terrain avoidance, and automatic takeoffs and
landings, which have not yet been utilized in Russia, are well within the state-of-the-art in this
country. In the application of advanced flight control techniques, however, there is heavy reliance
on the mathematical model of the vehicle to be controlled. The mathematical modeling, including
subscale testing of wingships to generate the necessary static and dynamic wind tunnel data, and
simulation studies into the maneuvering capabilities of wingships, appears to be an area where
future cooperative efforts with the Russians might prove to be beneficial.
5.4.3 Hydrodynamics
Although discussions of wingship performance usually concentrate on the cruise condition, when
the craft is flying above the water surface and PAR is not applied, a more critical design condition
is the takeoff run where PAR is operational and hydrodynamic forces on the vehicle are
substantial. Typically, the thrust required during takeoff may be 2-3 times the cruise thrust.
Further, since the hull, wing flaps^nd plates, etc., are in contact with the water, their geometries
are driven by hydrodynamic considerations which usually are in conflict with the low drag
aerodynamic geometries required in the cruise condition. In addition, wingships must land and
takeoff in waves; hull structure designs capable of withstanding the concomitant hydrodynamic
input loads result in relatively large structural weight fractions.
Unfortunately, because of the complexity of the aerodynamicmydrodynamic processes encountered

during takeoff and landing, there is a paucity of analytical tools to assist the designer.
Consequently hydrodynamic model tests are relied upon heavily to define the water-borne and
landing and takeoff characteristics of wingships.
5-21
w,, i T> ^^ Definition »f State-of-the-Art
Wingship Investigation Final Report .
A typical takeoff fUght sequence for the 350 ton Russian wingship LUN as described by the
Russians during the WTET meeting (See Trip Report-Appendix G) with CHDB m Nizhny
Novgorod is:
Speed Wing Flap PAR Nozzle

Deflection Deflection Thrust
% takeoff
OP OP 20% max
0-10
OP 20° _..>. max/
10-30
10P 20» max
30-45
15° 20° - .- max/
45-60
2(f 20* max
60-100
cruise = 1.5 takeoff
I, is evident that flap deflection is programmed to increase as speed b increased and the tall ts
I duafly lifted by aerodynamic forces to reduce the draft of the hull. Tins „ to avotd tage
SSL loads on the flap where the draft of the hu., is Stil, tage Stnce the takeoff speed
340 hnVhr) is approximate» 65* of the cruise speed (500 kmto) (a. leas, for me LUNX the huh
wi" in contact with the water surface for a wide speed range desptte acuvatton of the PAR
system.
Earlier U.S. tests showed that the PAR mechanism can sustain lift at low speed; i.e during takeoff
H t„L fRef 5 4 3-1) Why Russian design did not exploit this potential ts not clear. W.th
tac^ft exSê utofL watera, low speeds, hydrodynamic loads a, takeoff and wave
m^Sting landing were expected to he reduced substantially Perhaps fcture wtngs,p
deslns will have such a low speed lift capability bu, for the present ,t ,s prudent to des.gn hull
fols wWcn wi.1 remain in contact with the water from low speed displacement mode to htgh
speed planing mode.
Hydrodynamics Cmpaflb.e Hu.l Form The water-borne mquirements;of a wingship

huh am no. dissimilar to those of a seaplane hu.l and indeed, the Russtan ORLYONOK (Rgure
5.4.3-1) incorporates many seaplane characteristic, The principal geometnc features are.
. Upswept buttock lines in the bow to provide «he ability to ride up the flanks of waves a.
S and thus mduce wetting of the bow and windshield and espectally to reduce flow
of green water into the jet intakes.
5-22
Figure 5.4.3-1
The Russian Orlyonok
. The use of hard chines to provide flow separation from the bottom and to avoid wetting the sides
of the hull.
. Incorporation of large spray deflectors at critical locations along the chine.
. Use of transverse steps on the hull and wing end plates to reduce their wetted surface.
• Avoidance of convex surfaces on the aft portions of the forebody and the afterbody to avoid
suction in the planing range.
. Incorporation of deadrise angle, double chine, or hydroski on the forebody to reduce wave
impact loads.
These geometric features will increase the aerodynamic profile drag of the vehicle but are necessary
to assure acceptable hydrodynamic performance. If the PAR system can be designed to lift the hull
at low speed, then these hydrodynamically driven geometries can be relieved.
5-23
, , _. . p „ —j> Definition of State-of-the-Art
Wingship Investigation Final Report _ >—
Total Resistance Daring Takeoff in Calm Water. Bod. hydrodynamic and aerodynamic
forcesareinvolvedintebehaviorofawingshipdnring takeoff. The pnmary aerodynam.c
Is are wing lift, tog end moment dne to PAR and forward speed, thrust and mom n -d
orizontal «ail force and moment The aerodynamic Uft forces increase w.ü. speed and he
Luce the load on the water as speed is increased. As the hull rises wtth forward speed the
beneficial ground effects on PAR performance, wing Uft and drag, are reduced.
The orimary hydrodynamic forces during takeoff are hull drag (both form and viscous); drag on
ÜL «Id wing end plates due to impact with huU and PAR generate* spray and wake
rwWcb™AGIestimates tobeamajor hydrodynamic drag component); drag of -f-™
«and wave-making drag of PAR cushion. These resistance components are dependent
S££ and him which vary with speed and the aerodynamic charac.enst.es of the PAR
wingship.
The pubiished literature contains many references for estimating the aemdynamic drag components
Z Seves (Ref. 5.4.3-1) presents de.ai.ed calculations for a 5,000 ton wmgsh.p »the cm.se
condition. Similar methods may be used for the takeoff condmon.
There are few analytical methods for reliably esümaüng the hydrodynamic drag components. Such
^TjTaThun lift and center of pressure from zero speed to takeoff speed (from Mly
bü ™«to plamng support, are aril, in the process of development. When comb.ned wnh
PAR^rinTandtai,aerod^nanL. they establish the equilibrium draft, trim, and res.sta.ee of the
M asTfu ction of speed The orientation of tine hull governs the geomeuy and .ntens.ty of the
1 iTupon strLg the wing, flaps, or end plates can produce large drag forces. To avo.d
r^Wynamic fo Jon the flaps they are programmed .0 be incrementally extended ashe
"f, rTwhh increasing speed. For the same reason, tine Beriev A40 seaplane exKnds.ts flaps
on vXn Pel exceeti sTknots on tine water. In addition to spray forces on tine flap hey are
d» XCd^ynamic forces when nmning into the hull generated waves. Aerodynamtc
Z t«y papally or completely cancel the improved PAR performance caused by flap
SnAuhi L, ailytical methods for estimating these spray and wake mduced forces are
not developed.
Larse hydrodynamic drag forces are developed by tine end plates throughout tine takeoff speed
S2S» <W. 5A3-2) presents a method for estimating the forces on end plates
5-24
penetrating waves and discusses limits on yaw angle and speed. Savitsky and Breslin (Ref. 5.4.3-
3) and Chapman (Ref. 5.4.3-4) present methods for estimating the spray drag of surface-piercing
end plates. The effect of the impact of the endplate generated spray onto the wing and flaps is not
yet quantified.
The wave-making drag of the PAR and wing-generated air cushion may be estimated using
Doctors (Ref. 5.4.3-5). For high length beam ratio pressure patches, (Ub = 6) the maximum
value of wave-making drag is approximately 1-2% of gross weight and occurs at a Froude
number, FL=vVgL, equal to approximately 0.80. It increases as the square of the weight and as
the length-beam ratio of the pressure patch is reduced.
Hydrodynamic instabilities, resulting in porpoising, may occur during takeoff. Currently, model
test are the most reliable way to study porpoising.
Use of Model Tests. Because of the uncertain hydrodynamic/aerodynamic effects and

interactions, the takeoff characteristics of wingships are best defined by model tests in towing
tanks. The Russians have made extensive use of a variety of hydrodynamic test facilities during
the development of all their wingships.
To provide some guidance as to the variation of total resistance with speed during takeoff, model
tests of an ORLYONOK type wingship are shown in Figure 5.4.3-2. It is seen that, at zero speed,
the resistance is approximately 8% of the craft weight when the PAR engines are developing
maximum thrust. The drag increases as speed is increased and attains a maximum value of
approximately 17% of the craft weight at hump speed (VD = 6.0). It is noted that both the PAR
engines and cruise engines are required for takeoff. Further because of the large drag increment
due to PAR, the excess thrust (relative to drag) is reduced at pre-hump speed resulting in long
takeoff runs. It is interesting to note that the Russians (Dr. Sokolov and Prof. Logvinovich)
essentially confirmed the U.S. estimated drag-lift ratio during takeoff. The weight-drag ratio
(Ao/D) at cruise is estimated to be 18 which is nearly three times greater than that at hump speed.
This demonstrates the dominance of hydrodynamics in the selection of the propulsion system.
The takeoff resistance of a modem high length beam seaplane model is presented in Figure
5.4.3-3 (Ref. 5.4.3-6). The hump resistance is approximately 18% of the gross weight
5-25
Definition of Stnte-of-the-Art
Wineship Investigation Final Report
CTDQISVC/HD-22-93/98 (March 1993)

bRDKNSWC/BD-22-93/99 (April 1993)
(Trim Angle Fixed at 0 )
Scale 20
Ao « 38.5 lb« . "
EL ■ Aero + Hydro Drag
m . pax» Engine Thrust - 6.28 lbs
T »* Cruise Engine' Thrust '«• 3.50 lbs
.30
■<VV/A0
.25
.20 v
£jE— — VAo
A
Vc .15 r s
/
T/A
o .10
.05 r
0 4
^/rgT T7T
Pv ■ *>
""' v ^^~c*3W
Figure 5.43-2 Orlyonok-WIG
5-26
n»finltion of State-of-the-Art
t « 190,000 lbs
»2.3 (Double Fowler Flaps)
max
Dm = Aero + Hydro Drag

T ■ Thrust (Estimated)
T » Hull Trim Angle
.30-
.25-
8
'.20
4-6
.15
D/L0 T ,deg
'Hydro 4U
7/Lo -10
/
s 2
.05 >" Aero
• - 0
0
Fv - V//gv01/3
Figure 5.4.3-3. Albatross Type Seaplane
5-27
. _ . Definition of State-of-the-Art
Wineshlp Investition Final Report . Definition 01 .
(essentially similar to the ORLYONOK). Further, the large excess thrust in the early stages of
takeoff provides for rapid acceleration of the seaplane. As a further comparison, we were
informed by the Russians that their A-40 seaplane has a takeoff speed of approximately 200 km/hr
compared to 340 km/hr for the LUN wingship.
5.4.4 Operation In Wave Environment
A key design consideration for large WIG ships is the ability to operate as a transoceanic vessel in
a variety of sea states. Figure 5.4.4-1 indicates the range and frequency of occurrence of sea
conditions in an open ocean environment.
There are several major considerations
stemming from operating in a sea state. These
are:
- Floating and drifting in waves

- Takeoff in waves
- Landing in waves
- Cruise flight over waves
- Occasional impact with rogue
waves in the cruise condition
Jigure 5.4.4-1
The principal consequences of a sea Expected Occurrence of Sea
environment are: a reduction in lift-drag ratio Conditions
as the craft flies further from the level water
line to avoid wave contact and the development
of large impact loads when the vehicle must land in waves
5.4.4.1 Description Of Sea State

The annual sea state occurrences in the northern hemisphere are shown in Figure.5.4.4 1-1 where
the sea state number is correlated with the significant wave height; sustained wind speed;
probability of occurrence; and modal wave period. The weight height statists for sea states are
follows:
Average Height = Hav
Average of 1/2 Highest = H i a - 1.41 Hav _ - >. ^
5-28
Significant Height = Average 1/3 Highest = H1/3 = 1.63 Hav

Average of 1/10 Highest = Hi/10 = 2.03 Hav
Average of 1/30 Highest = Hi/30 = 2.50 Hav
Average of 1/1000 Highest = Hyiooo = 3.16 Hav
The Russians use H1/30 to identify operating wave height. The U.S. and most other western
countries use H1/3 to identify the operating wave height. Thus, when discussing sea state
capabilities, it is important to remember that:
Hi/3 = 0.65H,/3o
An additional concern related to wave environment is the appearance of large ocean waves (rogue
waves) which have been observed during storms in several locations of the world. Wave heights
up to 200 ft have been observed in some areas. The large waves are a combination of large swells
(up to 40 ft) and large waves of other storm systems (either local or from a large distance). Many
ships have been lost in the Atlantic and Pacific when encountering fast traveling large waves which
appear with little warning.
Rogue waves can build up within 12 to 24 hours to wave heights from about three times the
normal significant wave height of a certain sea state in a storm up to a wave height of 100 feet, and
200 feet in extreme cases. Such waves are a combination of large swells and large waves of the
same storm system or two different storm systems. The energy spectrum of these extremely large
waves is simply the sum of the spectra of the swells and the superimposed waves.
5.4.4.2 Floating And Drifting In Waves
Several potential wingship missions require loitering in a seaway. This requirement has
habitability and structural implications.
The sizes, proportions, and relative position of the hull, wings, and end plates greatly influence
habitability. The ISO has established habitability standards for human performance, and these
standards obviously apply to wingships which loiter on the sea surface. For example, Figure
5.4.4.2-1 shows the ISO habitability standard for heave acceleration (Ref. 5.4.4.2-1). A
comprehensive design procedure for missions requiring sea-sitting must consider these standards.
5-29
Wingshlp Investigation Final Report Deflnition of State-of-the-Art
— - .» * © T °.
£ 2
II ■ •
■■'.']
» *1 2 ,J » o n
"•MS «- «« 5. «N
* «b — o 0>
u
u
•8
II
n •
m
«j
m e *;
i< «o c
— «•
7- © T
2 in
K
«-
•
»-
©
«s O
«N
"5 "1
4>
as
■8 •co
2 % •". *1 Z £ © - * «•
Z
u
gegSSqgn
»*•§*£
8u
5VI ^
«• l~
m «
«rove
g
is
o
■5
s
if ^ IN
I S
E
fc
Ö. B
H iM
«
Ic
o
' "^^":'-tJ.^,>,©. es
I»IO«-«">©_:J««
«I I
m m «a c
"8
X «
&
ß 8 8 8 3 2 8 =
•«■8*2 "«
9
C
c e
•s «<
s«I • ^ e« ^ m
2
ll E
31 _ K K an
SOS«*«*«*«*
ä
E
in
1 1 hi
5
s
* I E
o 2 © "• • •"•:•"» 8. 1
o © e «- *>
•: ig
i
I
in r«i
•n 3 5 3
* * 1 I I
O d
00 ©
A 1
U Sal 6 1
5-30
In many wingship design concepts the wing and hull are in contact with the water while drifting
and provide a large waterplane area which may induce large translational and angular motions due
to wave action. Also large pitch and heave motions may result in wetting of the PAR intakes.
The wave action will also produce wing bending loads. The magnitude of these loads also
depends on the craft geometry. Prof. Logvinovich of TsAGI told us (Trip Report-Appendix G)
that the sea-sitting loads were not critical and that landing loads were most critical. Although
existing analytical ship motion computer programs may be ultimately adopted for calculating the
sea sitting behavior of ekranoplans, model tests in towing tanks remain as the most reliable method
for quantifying this area of performance.
10
To mitigate these potential problems, 8
designers should consider geometry changes, • k
25 mm
slow speed maneuvering, and dedicated craft 4
0
Exposure
0
OS
features (such as dampers or stabilizers). Motion Sickness Reoion 0
4
0
4
#
0
^ 2 hr
5.4.4.3 TAKEOFF IN WAVES 0
Exposure
/ t
0
/
'
Ekranoplans usually take off with PAR / 0
0
i
activated in order to provide some'additional

0
N
lifting force to reduce the takeoff speed. As 25 mh /
0
8 hr
to ■7*1—
i Exposure
shown in Section 5.4.3, however, at the ai
o 0.8 '
present time, takeoff speeds continue to be o
< 0
0
relatively high so that the vehicle is in contact OS •

12 2hr 0
OS )J05
I
0
with waves over a wide speed range. 1
04 0
0
0
At low speeds, where buoyant forces are still 03

appreciable, pitch and heave motions are *
8 hr (Tent ittve)
expected to be maximum. For sea states, 02
'
where H1/3 = .40 beam, green water may
wash over the bow, windshield, wings, flaps
and possibly flood the PAR intakes. The 01 02 03 04 OS OS 10
hull, wings and flaps are in contact with solid
"Severe Discomfort" Bowdaries 0.1 - 1X> Hr
water and end plates are submerged. The (Up to 10% motion sick)
hydrodynamic resistance is thus increased
i.e. for H1/3 = .40 beam the rough water drag Figure 5.4.4.2-1. Human Tolerance - Motion
may be 15% greater than the calm water drag. Sickness
5-31
«--«, motion Final Report p.finUion of State-oMhe-Art
These detrimental effects can be reduced if the vertical component of the deflected PAR nozzle is
sufficient to increase the vehicle trim.
As speed is increase hull hydrodynamic fen» dominate while aerodynamic ^£"j"

smaHarge spray sheets are developed as the hull slams into onconung waves^ The tage taneuc
relofAesWcand^gewingflapsifmeyareextendedandnotdestgnedwtmoad
alleging devL In me Russian LUN. me wing Haps are only partially deployed m tins speed
regime to avoid contact with spray.
A „™u,hnt below takeoff the hull continuously strikes the oncoming wave train. It
d Is may not he used during takeoff. The wing end plates are constantly penettattng the
„„col" waves and must be designed to withstand large side forces if -he veh.de ts yawed.
,„ discussions with Prof. Logvinovich, we learned that hydrodynamic problems during takeoff in
„nirio be import! and a* one of the more important subjects for ferther study.
5.4.4.4 Landing Considerations

A •nerfect» landing is one in which, after flare-out, the resultant velocity of the vehicle is nearly
L^mfe the fl water surface. In mis instance, the craft sen.es into the wafer - tnuuma.
Zc ,oads. Unfortunately. teaUstic flight path angles a, water comae« are no. zero and 4
vX is at some positive trim angle relative to fee water surface. Theoreucal stud,es o fee
hS^cZc« process have estabtished fee relationship between fee impact accelerate
flight speed V0, flight path angle y0. Ml aim angle To, mass of the vehicle, and shape of the
bottom. References 5.4.4.4-1 and5.44.4-2 are typical of fee many analyttcal smd.es of the
impact process.
Fisure
Figure 55.4.4.4
4 4 4-1 shows
sno the vehicle landing on the flank of a ^
regular
^ ^^ wave. In
^^this instance, the
component 1S
hull trim angle is measured with respect to me wa experimental
the U.S. WTET.
5-32
HORIZONTAL REFERENCE
Figure 5.4.4.4.-1
Impact on the Flank of a Wave
To provide some guidance in the study, it is useful to refer to the extensive U.S. experience with
landing of water-based aircraft. Water-based aircraft usually "bounce" off the initial wave and
impact subsequent waves at steeper glide path angles and at different trim angles than the.initial
contact conditions. In fact, it has been found that the maximum impact loads in irregular head seas
are developed in the subsequent run-out when there is little control of the aircraft-wave contact
conditions. Empirical methods for estimating the impact loads for water-based aircraft landing in
irregular seas have been developed based upon numerous model test results.
Smooth water landings, the impact acceleration is:
Ti = 0.00825y0 bV2 A(
-2/3
1 - JL
90
Landing in irregular seas:

bV2
Tl = (YO
e
+ w) (- 00825
) 2/3 1 - 90 J
5-33
. . _. . «.„_* Definition of State-oMhe-Art
Wingship Investigation Final Report . _ _ _
where:
Tj = center of gravity impact acceleration, g's
Yo = flight path angle, degrees

H1/3Ji
0W = critical wave slope = tan" , deg
2LWL
H1/3 = significant wave height, ft

LWL = load water line length, ft
V = landing speed, ft/sec
A0 = gross weight, lbs.
b ss beam of craft or hydroski, ft
ß = deadrise angle, deg.
It is to be noted that, in this empirical equation, the impact acceleration increases linearly with
beam. Thus, since a hydroski has a smaller beam than the hull it is expected to reduce impact
accelerations. This validates the use of hydroskis on Russian ekranoplans. As an example, the
estimated impact load on the ski of the LUN landing in sea state 4 is:
H1/3 = 6 ft
y0 = 5 deg (assumed)
LWL = 170 ft. (assumed)
b (ski) = 5 ft (assumed)
V = 285 ft/sec
A0 =784,000 lbs
ß = 5 deg (assumed)
0W =3.2 deg.
5-34
Therefore
Tl = 3.2g
During our discussions with Mr. Naryshkin of CHDB, he indicated that the Russians had then-
own empirical relations for estimating impact accelerations which were similar to the U.S. equation
- but he did not share their method with us.
Dr. Logvinovich volunteered that the Russians design their craft for a 4g acceleration at the center
of gravity and then estimate the maximum operational wave height using the following formula.
2/3
37 5
„
n
_ - g*
3% ~ y2
where:
H3% = average of 3% highest waves, m
v
= displaced volume, m3
V = landing speed, m/sec
g = acceleration of gravity, m/sec2.
When the LUN parameters are substituted into the Russian equation:
H3% = 8 ft.
or
H1/3 = .65H3% = 5.2ft.
This result is in reasonable agreement with the results from the U.S. empirical equation for water-
based aircraft. Dr. Sokolov stated that the LUN has experienced 2.3 to 3.5g when landing in
waves. This is also close to the U.S. prediction.
This agreement may be fortuitous. Both the Russians and the WTET agree that the landing process
develops critical structural design loads.
5-35
. , .. *» ™„«l Rpnort npfinltion of State-of-the-Art
Wingship Investigation Final Report . ^
5.4.4.5 Cruise Over Waves
Since the cruise speed may be 50% greater than the takeoff speed it is essential that the craft fly
over the wave crests in order to avoid high speed impact with the wave. Obviously, this increase
in wing clearance reduces the beneficial effect of ground effect and decreases the lift-drag ratio
compared to flight over calm water where wing clearance can be reduced to as little as 10% of the
wing chord.
There was no consensus as to the preferred elevation of the ekranoplan relative to waves when in
the cruise condition. The following are several suggestions:
ArmrdinptoTV SokoloV
h = -^ + 0.10c
where
h = height of wing tip end plates above the level water
c = wing chord
H3% = average of 3% highest waves
Relating this to sea state and our assumed wing chord of 40 ft:
Sea State H3% H3%/2c h/c
3 4.3 ft 0.06 0.16

4 9.2 ft 0.12 0.22
5 16.0 ft 0.20 0.30
Affording t" ttwi«v Design Bureau
H £ 15'
Therefore for c = 40 ft, h/c = 0.38
5-36
Wineship Investigation Final Report Ignition of State-of-the-Art
According to the Wingship Compendium
h = iki + 1.6 + 0.2H0.5 , ft
In summary, the Beriev criteria will result in a substantial reduction in lift-drag ratio when
operating in a sea environment. Dr. Sokolov's criteria lies between the Beriev and the
Compendium criteria. This subject of wave clearance should be pursued with some vigor because
of its significant effect upon cruise performance and structural design.
We were also told by Sokolov that ekranoplan pilots quickly increase the flying height upon first
contact with the wave crests. As a result, it was reported that a maximum impact acceleration of
approximately 0.2g has been recorded during cruise flight over waves.
5.4.4.6 Impact With Rogue Waves
Possible impact with unexpected large waves while in the high speed cruise condition is of concern
to the ekranoplan designers. It was reported to WTET that a Russian wingship (unidentified) once
struck a large wave at cruise speed and experienced an 8-10 g impact. This resulted in failures of
engine bearings and support structure. All engines had to be replaced. Designing basic structure
and mission payloads to tolerate impact of this magnitude is probably impractical.
Both Russian and American engineers believe that suitable wave sensing instruments can be
installed in the vehicle to provide sufficient advance warning to avoid such impact with these
unusually large waves. More study of this potential problem is strongly recommended.
5.4.4.7 Design Loads
Assuming that impact with the rogue wave can be avoided, the Russians believe that the landing
impact loads are the critical structural design loads. While there is some guidance for selecting an
impact acceleration (Section 5.4.4.3), it is recommended that model tests be conducted in a towing
tank with the capability of generating specified wave spectra. Such tests will provide credible data
for selecting structural design loads.
Of interest to the U.S. designers is the fact that the Russians apply a factor of safety of 1.8 to the
hydrodynamic impact loads. Using the 2.3 to 3.5 g impact accelerations for the LUN, the design
5-37
accelerations would be between 4.1 and 6.3 g's. It is unclear whether the Russians design to yield
or ultimate. . ,
5.4.4.8 Hull Pressures

The bottom pressure magnitudes and distribution on the ekranoplan arc expected to be similar to
those experienced by a water-based aircraft when laadtag. There is a «*T'£^^
experiment data base dealing with bottom pressures on water-based ancraft^Some of the earites.
wo*" were by von Karman (Ref. 5.4.4.8-1) and Wagner (Ref. 5.4.4.8-2). The NACA h d a
i tapact Basin which was t0
Z* *•**<"* «»** -*»-"- '
loads and bottom pressures during landtags of water-based aircraft.
Some of the most significant results of these studies showed that a typical bottom pressure
disribln during pTantag and impact is as shown in Figure 5.4.4.8-1. The conspicuous part of
tetne is the ship peak of pressure a. the edge of the wetted area, with substantrajlyTower
^towards 2L. These pressure distributions in addition to the impact force «self are
essential for proper design of the hull.
As the wetted length of the hull changes with speed, load, and penetradon of the hull the region of
ZSZ«. always located a, the leading edge of the wetted area, tmverses *e huôm-a
so that almost any par. of it is subjected to high local pressures at some tune. The bottom platmg
and stringers supporting a very small bottom area should be designed to support the peak
"The sipping structure will be loaded by the average pressure over a certam larger
area and can be designed for a lower pressure.
There are several methods for estimating the peak pressure and distribution as a function of
deadrise, trim, and forward speed. The following equation is derived from the expandmg plate
analogy to a planing wedge developed by H. Wagner
p -i4(i + a')
Kinn _. * v
2X
5-38
CHINE
STAGNATION
LINE
CHINE
CALCULATED
Figure 5.4.4.8-1 Typical Pressure Distribution on

Seaplane Hull
where v0 = V Sin x, ft/sec
V = forward speed, ft/sec
T = trim angle, deg.
2tanß
X =
it
ß = deadrise angle, deg
5-39
t>ffl , S
...-r.:. .^d. —I R«Por. " "°° "' '-"-°'-""-Arl
Unfortunately, this equation is no. applicable to the case where B = 0». However, for the flat
bottom hull or hydroski, the peak pressure is simply the foil stagnation pressure. Thus:
This pressure is independent of trim angle.
The above equations are for the cse of steady. state planing.
quationsareforthecaseofste _ Smiley (Ref. 5.4.4.8-1) showed that
the pressure distributions are
Lre distributions _ essentially. the same for steady sate planingand for the case of .mpact
where the hull has both horizontal velocity, V, and a vertical velocity v. He showed that.
pm« = yPf
where: v
f _ y + = (equivalent planing velocity)
tan 1
v = vertical velocity of hull
To illustrate, the above-the-peak pressure estimated to be applied on the LUN hydroski is now
calculated assuming the deadrise to be zero degrees:
For the planing condition:

v = 200 ft/sec (assumed)
2
200
- - P < > = 270 Fpsi
Pm« ~ 2 144
For the impact condition:

v = 5 ft/sec (assumed)
x= 15deg
D , P m = 330 psi
Pm» ~ 2 144
5-40
The WTET was informed by the CHDB, that the maximum pressure measured on the LUN
hydroski was approximately 20 atmospheres or 294 psi. This appears to verify the above estimate
which was based on a realistic planing and sink speed.
These methods may also apply to the "wave clipping" phenomena at cruise speed. Ron Jones, a
designer of 200-knot unlimited class racing boats, reports that honeycomb materials rated at 1100
psi fail and those rated at 1600 psi survive.
5.4.5 Propulsion
Five major topics were considered in establishing propulsion capability needs for future
wingships. Discussion of each topic addresses both U.S. knowledge and Russian experience and
project technology and/or design needs for a successful U.S. effort in the future. The reader is
directed to Appendix K for expanded information and more details. Most of the focus is on jet
engines and derivative concepts, but nuclear propulsion is addressed in Subsection 5.
1. Water/air separation - Substantial amounts of sea water can enter the engines at takeoff and
landing as "green water" plus small liquid particles of water are ingested with the air. Both are
undesirable, but the small particles are likely the worst since this causes salt deposits in both
compressors and turbines which rob needed operational margins in core EGT and stability. The
Russians plan on 50-60 deg C. EGT gain before washing off salt deposits (see Section 6.2.4 on
these requirements). Initially they used very complex doors and Venetian blind type inlet systems,
despite the large inlet pressure losses one might anticipate from such devices. Their LUN under
construction was to use a'much simpler system. The hardware seen used an inlet bullet nose
shaped like an onion or Greek Orthodox church spire, point end into the wind, to deflect large
drops and spray larger than 3-5 microns in diameter. Separation occurs when the high inertia
drops cannot follow streamlines. GE has used a similar system on the CFM56 installations to keep
water out of the core to avoid apparent flameouts during idle descents in very heavy rainfall. The
Russians assume extensive amounts of small water particles will not be defeated by a separator and
will indeed enter the core (See Section 6.2.4). Our inlet designs should assess the same
method.
2. Engine cycle selection and design - To date, the Russians have not used unmixed-flow
turbofans, but only because PAR requires some method of deflecting both core and fan streams.
5-41
Tw...uinn of State-of-the-Art
Wineship Investigation Final Report .
i ~— f«r tViA rnrr and one for the fan further upstream.
Unmixed-flow eng»« ha« two »ozzl«"« * *^^ *tave „sed m external
=■■==^S===—AST
that for future design work in the U.&. we rotate

thrust line close to the spar centroid.
aircraft cruise values. At cruise, the Russians snm no problems, both we and the
a
T fTa thfu laLh vT, fcel with nitrfgen, to about 800 deg F., the augmentation or
tanks or filhng the ull*f *™ " Thus a dry PWA 4084 at 83,074 pounds thrust would
me entire engme would be abou 38%. Thus adry temperature. This might
produce 115,000 lbs tost "wef v,a a due, ^£^£g^£g and SFC. The safe
help reduce a 10 engined wingstup .0 f-^^^^n« duct heater
amended «ha, Ute U.S. designs ^'^^^^ Risk ,s

we. wing and a fan duct burner for at lea^38 % *"* «^ the benefits
substantiai. For all «he low power '^^TT^l Recog„ize however,

fr„m increased airfoil «J» ^j££^^ «^ «* * »
that this would represent a major change to any exisung eng
ekranoplan engine as yet unbuilt.
5-42
When asked what would be high oh his priority list for an engine designed just for ekranoplans,
the head of Russian Ekranoplan engine development said engines for these applications needed
more than just coatings for corrosion protection. Where the cruise engines needed to have the best
aircraft engine attributes to be had, any "lift" or PAR only engines needed moderate
characteristics - low pressure ratio to avoid salt deposits at high compression
temperatures, lots of low cycle fatigue life, high reliability, and 50-60 deg C.
EGT reserve for salt Ingestion. The "TO only" engines use optical boroscopes and external
TV systems for internal viewing. He also indicated that a reduction in max TTT at TO of 100-150
deg F as on shipboard marinized aircraft engines was done - with loss in thrust.
3. Engine reliability and vehicle availability - See Section 6.2.4 for discussion of this
aspect of engine operations.
4. Environmental issues (noise and sea salt combustion products) -The U.S. DoD
now has environmental regulations (Acquisition Directive and Instructions 5000.1 and 5000.2 of
1989 and 1991) forcing it to determine, disclose, investigate, mitigate and incorporate
considerations to not make hazardous effluents during all phases of a weapon system's life cycle,
including development and training. The noise from 6-10 large conventional turbofan engines at
TO(about 112 to 126pNdg.vs 120 for the threshold of pain) would likely demand they be towed
or auxiliary power driven to and from the sea for landings and takeoffs. The PWA 4084 design is a
geared fan, which may be inherently quieter than conventional CF6s or JT9Ds. Assuming
however that noise would be a problem, a key factor is that local i.e. state, county, and
municipality laws govern here. The Russians were keen to learn more about commercial
developments in the U.S. for noise suppression tailpipe ejector nozzles to meet FAA aircraft noise
regulations. A good source on this is Dr. Yulu Krothapali at Florida State University, Tallahassee
Fl who developed the ones on B727s today. For wingships, we need to look hard at what is
known today about reducing engine noise and making an assessment of what it will cost in dollars,
weight and performance to incorporate this into engines for wingships. With double the
engines of a 7X7, wingships will be at least 3 to 5 dB noisier than the FAA
regulations permit.
The following discusses the emissions of combusted air containing sea salts. Each 1000 grams of
water in the "average" ocean contains 42 grams of chemicals besides H20, about half of which is
NaCl (see ASTMD-665 spec). The other major constituents are MgCl2-6H20, Na2S04, CaCl2 and
KC1. These five make up all but 0.4 gms of these materials. A definition is needed of the
combustion products of these materials during starting and operations and their
5-43
Wl-shi. I.v.stia.f™ Fto.1 R.p.r. glP-'""" °f S.«te-.f-tb«-Art
health effects upon human beings. Under the right conditions of combustion of a
hydrocarbon, one of these materials (NaCl) can produce QAOjCU - which is dioxin, a known
carcinogen in humans. It is not known if engines (particularly during stamm with sah water m
.heir combustors) can produce dioxin. I« is however a fact mat in the 1970's, 4 men from a USN
test facility who were the engineers and crew on a very severe sal. water Ingestion test of a turbine
enaine about 7-10 years prior, all died of various forms of organ and brain cancers. Tins was the
cly^ZwnatLtf^whemallfourmenworkedtogedrer. Any correlation between tese
J. and their deaths is not known, nor is it likely to ever be known. However, * does seem that
hUtustion studies and .ah tests would he worthwhile to identify what the health rfM. are
from jet fuel combustion in the presence of the various chemicals in sea water, notjust NaCl. The
liters and passengers of wingships and nearby residents of basing areas would be at nsk tf a
problem is detected.
5 Nuclear propulsion - In the late 1950s, the U.S. was considering Ä open cycle gas turbine
for bombers that could be on station for extended periods. In concept, the cycle simply passes
o~ discharge air through a nuclear fired hea, exchanger in lieu of a combustor, and then
ST*, -bin* entry. The concept was rejected when i, became evident that the wetgh of
shielding would drive the vehicle gross weigh, into the 750,000 lb class. Since wmgshtps start m
«ht class and work upwards in size, nuclear propulsion may be applicabie to tins vehtde.
It would certainly tend to mitigate problems and issues regarding range as an inverse tenon of
wave height. The Russians stated that during the same time penod, they cons,demd the r NK12
Xmp (same one used on the Ekranoplans and also on the 4 engined "BeaO for nude,
applications and actually modified and ran one with a nuclear pile. They satd they terminated the
^~o me radlion hazard created by irradiated particles in the air as it passed through
the system and back into the amrosphem, which is a predictabie characteristic for an open cycle gas
turbine.
It was suggested to their propulsion expert (Gregory Perevozkin) that they might wish to
consider nudeat, but now using . he.ium fiHed e.osed cyde, such as we have — d
for space power and the Germans have built in a 25 MW (30,000 SHP) ground based el etnea
^generating station. They expressed great interest in dtis, possibly because.. would enu. no
radiation from the trapped working fluid.
To keep takeoff thms. from driving this scheme to very large piles£ weigh« it should confer
„sing L externally fired topping burner using liquid fuel to boos, TTT by m-XO d E to TO
only This would allow the minimal cruise dims, requirements to dnve and stzo the nuclear pde
5-44
and heater exchanger. In further phases of U.S. design and cycle selection, this
cycle is very worthwhile for examination and should be given a high priority for
wingships. Cycle decks to assess their performance characteristics using a topping burner are
available.
5.4.6 Air Injection

Takeoff performance is fundamentally a product of (a) vehicle lift generation capability which
determines the speed at which it can depart the surface, and (b) thrust available which determine the
takeoff distance required to achieve lift-off speed. Fundamentally significant differences exist
between PAR-WIG and seaplane vehicles for takeoff (and landing) operations as discussed below.
Lift, thrust and configuration variables for PAR-WIG takeoff are illustrated in Figure 5.4.6-1. The
weight of the vehicle is initially supported by hydrodynamic floatation with flaps retracted and
engines set at a reduced power (approximately 20%) to prevent excessive spray. Engine nozzle
position is set at zero deflection. At a nominal speed (tens of km\hr) the engine throttles are
advanced to full thrust and the flaps are progressively extended as speed is increased. PAR lift is
generated which off-loads the hydrodynamic lift required. Because angle of attack variations for
in-ground-affect operations is limited, the vehicle is heavily dependent upon PAR lift until a speed
is attained for which the vehicle weight can be supported by aerodynamic lift alone. This occurs
near cruise speed where the flaps can again be progressively retracted and the engine nozzles
returned to the undeflected position.
PAR operations generally yield lift augmentation but at the expense of net thrust recovery available
for acceleration. The data gathered by Gallington (Ref. 5.4.6-1) support this trade-off trend since
the PAR operations yields positive cavity pressures but also results in reduced net thrust recovery.
For a seaplane, the vehicle weight is also initially supported by buoyancy. However, takeoff flaps
are deployed (except in special cases lo avoid spray damage) and full thrust is applied at takeoff
initiation. The vehicle accelerates to takeoff speed, rotates to an appropriate angle of attack to
depart the water surface supported entirely by aerodynamic lift using full thrust. This procedure is
also illustrated in Figure 5.4.6-1.
5-45
SEAPLANE
PAR-WIG
LIFT '.-
m AERO
WEIGHT HYDRO VCRUISE
VCRUISE VLIFT OFF
U
VEL
FLAP FLAP
DEFLECTION VCRUISE
DEFLECTION VUFTOFF
^CRUISE
VEL
ENGINE
ENGINE THRUST
THRUST VCRUISE
VUFTOFF
VUFTOFF VCRUISE
J t VEL
VEL
ANGLE
ENGINE OF
NOZZLE ATTACK VCRUISE
DEaECTION VCRUISE
Figure 5.4.6-1 Takeoff/Acceleration Operations
5-46
. *• T7- i D„„„..* Definition of State-of-the-Art
Wingship Investigation Final Report . "e"UI" —
Two conclusions can be drawn from these comparative procedures;
The dependence upon PAR lift up to speed approaching cruise conditions causes
water contact at high speeds.
Thrust available for acceleration is also reduced in the PAR mode resulting in long
takeoff runs (3 to 5 km).
The Russians may not have appreciated, early in their program, the low speed limitations of PAR
operations due to spray and angle of attack limitations which have apparently resulted in extended
high speed takeoff runs. Foreign viewers believed, until recently, that the Russian vehicles were
able to lift-off and clear the water surface at very low speeds using the PAR mechanism
■:<■■. v —
v
5.4.7 Structures, Materials And Weights
Structures: The design of structures for large wingships is very complex because the vehicles
have to operate in the boundary conditions of air and the ocean's surface. This environment is
further complicated by the ocean's wave action. In addition, the overall structural configuraüon of
a wingship is influenced by the type of payload it carries, by the mission requirements such as
speed, range, flight altitudes, and by the takeoff and landing sea conditions and the takeoff and
landing speeds.
The added capability for a very large WIG to land on hard ground surfaces is not feasible due to
the high structural weight penalties from the additional landing loads and the weight of the landing
gears The added capability for a wingship to fly at higher altitudes requires vehicle pressurization
which also would impose a structural weight penalty. Up to this point, the Russian wingships do
not use pressurization. Studies on regular transport aircraft have shown that takeoff/landing loads
and pressurization loads are most important for short-range aircraft, and the gust and maneuvering
loads become secondary. The payload of short-range aircraft has also a higher impact on the
structural design. For long-range aircraft, on the other hand, gust loads, pressurization loads and
flight duration at high altitudes are of primary concern and takeofl/landing loads become
secondary.
The design of a wingship structure requires the merger of two technologies: aircraft design and
high-speed-ship design. Both technologies have one criterion in common: that is to design a very
5-47
Wingship Invest^'8™ Final Rep0rt
^—~-»—L^SSS.SS--
weights.
designs have integrated aircraft structure ^ta°^"m conplicated problems of

^s.Russianscientistsandeng»âvewor^»^^JsM stage. Wingships of
wingship design and ^<^££££L bum and flown, as mentioned earlier,
over 500 tons grosa takeoff wetght «"™£^ LUN dass vehicles o{ the Central
to to t
A-^» 7 ^° *:«oroo,WingsmpsuptoBOO,onsGTOWcouW
Hydrofoil Design Bureau (CHDB)_» ™*? ] ^ basic material for the structure of
would be feasible for sizes above 1,000 tons GTOW.

—„^v, /oVinnt 67% of common aircraft-grade
Present Russian technology uses a lower «"^J^6"°°m ^^ against salt
aluminum) bu, weldable «T^tlCJ ~ For the remaining par.
r^Sr—SÄS- y-^chiscomparabletoour
high-strength aluminum afloys used in the aircraft industry.
feasible to use welded joining methods due to *»^££ £, approach ^ces «*

wing skin plating, thus maintaining Ute ^"^^ of the ORLYONOK wingship
weigh< penalties for lowing* ^^mgsMp — is welded. Another reason
structure is welded and about 90% of the LWwingP Q{ ^„^
according to me Russians for using ^ W^Z , condWons. m addition,

watertighmess of riveted or b°êonnecuonsm the watete
fabrication cos. can be reduced »T^ * ^2££ construction, the „uality of
Based on observations made * ™"^^Jia I editions of their average
ultrasonic testing.
5-48
WingShip Investigation Final Report . Ignition of State-of-the-Art
In summary, the present technology of the design and fabrication of larger wingship structures
does not present major problems or uncertainties as long as the loads are predicted correctly.
Features such as the configurations of the fuselage, wings, and hydroskis, require technology
transfer and development involving larger risks.
Materials: The material used by the Russians for the welded structures is the Russian aluminum
alloy AMG 61 (34 kg/mm2 ultimate tensile strength). The U.S. equivalent is the alloy series
AL 5086 and 5456. This material applies to the basic fuselage, the wings, the endplates and the
hydroski.
The Russian alloy K48-2PCH (44 kg/mm2 ultimate tensile strength) is utilized for internal riveted
structures such as decks, transverse bulkheads, and partitions. It is a high-strength alloy and is
used for weight optimization in components less critical to the survival of the vehicle. Stainless
steel is used by the Russians for the engine pylons which require high-strength and heat resistance.
Corrosion protection is accomplished by the Russians with the use of their AMG 61 aluminum
alloy which has a high resistance against saltwater corrosion. In addition, the total exterior
wingship surface is coated with anti-corrosion paint.
Few uncertainties exist in the areas of materials and corrosion protection, if equivalent materials are
used on future U.S. wingships. A>aluminum alloys are being substituted with other lighter and
stronger materials, such a&tanium aTid composites, additional research and development,
including extensive testing, is required. The areas of buckling and fatigue strength become more
critical as well by using stronger metals and composites, since scantlings become relatively thin
with increasing vehicle sizes.
The complex, cost-intensive fabrication of the hull and wing structure that is subjected to buckling
and to the hydrodynamic loading can be addressed by changing the structural concept and
materials. Composite sandwich structure, as used on high performance racing boats and on light
aircraft can be tailored to local loads, and can be manufactured at low cost. Using a combination of
carbon fiber and glass fiber with thermoset or thermoplastic matrix can result in a structural weight
savings of 15 to 25% as compared to aircraft aluminum and as much as 40% compared to the
Russian welded materials.
Weights: The structural weight fraction of wingships is one of the most important parameters in
the design process and one of the most difficult parameters to predict with any reasonable
5-49
, ™ i i»-„«w Definition »f State-oMhe-Art
accuracy. It takes almost a complete wingship design process to produce one point for a curve of
structural weight fractions.
WEIGHT TRENDS FOR AIR CUSHION VEHICLES

WEIGHT TRENDS FOR HYDROFOILS
1000
50 100
1000
50 100 FULL LOAD (TONS)
FULL LOAD (TONS)
Figure 5.4.7-1 ...■*. /

Weight Fractions for Hydrofoils and Aircushion Vehicles
Any weight information from the U.S. data base and from any parametric study, -eluding the one
X^for this report, may be optimistic since it is based on aircraft des.gn pracuc. We have
auempted to approximately correct this optimism by assigning factors to the antraft we.ght
equations based on weights of the Russian designs.
Frohaoly the most realistic s— weigh, fractions for fte ÔmK^m^

win^Pswerepro.dedtofteWmb^
are not qualified for the open ocean environment, thus their we.gnts m y
the öfter hand, k may be assumed that there is a certain amount of material n the Russ an designs
Ich s noTu ilized due to the high factots of safety applied for certain loading condmon,
O ffte robL for the wingship designer is fte scaling effect in estimaung weigh free« ns
to wÜshipTof much larger sizes than fte existing one, Figure 5.4.7-, shows weigh, fractions
for hydrototl snips fe ^ Bnfoli Hlgh.speed.
5-50
0.2 0.3
HULL STRUCTURAL WEIGHT FRACTION
Figure 5.4.7-2
Vehicle Density vs Structural Weight Fraction
The structural weight fraction as a function of vehicle structure density (i.e. the structural weight
divided by the vehicle volume) is also a good tool in the early design stages. The scantlings of the
major structural components are, of course, a function of the loads applied to the wingship in the
various loading conditions. At the same time, the majority of the structural weight depends on the
volume that has to be enclosed by the structure of the wingship, which is a function of fuel, cargo,
crew and machinery to be carried. The Figure 5.4.7-2 shows vehicle densities (i.e. the gross
vehicle weight divided by its volume) versus structural weight fractions of various vehicle types
such as hydrofoil ships, t& cushion- vehicles, surface effect ships and semi-planing ships.
Wingship structures probably fall in the range of 30-50 Kg/M3 densities.
The large structural weight fractions of the ORLYONOK and LUN make them unsuitable for long
range missions. Improvement may be accomplished by the application of a combination of carbon
5-51
„. , T> * JDefinition of State-of-the-Art
Wingship Investigation Final Report . *""'"-
fiber and other composites and titanium, by very accurate load prediction methods, and by
applying unconventional stmctural skin/stiffening concepts as tfttfay Scaled Composes Inc.
5.4. Section 5 References

5 1.1 R. G. Olffla, "Historical Review of WIG Vehicles," AIAA 79-2033R, Journal of
Hydronautics, Vol 14, Number 3, NY, NY, July 1980
Wingship Compendium, Office of Naval Research, 1992, Under Contract #

5.1-2
N00014-92-C-0240, Pg 6
5.3.1 Douglas Report #SM-22615, 1956
5.3-2 Lockheed Report #16906, Spring 1964
Wieselsberger, C:"Wing Resistance Near the Ground," NACA TM-77, 1922

5.4-1
Widnall, Sheila E. Barrows, Timothy M.: "An analytical Solution for Two and
5.4-2
Three-Dimensional Wings in Ground Effect," Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Journal Of Fluid Mechanics, Cambridge, Great Britain, Vol. 41, Part
4, Page 769 - 792, 1970
Raymer, Daniel P, "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach," AIAA Education

5.4-3
Series, 1989, ISBN 0-930403-51-7
Rhein Flugzeugbau G.M.B.H.and Mönchengladbach - Flugplatz:"

5.4-4
AerofoilTechnik Explained on X 113 and X 114," March 1978
Reeves IML' »The Case for Surface Effect Research, Platform Applications
5.4-5
and Technology Development Opportunities", NATO AGARD Fluid Mechanics
Panel (FMP) Symposium on "Recent Advances in Long Range and Long Range
Endurance Operation of Aircraft" Session 1 A, Paper #4, May 24-27, 1993
Reeves J M L- »The Domain of the Large Hydrofoil," International Hovering

5.4-6
Craft and Hydrofoil Conference," Conference Paper, Amsterdam, Holland, May
1976
5-52
5.4-7 Onspaugh, Carl M.: " Wind Tunnel Investigation of Single and Tandem Low
Aspect Ratio Wings in Ground Effect," Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, California
Division, Report LFL L-53, May 1963
5.4-8 Stinton, Darrol: "Aero-Marine Design and Hying Qualities of Floatplanes and
Flying Boats," Royal Aeronautical Society, Aeronautical Journal, London,
England, March 1987
5.4-9 Maskalik, A. and Treschevsky, V.: "Wingship Compendium," Forma

Corporation, 1992
5.4-10 Ermolenko, S. D. and Khrapovitskii, V. G.:" Influence of Air Compressibility on

the Aerodynamic characteristics of a Wing Moving at Subsonic Speed Near the
Earth's Surface," Izvestiya VUZ. Aviatsionmaya Tekhnika, Vol 12, No. 4,1969
5.4-11 Ermolenko, S. D. and Khrapovitskii, V. G.: "Aerodynamic Characteristics of a

Wing Systems Moving at Subsonic Speeds Near the Earth or Smooth Water
Surface," Samoietostroyenie i Tekhnika Nozdush'nogo Flota, Kharkov, 1973
5.4-12 Tani, I.; Taima, M.; and Simidu, S.: " The Effect of Ground on the Aerodynamic
Characteristics of a Monoplane Wing," Tokyo University, Aeronautical Research
Institute Report 156, 1937
5.4-13 Wetmore, J. W. and Turner, L. I.,Jr.: " Determination of Ground Effect from
Tests of a Glider in Towed Flight," NACA TR-695,1940
5.4-14 Ashill, P. R.: "On the Minimum Induced Drag of Ground Effect Wings," The
Aeronautical Quarterly, August 1970, Royal Aeronautical Society, London, U.K.
5.4-15 Grunwald, Kaiman J.: "Aerodynamic Characteristics of High Fineness Ratio

Vehicle Bodies at Cross-Wind Conditions in Ground Proximity," NASA Langley
Working Paper, LWP-490, October 10,19 ??? 7
5.4-16 Baker, P. A.; Schweikherd, W. G. and Young W. R.: "Flight Evaluation of

Ground Effect on Several Low-Aspect-Ratio Airplanes," NASA TN D-6063,
October 1970
5-53
. „ t Definition of State-of-the-Art
Wingship Investigation Final Report ■
Rolls Stewart L. and Koenig, David G, "Flight Measured Ground Effect on a

5.4-17
Low-Aspect-Ratio Ogee Wing Including Comparison with Wind Tunnel Results,
NASA TN D-3431, June 1966
Finck, R. D.. Principal Investigator: "US AF Stability and Control Datcom,"

5.4-18
Revised April 1978, Right Control Division, Air Force Flight Dynamics
Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force Base
Fr EL J and Weihs, D.: "Ground Effect on Slender Wings at Moderate and High
5.4-19
^gt of 7Zr Journal of Aircraft, Pages 357 - 358, Volume 23, No. 5, May
1986
Davies S D.: »The History of the Avro Vulcan," 14th Chadwick Memorial
5.4-20
Lecture, Royal Aeronautical Society, Manchester Branch, 12th March 1969
Houghton, E. L and Brock, A. E.: "Aerodynamics for Engineering Students,"

5.4-21
1970, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, London, England
McCormick, Barnes W, "Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Right Mechanics,"

5.4-22
1979, John Wiley and Sons, New York ISBN 0-471-03032-5
Carter, Arthur W: "Effect of Ground Proximity on the Aerodynamic

5.4-23
Characteristics of Aspect Ratio 1 Airfoils with and without End Plates, NASATN
D-970, October 1961
Gallington, Roger W, "Vortex Shedding from the Ram Wing Vehicle,"

5.4-24
Conference Paper, International Hovering Craft and Hydrofoü Conference,
Brighton, England, 13-16 May 1974
Voytkunskiy, Ya I, Faddeyev, Yu I. and Poleshchuk, M. A : '«Influence of

5.4-25
Viscosity on Profile Lift and Drag Near a Screen," Leningrad Shipbuilding
Institute, Transaction #65,1967
Engineering Sciences Data Unit (ESDU) (Former Royal Aeronautical Society

5.4-26
Scientific Analysis Section) Data Sheet, Item Number 72023
5-54
5.4-27 Reeves, J. M. L.: "Enhanced performance Low Flying Aircraft (EPLFA) - A

Future?," AIAA Paper 89-1499, June 5,1989
5.4-28 Hall, Douglas R.: "Analysis of Airfoils Near a Surface," Internal Memorandum to
J. M. L. Reeves, Naval Air Warfare Center, Warminster, Pa
5.4-29 Lachmann, G. C: "Aspects of Insect Contamination in Relation to Laminar Flow

Aircraft," Report ARC-CP-484, April 1959, Aeronautical Research Council,
London, England.
5.4-30 Reeves, J. M. L.: "Ram Wings - A Future?" Royal Aeronautical Society Ram
wing and Ground Effect Vehicle Symposium Paper, Royal Aeronautical Society,
London, England, 19 May 1987
5.4-31 Haines, A. B.: "Subsonic Aircraft: An Appreciation of Present Standards," Royal

Aeronautical Society, Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 72, March 1968, The Royal
Aeronautical Society, London, England, March 1967
5.4.2-1 Kumar, P. E.: "Some Stability Problems of Ground Effect Wing Vehicles in
Forward Motion," Aeron. Quart., Vol. 23, pp. 41-52 (1972)
5.4.2-2 Hooker, S. F. and Lindemann, M.: The Wingship, "A Means To Achieve High
Speed Ocean Transport, Aerocon Final Report," DOC.900701R, July 1990
5.4.2-3 Vachasov, Ye. P. and Kurochka, G. F.: "Analysis of the Longitudinal Disturbed
Motion of a Surface Skimmer," FTD-HT-23-0587, August 1973
5.4.2-4 Irodov, R.D.: Criteria of the Longitudinal Stability of the Ekranoplan,

FTD-MT-24-2792-74, Nov. 1974
5.4.2-5 Staufenbiel, R.: Some Nonlinear Effects in Stability and Control of

Wing-In-Ground Effect Vehicles, Journal of Aircraft. Vol.15, Aug. 1978,
pp. 541-544
5.4.2-6 Maskalik, A. and Trechevsky. V.: Wingship Compendium, Forma Corporation,

1992
5-55
., T ., 4« PJ„«1 R*nort Definition «f Statcof-the-Art
Wingship Investigation Final Report . . .
5 4 2-7 Diomidov, V.B.: "Designing and Exploitation of Automatic Motion Control

System for Screen Hying Airplane," Author's personal copy
5 4 2-8 Staufenbiel, R.: "On the Design of Stable RAM Wing Vehicles, in RAM Wing and
Ground Effect Craft Symposium Proceedings," ThelRoyal Aeronautical Society,
May 1987
5 4 2-9 Gera, J.: "The Influence of Vertical Wind Gradients on the Longitudinal Motion of
Airplanes," NASA TN D-6430, Sept. 1971
5.4.2-10 Hill,MaynardL.: Electrostatic Autopilots, Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest,

Volume 5, Number 2,1984
Reeves J.: »Wingship Drag Prediction," Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft
5.4.3-1
Division, Warminster, PA. Prepared for ARPA-WTET 5 August 1993.
Gallington, R.W.: "Approximate Forces on Hard WIG End Plates Penetrating

5.4.3-2
Waves and Limits on Yaw Angle and Speed," DTRDC, TM 16-77-107, January
1977
Savitsky D. and Breslin, J.P.: "Experimental Study of Spray Drag of Some Vertical
5.4.3-3
Surface-piercing Struts," Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology
Report 1192, December 1966
Chapman, R.B.: "Spray Drag of Surface-piercing Struts," AIAA Paper 72-605,

5.4.3-4
Advanced Marine Vehicles Meeting, Annapolis, MD, July 1972
Doctors, L.J.: "The Wave Resistance of an Air Cushion Vehicle," University of

5.4.3-5
Michigan, December 1970
Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology Report TR-2655, Dec 1992

5.4.3-6
5442 1 ISO 2631, "Guide for the Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body
Vibrations," Second Edition - 1978-01, with Amendment 1,1982, and Addendum
2,1982, International Organization for Standardization
5-56
5.4.4.4-1 Wagner, H.: "Landing of Seaplanes," N.A.C.A. T.M. 622 1931
5.4.4.4-2 Mayo, Wilbur L.: Ânalysis and Modification of Theory of Impact of Seaplanes on
Water," N.A.C.A. TN 1008, 1945
5.4.4.4-3 Smiley, Robert F.: "Water Pressure Distributions During Landings of a Prismatic
Model Having an Angle of Deadrise of 22.5," N.A.C.A. TN 2816, November,
1952
5-57
Wingship Investigation Final Report System Evaluation
6. System Evaluation
6.1 Long Range WIG Parametric Analysis
It is well recognized that wing-in-ground-effect vehicles should become increasingly more range-
efficient with increasing size. The phenomenon results primarily from the increase in lift-to-drag
ratio with decreasing flying height-to-wing-span ratio and from the requirement to over-fly a
specified surface roughness, e.g., sea state condition. This anticipated increase in efficiency with
size also results from a decrease in weight empty-to-gross weight ratio with increasing gross
weight, permitting a larger useful load fraction (payload plus fuel). It is this rationale that drove
the Russian program very quickly to large size vehicles. The question naturally arises relative to
the performance payoff that might be available for even larger vehicle sizes.
In order to assess this potential, a parametric study was conducted that projects vehicle
performance from the current Russian gross weight limit of approximately 400 tons to 5,000 tons
gross weight. The level of analysis provides a first-order assessment thought to yield reliable
trends and absolute performance levels consistent with the Russian experience. The reader should
remember, however, that the study is anchored to a Russian design at the minimum parametric
study weight and is extrapolated by over an order of magnitude in vehicle gross weight.
Primary assumptions, methodology and results of this study are summarized in this section.
Appendix C presents, for reference purposes, more detailed information used in the generation of
this study.
6.1.1 Study Approach
The study is based upon the highly developed WIG type of configuration. The specific
configuration selected is the SPASATEL vehicle which is the latest large Russian vehicle under
development and is assumed to represent the culmination of their WIG experience to date. The
SPASATEL is the smallest size vehicle included in the parametrics and thus represents the study
anchor point. This approach lends, a degree of credibility to the study due to the use of an existing
design.
6-1
. . .,. . „ . System Evaluation
The parametric approach allows the wing aspect ratio and wing loading to be optimized for
maximum range as the vehicles are sized for various design payload/range capabilities. Key
fuselage parameters such as length-tc-beam ratio and height-to-beam ratio are held constant.
Horizontal and vertical tail volume ratios are held to those of the SPASATEL.
It is recognized that the most efficient configuration geometry may optimize to a different
configuration type for the larger vehicles. One of the Russian comments in response to a query
concerning large WIG vehicles was that the configuration would more likely be a flying wing. The
investigation of configurations other than - t- -^ ^^
of the SPASATEL type, however, ■
the scope of the current study, ^H^^^^^^^^^^^_Ê55E
requiring considerable conceptual PfPpi|llpS
development work for which a database is I P
lacking. Therefore, study ground rule ■■BB^^^
more general configuration 9
types. Many aircraft Q
parametric studies show that
.1 does
configuration type frequently j „ Ficure
figure 6.1-1
0.1 yvRussian
^ Spasatel
not influence range performance
greatly. Operational considerations are usually major configuration drivers.
A reference drawing of the Russian SPASATEL vehicle is included as Figure 6.1-1 dimensional
and weight data are in Figure 5.2-1.
Wingship visionaries have imagined a blended wing-body concept (see Figure 2.2-1) and set some
performance goals for such a concept. In cases where i, is appropriate, the charts «ha« follow «11
compare the performance goals of this blended wing-body concept with the parametnc results.
Basic considerations used to generate the parametric study are summarized below with more
detailed information included in Appendix C.
•Vehicle Weight
Weight was estimated using standard aircraft regression data corrected for WIG peculiarities
using a component weight breakdown for the SPASATEL vehicle supplied by the Russ.ans
6-2
(Ref. Appendix H-l). The correction factors automatically account for weight increases due to
hydrodynamic loads, materials and methods of manufacture used in the SPASATEL. The
design landing impact load is four gs. These weight estimates have a major impact on vehicle
size and gross weight required to meet a specified payload and range capability. They are also
the most uncertain of the fundamental aerodynamic and propulsion performance factors. A
reduction of 20 percent in structural material weight is used compared to the SPASATEL weight
to account for the use of advanced material, e.g., composites.
• Aerodynamics
Cruise - Zero lift-drag is calculated using standard drag estimation methods based on
component wetted areas, geometries and associated Reynolds numbers. Induced
drag is calculated using the equation from Wieselsberger (Ref. 5.4-1).
CL (l-q) , „ -2.48(2h/b)°-,M
CD = where a = e
rcARe
The comparison of induced drag estimation methods discussed in Section 5.4.1 shows that the
selected method for the parametric study (Weiselsberger) is optimistic but is used to represent wing
design tailored for minimum induced drag.
.«■ V • —
V
Takeoff - Takeoff distances and speeds were not calculated due to the difficulty (impossibility) of
such calculations, as confirmed by Russian discussions. Vehicle thrust requirements,
however, are determined by lift off and acceleration during the takeoff run. The details
of this procedure are based on test data from DTNSRDC (1976) and are discussed in
Appendix C.
Landing - Landing performance is not expected to set any performance parameters affecting vehicle
sizing and is not estimated. Certain structural weights, however, are determined by
landing (four g impact) loads according to Russian testimony. These weight penalties
are "built-in" to the parametric weight estimates by "indexing" to the SPASATEL.
6-3
w,, t T> * Svstem Evaluation
Wingship Investigation Final Report system
• Propulsion
The propulsion system used in the parametric study is based upon the Pratt & Whitney 4084
engine. The engines were scaled up 24 percent from their rated size and incorporated fan duct
burning raising the takeoff thrust available an additional 35 percent. The number of engines
required is dependent upon takeoff acceleration requirements. This percentage scale up of
engine dry thrust is consistent modem engine series development. The cycle and installation
features of this engine are given in Section 5.4.5 including installation issues as applied to
WIG applications.
• Performance Assumptions
The calculated vehicle performance is based on a few key ground rules and operating
conditions.
Takeoff- 5 minutes fuel allowance with all engines operating at max power
Fuel Reserve- 5 percent fuel flow conservatism

Range to alternate base of 350 nautical miles
Cruise Mode- The vehicle can adjust to weight decrease due to fuel bum off during cruise
in one of three ways:
1. Maintain constant CL (constant L/D) and decrease speed as weight

decreases, or
2. Maintain speed and cruise height in ground effect as weight decreases

(decreasing L/D), or
3. Maintain speed and increase cruise height as weight decreases (decreasing

L/D from ground effect).
These three methods are compared assuming a vehicle gross weight of 5000 tons and a payload
fraction of .20. " :*
6-4
Wino.hin Investigation Final Report System Evaluation
CRUISE MODE RANGE
1. Constant L/D and height, vary M - 6685 NM

2. Constant M and height, vary L/D - 5880 NM
3. Constant M, vary height and L/D - 4265 NM
The cruise method selected for the study was flight at constant CL and cruise height (staying in
ground effect) because of its better range efficiency (in accordance with ground rules).
The number of cruise engines required is significantly less than the number required for takeoff.
This engine "mismatch" is fundamental to the PAR-WIG concept. Three operational options
exist to account for the penalties of inoperative engines during cruise:
1. Shut down the unneeded engines and incur a windmill drag penalty, or
2. Maintain engines at a low power and suffer a fuel penalty, or
3. Shut down the unneeded engines and feather the fan blades.
The least penalty for carrying inoperative engines is to feather the fan blades. The drag penalty
is estimated to be 35 percent of that of the windmilling option. It is assumed that the variable
pitch fan would yield a 10 percent improvement in sea level engine performance but would incur
a 10 percent increase in engine weight for gearing.
• Design Sea State
A design sea state of 4 was selected for cruise performance calculations. This sea condition
has a mean significant wave height (1/3 highest wave) of 1.88 meters (6.2 feet) and has a
probability of occurrence in the-northem hemisphere of 29.7 percent. Hying height for this
condition is selected to clear the 1,000th highest wave which is approximately twice the
significant wave height or approximately 12 feet. Higher sea states can easily be
accommodated operationally increasing flying height, albeit at a range penalty.
6-5
„ , „Ä„„w Svc^m Evaluation
Wingship Investigation Final Report . 1 —
._ - >. ■■->■.
• Sizing Approach
The sizing process used integrates the disciplines of configuration, mass fractions,
aerodynamics, and propulsion and provides insight on how each impacts the total vehicle
design Vehicle payload/range performance provides the metric for determining the optimized
vehicle. Parametric studies were developed for the design parameters of gross weight, aspect
ratio, wing loading, and payload with range as the dependent variable.
The parametric study was performed in two distinct steps.
1. Size optimum range vehicles for a given gross weight and payload/gross weight ratio for
varying wing loading and aspect ratio.
2 Select a vehicle from the parametric study with which to conduct sensitivity studies. The
vetcle selected was a 5000 ton gross weight, .20 payload fraction vehicle. Results of these
studies which are presented in Appendix C include these sensitivities:
Wing Aspect Ratio

Wing loading
Wing thickness ratio
Fuselage width
Fuselage depth
Weight empty fraction
Payload fraction
Structural weight fraction
Takeoff altitude
Cruise height
Cruise altitude (S.L. and 5,000 feet)
Engine scale factor
Thrust augmentation factor
Specific fuel consumption
6-6
System Evaluation
6.1.2 Parametric Study Results
Pertinent results from the parametric study are presented in this section. Relevant geometric weight
and operational performance parameters are first shown for the basic design parameters and
assumptions as discussed in the previous section. Sensitivities to these basic assumptions are then
presented and illustrate their impact on vehicle sizing. Sensitivity studies frequently provide an
excellent indicator of areas of emphasis or technology improvements that can provide significant
performance gains.
6.1.2.1 Basic Vehicle Sizing
The range capability of vehicles with

design gross weight up to 5,000 tons is
shown in Figure 6.1.2.1-1. Each point on
the curves represents a uniquely optimized HXNQE
1000 NM
vehicle in terms of wing geometry, best
cruise speed, etc. The gain in range
diminishes as design gross weight
increases. A design range of 10,000
nautical miles is attainable for very large
WIG vehicles with relatively small payload 2 4 e 8
capacity. GROSS WEIGHT • MILLION POUNDS
The concept has a goal of 10,000

Figure 6.1.2.1-1
miles with a .3 payload fraction-about Parametric Sizing Results
three times the parametric result.
The aerodynamic efficiency (lift-to-drag ratio) of these vehicles is shown in Figure 6.1.2.1-2a.
This parametric is very sensitive to wing heighi-to-wing span ratio which is shown for reference in
the Figure 6.1.2.1 -2b with values of h/b approaching .04 at the larger gross weights. Lift-to-drag
ratios of 30 are attainable at these large size vehicles when over-flying a sea state 4 condition.
The blended concept produces maximum lift-to-drag ratios that agree closely with the parametric
result.
6-7
System Evaluation
PL7GW
-— 0.1
0.12 30 ***
y .0.2
1N
.—'
0.3
(A) 20 /f <
0.08
h/b ^s —Dl
rl
LTD -cc1MOPP1■ ftOAl -
^ ( PL/GW = 0.3)
^ ■*=: .0.3. 10
0.04
0.1
n 1
0 4 8 12 0 4 8 12
GW-106LBS
GW-106LBS
Figure 6.1.2.1-2
Parametric Sizing Characteristics
The weight empty-to-gross weight ratio (WE/GW) variation is shown in Figure 6.1.2.1-3. Values
of .35 to .55 are representative of current Russian size vehicles with values of .31 to .45 for the
larger vehicles.
Generally, the vehicles with larger payloadfractions have larger empty weight fractions because
payload tends to produce concentrated loads thus requiring additional structure whereas fuel can be
placed to minimize requirements for additional structure. The blended wing-body concept empty
weight fraction goal is about two thirds ofparametric value.
Cruise Mach number at a typical mid-point weight as shown in Figure 6.1.2.1-4 varies between
.51 and .57. For flight at constant CL (study assumption), the cruise Mach number decreases as
vehicle weight decreases due to fuel bum-off. The larger size vehicles optimize for maximum
range at a slightly higher speed than for the smaller vehicles. Optimum speed also depends
significantly on the payload fraction which determines the available fuel-to-gross-weight ratio and
range capability.
77* concept has a cruise speed goal about 10% higher than the parametrics suggest for maximum
range.
6-8
CONCEPT GOAL
As discussed earlier, a significant mismatch between 0.6 |— (PL/GW = 0.3)i -|
the number of engines required for takeoff and 0.5 PL/GW
w EMPTY 0.3
cruise occurs for these vehicles. Figure 6.1.2.1-5 GW 0.4
illustrates this mismatch. For example, a vehicle
with a design payload fraction of .30 requires 20
4 8
engines of the P&W 4084 size for takeoff and only GW-106LBS
10 for cruising at the specified design conditions.
Figure 6.1.2.1-3
At cruise, the remaining engines operate with
feathered fan blades.
6.2 Operational Issues

PL/GW
0.6
The operation and resulting performance of
0.5
wingships not only depends on technical issues CRUISE .CONCEPT GOAL_
MACH 0.4
related to the design and engineering of the NO. (PL/GW = 0.3)
0.3
wingships, but also on how the wingship is
0.2
interrelated with its infrastructure, traffic I 4 8 12
GW~106LBS
management, weather conditions, and reliability,
maintainability and availability. The operational Figure 6.1.2.1-4
issues and their input on wingship performance
are important considerations discussed below.
6.2.1 Infrastructure
PL/GW
Introduction of wingships to military or commercial 20
operations may require that significant infrastructure 0.1
be in place. Some will require only modification of NO. OF ,„

ENGINES 10
existing facilities and procedures, while others may
be quite complex and expensive. The necessary
0 4 8 12
infrastructure can be described in three broad
GW-106LBS
categories of Basing, Operating, and Maintenance.
Figure 6.1.2.1-5
6-9
-. . r. . System Evaluation
Wingship Investigation Final Report .
The basing is essentially the same as that currently in place; modification or extension of such
things as crew support facilities, training courses and facilities, supply warehousing, and
intermediate maintenance facilities must be accomplished. Berthing and moonng arrangements
may require significant construction projects. Design and construction of pier,; with movable
fingers, or causeways, may be needed to allow access to wingship doors and hatches.
Additional infrastructure required by operational considerations may be extensive, depending on

ITmSon(s) the wingsWp performs. Fueling while away from home port, necessary for all
missions. To take advantage of the wingship's speed, it will be necessary to have fueling
capability in place for any route the particular mission may follow. Surface ships could stauon
themselves along the way, but the time required for them to take station may slow the mission,
even if they speed to their stations during the few days a« the start of the campaign while cargoes
are'aging and loading on the wingship, Land base fueling is possible but requires hos.-nation-
agreement and would probably not be on a direct route, thus slowing the mission.
The ability of wingships to land and loiter on the surface lends much flexibility to their concept of
operations. It may complicate.he performance of pre-fligh. checks necessary pnor to takeoff from
an^HrmJhome base though. Inspection of external appendages and operating devices
will be difficult; it will be dangerous in rough weather.
Perhaps die most complex infrastructure additions are those required for the transport mission
SpecW cargo handing equipment and procedures will be needed in the ports of embarkation and a
flTpotto?discharge in both well developed and undeveloped areas. Ramps, causeways, cranes
to deploy them, and other devices to allow transition from wingship to shore will be necessary.
Maintenance requirements will dictate that large investment be made in wingship-related

infrastructure. Drydocking will be required for vehicles the size of the large <^ °»°°P;
The wingspans being discussed will make it necessary to acquire floaüng drydocfa with no, or
very low, wing-walls. Existing waterborne hull-cleaning techniques will be useful, but since
winUps will probably not have anti-fou.ing marine hull coating, (due to the hrgh weigh of such
coating) cleaning will be required much more often. Engine maintenance, change-out, and repan
will be a demanding issue, more so than for conventional aircraft since the wingship will be
spares and change-out equipment and a large uncommitleo weigh, penalty, or the existence of other
wingships serving as "Tenders," deploying with the lift mission.
6-10
Wingship Investigation Final Report . System Evaluation
The subject of infrastructure must be covered in much more depth than this early phase has
allowed. If the concept ^developed further, the technical design, concept of operations, and
required infrastructure must be defined in an integrated balanced fashion.
6.2.2 Traffic Management
If wingships are to serve in the strategic surge sealift mode, they will have to operate in crowded,
and in some cases restricted, traffic areas. While the ports of debarkation, or destination, cannot
be precisely known, the ports of embarkation are known. More detailed investigations than this
study has included are needed, but it is known that very large wingships will present traffic
management problems while entering and leaving port, and perhaps in the takeoff and landing
areas. Some ports used for military cargos may not be accessible by the very large wingship
concepts being discussed, others will require that the channel, or river leading to the port be closed
to all traffic other than the wingship while it transits from/to landing area.
Clearing and keeping the takeoff landing areas clear will be mandatory. Selection of the takeoff
landing sites may require a detailed trade-off analysis of issues such as taxi distance to or from
port, traffic density in the area, size of the takeoff/landing area, prevailing wind, tide, and current,
and effort required to keep the area clear. It must also be determined what effect the presence of
wingships has on other vital traffic in the area.
6.2.3 Rogue Wave Detection And Avoidance
One of the most serious threats to wingship operation in open ocean areas of the world are the so-
called rogue waves. Such waves are not the norm, but they have to be considered as a definite
threat to any vehicle operating close to the ocean surface. The most likely locations for the
formation of rogue waves during storms, based on observations, are the North Atlantic, the
Norwegian Sea, the Gulf of Alaska and the Weddell Sea (Antarctica).
Rogue waves can build up within 12 to 24 hours to wave heights from about three times the
normal significant wave height of a certain sea state in a storm up to a wave height of 100 feet, and
200 feet in extreme cases. Such waves are a combination of large swells and large waves of the
6-11
System Evaluation
Wmeship Investigation Final Report . . .
same storm system or two different storm system, The energy spectrum, cf these extreme* large
" simpjy the snm of the spec« of the swells and the supenmposed waves.
• • ,>«l™«wercmadewithregardtotheearlydetectionofroguewavesand
Some prelimmary mvesttgauons w«jr*de wth r g ^ fey
Us „e^Zic antenna height above sea level and estimated wingsmp/wave closmg speeds, ,.
„s.lUss.ng.y—^
trsssss; "ly'rLuispossih, «-
r^^w^.oc^dmea.dmsêlnordertoavoldrogoewaveco.hs.on,
6.2.4 Reliability, Maintainability And Availability
and also in Appendix L.
1 Fuel flexibility - to help achieve high availability via good integration with naval vessels in
1. Fuel flexibility * reCommended that operational wingships be capable of
a task force as well as port facilities, it is recomme »~ ^
6-12
Wingship Investigation Final Report . System Evaluation
even though they too were using JP for their development ekranoplans. The recommendation is
that we plan today on using JP for vehicle development but also plan on the modest development
needed to convert them all over to DFM for operational use, with JP as an alternative fuel, not the
primary.
2. Engine water washing - Flight operations 20 feet off the waves will experience about 3
times the sea salt in air concentration that carrier deck operations at 60 feet or so will produce.
Consequently, there will be a rapid loss of both stall margin and EGT margin from ingested sea
salt. Relatively frequent engine (mostly core) water washing to remove these salt deposits will be
mandatory. The present Russian ekranoplan gas turbine engine water wash interval is after every
flight. ASW helos wash after each flight. Present US fleet and commercial water washing are
tedious and would be totally unsatisfactory for wingships. Using current practices, a wingship
would spend as much time washing engines as it would flying. The resultant loss in availability
would be at least 50%. Study of this problem in the US before the 9/93 Russian visit suggested
that very little had to be "invented" to solve this problem. The practices that would need to be used
to effect a wash of all engines in under one hour (while loading or unloading so the down time
would count against that and not "Maintenance") are as follows:
a. Engines and airframe equipment (sensors and cabin bleeds) must not require pre-wash
disconnects and post-wash connects or the closure of bleed systems from outside the aircraft.
b. Instead of using a starter air cart hooked up to each engine starter, one at a time, use
airframe mounted APUs and a single manifold of pressurized air to each starter to permit all to be
motored over during a wash at the same time (as the Russians do now). Keep engine cross bleeds
closed, as is done today.
c. Reduce starter supply air pressure and motor the engines over continuously at 18% or so
RPM, not the usual 30-33% which quickly overheats starters and forces 5-30 minute delays
waiting for them to cool. The Russians do this now.
d. Use water wash probes built into the core and fan in lieu of external wash systems or major
disconnects to anti-ice systems to inject wash water. The Russians said this was being designed
for the LUN as we were speaking about it.
6-13
Cygtem Evaluation
Wingship Investigation Final Report . Z
e Build the system for use by two crew members - one on the wingship controlling the whole
operation from a single panel and one on the dock to hook up the water or water/alcohol mix in
winter.
f Use an on-board engine diagnostic system to determine when a wash is needed in terms o
EGT fuel flow, or speed match changes as the Russians plan to do. The Russian operational goal
(vet to be tried or achieved) is one wash every 100-200 hours, depending upon Ingestion seventy.
US utility gas turbines use such systems today to define the interval from dirt/salt/smog and
moisture ingestion.
g Be prepared for large quantities of fresh potable water when washing -possibly on the
order of 65 gallons for the core in a 100K thrust class engine when one wash and one nnse ,s
needed. Assume half when jus. rinsing. Wash with wash solvent only every 60 hours or so but
rinse daily if needed. The fan might take up to 240 gallons of water for a wash and nnse, half that
for jus. a rinse. These are not firm requirements and need to be developed by eng» standard
urinal testing. The Russians felt that in a real emergency a, sea, even sea water could be used.
3 Engine effects on vehicle availability - the Russians currently remove and replace all
engines every 500 vehicle hours, which on an 8 engined LUN equates to2 ERs/1000 engme
hours, (ôperationsare only about 100 hours/year which;are typical of a ***"%££
but low for an operational one.) In 1991 the USN aircraft values ranged from 0.2 to 2.6 with the
fleet average being 1.2 ERs/1000 engine hours. This places the Russian values midway between
our average and our worst. The most significant fact of their statistics is that eventually they
change engines as a group, and do no. try to keep them on the wing. This is likely to help then
P-rSontd8 personnefsabstantially in keeping availability up. We should plar, on domg.he same
thTng and altering AIR 04 policies of doing only on-condition mamtenance as the a.rhnes do. Thts
also takes the recognition that the support chain for a wingship would see no, jus, penodtc engme
repair costs every year as a "baseload" of maintenance and parts replemshmen. needs but also a
■■peak» as well in tine year of a major change of all engines. Our scheme of supportab.hty for
wingships may therefore have to be more in line with ships and not atreraft.
NAVAIR's engine reliability values for the entire flee, by aircrait type and engine model for 1991
were examined. This was done to determine any adverse impact on availab,h«y,A(o), to be
expected by nsing a large number of engines - say 10 to 20. The Russians satd 8 was enough and
6-14
10 was about as much as they would ever wish to deal with. The USN statistics suggested the
following:
• 20 engines vs 8 need only cost about 5% in A(o)

• immaturity in engine development would cost about 7% in A(o)
• poor integration into the logistic chain would cost 18% A(o)
• virtually no logistic support would cost 40% in lost A(o)
Properly treated, wingship availability as far as engines was concerned might be as high as 80%.
The prime contributor to lost availability was down time waiting for parts, which is likely tied
directly to mission need.
6-15
Wingship Investigation Final Report Mission Analysis
7. Mission Analysis
In addition to the evaluation of wingship technical feasibility, a Wingship Mission Analysis Team
(WMAT) was formed to identify and evaluate potential military and commercial applications. The
WMAT is made up of government and industry analysts and engineers with broad experience in
aircraft design, ship design, construction, and operations. Team members also have analytical
backgrounds in military transportation and combat operations, as well as knowledge of commercial
considerations. This section describes the efforts of the Wingship Mission Analysis Team.
7.1 Mission Analysis Objectives
The primary objective of the Mission Analysis was to assess the utility of wingships in military
missions which might require or benefit from their use. It was first necessary to identify and
catalogue the most promising potential wingship military missions.
A secondary objective was to provide an initial economic analysis of wingships, and to roughly
compare the cost effectiveness of wingships to alternative platforms performing the same missions.
A third objective was to provide an exploratory survey of potentially promising commercial

applications for wingships. This objective was established with the assumption that wingships
may prove commercially viable, and that development of such vehicles will only proceed if there is
justification from both military and commercial perspectives.
7.2 Mission Analysis Team Membership, Interfaces And Support
This mission analysis section of the Wingship Investigation Final Report is a compilation of several
independent projects undertaken by the members of the WMAT. Reports of each project are
included as appendices.
'• .«.'■ •"•< ■• —
The WMAT was formed from government and private industry. The team was headed by
Carderock Division/Naval' Surface Warfare Center (CD/NSWC) and included representatives from
the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster (NAWCADWAR); Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, White Oak Detachment (NSWCWO); Military Traffic
7-1
, _. , „ . Mission Analysis
Wingship Investigation Final Report _ .
Management Command, Transportation Engineering Agency (MTMCTEA); U.S. Air Force

Aeronautical Systems Center, Development Planning Directorate(ASC/XR); BDM Federal Inc.;
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company; and Decision Science^pplications Inc. (DSA).
Additional support was provided by Northrop Corporation, U.S. Central Command

(USCENTCOM), U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), U.S. Transportation
Command (USTRANSCOM), and the Naval Post-Graduate School Aeronautical and Astronautical
Department.
7.3 Approach
In order to assess the utility of wingships through operational modeling and cost analysis, it was
necessary to define the physical and operational characteristics for specific wingship concepts.
Three concepts were considered:
• An 800 ton "Russian style" wingship conceptual design provided by Northrop and
. reflecting existing Russian wingship geometry and philosophy. A two-view presentation is
shown in Figure 7.3-1.
330knotS
Speed:
Payload/Range (Payload Fraction): 160 tons/2900 nm (0.2)
•An Advanced 5000-ton Aerocon wingship utilizing advanced materials and structural
methods is shown in Figure 7.3-2.
400knOtS
Speed:
Payload/Range (Payload Fraction): 1725 tons/9000 nm (0.35)
• A 3000-ton Transitional wingship variant of the Northrop model developed by ASC to

represent a transitional vehicle intermediate between the smaller »Russian-style» wingship and the
Aerocon concept.
320 knots
Soeed"
Payload/Range (Payload Fraction): 600
600 tons/4
tons/4600 nm (0.2)
900 tons/2050 nm (0.3)
7-2
Mission Analysis
131ft
70«
Figure 7.3-1 800 ton "Russian style" Wingship
120
Figure 7.3-2 5000 ton AEROCON Wingship
7-3
.*- •«
„, i m _* Mission Analysis
Wingship Investigation Final Report _ . —
These conceptual designs were not subjected to rigorous feasibility analyses and their operational
characteristics may be somewhat optimistic. The 800 ton wingship design was based on existing
technology and the given performance characteristics are probably reasonable.
As preliminary mission analysis was being completed, Aerocon, Inc., provided a description of the
DASH 1 6 cargo variant Wingship. WTET members audited the performance predictions of this
vehicle and calculated its range to be 3,500 miles rather than 9,000 miles as shown on page 7-2.
The performance and life cycle cost of this »audited concept" were estimated as an excursion to the
primary analysis and are discussed later in this report.
The WMAT catalogued a range of theoretically possible military applications for wingships,
including both lift and combat roles. The team then investigated the utility of the appropriate
wingship concepts in the military missions using combat modeling simulations, defense
transportation analysis, and military mission analysis. The WMAT also conducted exploratory
surveys of commercial applications for wingships through "brain-storming sessions.
Several assumptions were made to simplify the analysis:
. Transport design loads permitted for wingships, while current assets restricted to allowable
cabin loads.
. Utilization rate of 24 hours for wingships, 12 hours for current air assets.
. Perfect reliability and maintainability for wingships.
. All required infrastructure and operational procedures for Wingship in place and effective
without additional cost.
If the wingship concept is no. clearly superior, given its preferenüal treatment, then it should no. be
considered seriously as an alternative to conventional concepts.
The WMAT performed an initial estimate of the costs required to develop, procure, and operate the
3 000-ton and 5,000-ton wingships using several different aircraft costing models^ Appnpntt
meines of effectiveness were developed and the wingships were compared to °™pon
platforms. All cost estimates and comparisons were based on ysiy limited wmgshtp des.gn data,
technical characteristics, operational performance, and concepts of operation.
7-4
Win^hip Investition Final Report . Mission Analysis
7.4 Military Applications Examined
The military applications examined fell into two traditional categories: transportation and combat.
Russian developmental work on wingships did not have long-range transportation as one of its
objectives, but recently they have been advocated for such roles. Much of the WMATs efforts
were expended analyzing wingships in potential military transportation missions. The missions
were classified into three types: strategic heavy lift, rapid insertion lift, and amphibious assault.
7.4.1 Military Transportation Applications

In a strategic heavy lift mission, a fleet of wingships would be used to transport combat and
support units into a theater as required by contingency plans, essentially replacing/augmenting
current strategic lift aircraft, such as C-5s, and maritime shipping, such as large, medium speed
Roll-on/Roll-off (ROROs) ships (LMSRs). To assess this mission, the WMAT conducted a
deployability analysis comparing the force closure times necessary to move various Army units into
a scenario. Transportation assets for this analysis included both wingships and projected
conventional assets for the year 2005. The analysis included an initial operational and cost
comparison of wingships to conventional transportation assets performing the same lift missions.
The WMAT assessed the utility of wingships in transporting the following forces to Southwest
Asia or North East Asia scenarios with the exception of the separate mechanized brigade which was
transported to the Caribbean:
MRC-East Strategic Mobility Requirements

Notional Corps (three Divisions, one Armored Cavalry Regiment, & Corps Support)
Two Heavy Mechanized Infantry Divisions
One Heavy Mechanized Infantry and one Airborne Division
One Airborne Division
Separate Mechanized Brigade
One Armored Cavalry Regiment
One Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB)
10k Early Entry Force
Patriot air defense brigade
Critical Units (Patriot, THAAD, USMC Point Defense, and MLRS/ATACMS batteries)
2k Early Entry Force
7-5
. . ^. i !>._»..* Mission Analysis
Winftship Investigation Final Report _ —
In a rapid insertion lift mission, wingships would be used to rapidly insert ground forces and/or
supporting smart, force-multiplier weapon systems, such as MLRS/ATACMS, Patriot, and
THAAD into a conflict much earlier than possible with conventional lift. The WMAT conducted
analysis of the operational military benefits that could be gained by the early entry of such forces
into a conflict.
Wtoaships could be used to conduct amphibious operations by transporting Marine expeditionary

forces (MEF, MEB. MEU) either direcdy to a landing zone, or to conventional amphibious assault
ships already deployed in the area. A detailed analysis of this mission has not been performed.
7.4.2 Combat Applications

A smaller wingship (800 tons) fitted with appropriate sensors and weapon systems could feasibly
SI a variety of combat missions. The WMAT conducted initial assessments of the operational
advantages and disadvantages of combat-configured wingships in various scenarios and concepts
of operation, to most combat cases, the wingships would perform the same mission as an existing
conventional platform, but with considerably greater platform speed. Analyses of wingships ,n
these roles required a large number of assumptions about the platforms' technical capabiht.es and
performance characteristics.
o ., n A A«OP1T rwrfltinns- Wingships could be fitted with land attack cruise missiles
ffiÄSÄsÄS^) .0 Perform strike and land attack (e.g. anti-armor,
operations.
Theater Air and Ballistic Missile Defense: Wingships could be fitted with radar and
™s£Syttems"o provide theater air and missile defense for ground forces and installations
ashore, and/or naval surface groups afloat.
MinP Warfare- Wingships could be used to rapidly transport airborne MCM equipment to a
KSE£ ^rveSborne MCM/minelaying platforms for use in open water areas and in
advance of an amphibious operation.
Special Operations Warfare: Wingships could be used to rapidly insert and reprieve special
operations forces (SOF).
Anti-Submarine Warfare: Wingships could be fitted witli^propriate anti-submarine
warfare (ASW) sensors and weapons to perform airborne ASW missions.
7-6
7.5 Wingship Lift Findings And Indications
7.5.1 Force Closure And Rapid Insertion
Compared to assets projected to tfe' in the inventory in 2005, large transport Wingships do not
appreciably improve the closure of, heavy Army forces to distant scenarios. Figure 7.5-1 presents
closure curves (calculated using MTMC's JFAST model) for the deployment of a notional corps to
SWA. The conventional airlift and sealift assets projected for 2005 close the corps in C+31 days.
A fleet of twenty-three 5,000-ton wingships, used in place of the RORO ships, closes the corps at
C+30. In general, the performance of moderately sized fleets of Wingships is only marginally
better than conventional transport assets for delivery of various sized forces. A larger fleet of 63
wingships would close the corps sooner, but would be prohibitively expensive to acquire, operate,
and maintain. Major improvements in force closure require unaffordably large fleets of wingships.
Figure 7.5-2 presents comparisons of closure times of various forces.
C + 12 C+30 C+31
■Si'"
Air and Ship

Assets (2005) L-
23 5000-Ton
Wingships
63 5000-Ton
Wingships
T"
35 40
Days
Figure 7.5-1
Force Closure, Notional Corps to SWA
7-7
Mission Analysis
4: Flnfll ReP rt
Winffship Invr-^" "" °
Time (Days) to Close

2005 Assets Aerocon Days
Force Number Wingship Saved
of Wlngships
Corps to SWA
2 Divs to NEA
Mech Brig to
Carribean
10KtoSWA
2K to SWA
♦ Airlift Only
Figure 7.5-2
Force Closure Comparisons
,m.H in the DoD Mobility Requirements Study's (MRS) Southwest Asia
In a confrontation as outhned ^^^J^ ^ wiU transport light units and pre-
(SWA) Major Regional Conüngency <MR^ «nven units in the first two weeks, but the first
positioned ships will move the equipment of some heavy■ unifi m
LpscarryingheavyA^ydivisi^^^^^^
when units receive orders to move from their OÛSl»
advance. Defending light U.S. forces wouia re * ^,:c;nn< <um>orted by aircraft and
faced with an organized advance of mulupie enemy Heavy<™^"g£* and ^
tactical missiles. If enemy forees suecessfu.iy <•£»££££ ^»ate

facUiüeswhiehtheU.S.planstouseforremforcement.thetnsemonoia q clba, power to
" enemy back would be dmsticaiiy more difficui, and dangerous..
wingships eould be used to rap.dly msert »me heavy S insertion of the
necessary for reinforcement.
7-8
7.5.1.1 Conventional Regional Deterrence
The ability to use fast, heavy lift wingship platforms to transport significant forces to any coast on
short notice could serve as a military deterrent to regional hostilities. A successful wingship could
be a unique vehicle for rapidly delivering large quantities of all types of current or future U.S.
mobile ground equipment. A potential aggressor, in all likelihood, will be deterred from using
force to achieve strategic goals, knowing that the U.S. can swiftly deploy major forces to stop
aggression. The benefit for savings in both lives and resources of such deterrence cannot be
quantified.
Any U.S. military unit that is trained, equipped, and ready to deploy from a wingship point of
departure is, in essence, "forward deployed." The ability to rapidly deploy forces could be
demonstrated in exercises and operations so that it would be known and appreciated worldwide.
The full potential of the wingshipls unknown; in the mind of a future enemy, it's capabilities are
even less understood. In a future contest with U.S. wingships involved, the outcome for an enemy
becomes very uncertain and unattractive. If the wingship concept could play a significant part in the
deterrence of just one shooting war, it's value would be large. A wingship program that proceeds
toward further study and formulation can be of value in deterrence even if it never goes to
production. An example of this isthe U.S. SDI program and it's effect on the Soviet military.
7.5.1.2 Lethal Systems - Air Defense, MLRS/ATACMS

In a simulation of a SWA scenario, wingships were shown to be of significant value in rapidly
inserting precision-guided, force-multiplier defensive and offensive systems into the early weeks of
the hostility. Modem air defense systems, including Patriot for theater defense against aircraft and
SRBMs, Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) systems for theater defense against
MRBMs, and LAV-AD for defense of expeditionary forces against helicopters, could be critical to
defending ground forces against attacking aircraft and tactical missiles. Initial assessments indicate
that just a few fast, heavy-lift wingships could rapidly deliver significant air defense assets to help a
light force defend itself against enemy aircraft and missiles. Such a defense could very well prove
critical to the success of the light forces pending the arrival of heavier divisions.
Modem deep strike weapon systems, including the Army Tactical Missiles (ATACMS) armed with
smart submunitions, can provide a significant leverage for ground forces. Preliminary analysis
shows that batteries of MLRS equipped with ATACMS missiles could be rapidly delivered by
7-9
Mission Analysis
Winfishtp Investigation Final Report .
_*TTC ^Äft.nriiticr forces These weapons would allow light U.S.
a rtl hk ui ,, ,,d b
ÄÄ^«'- » ' - ' * " '
significant difference in the course of the war.
CD
5
a.O
■s
E
o
ü
"O
c
a
T3
C
Day 2 Day 3
Day 1
US - Base Case
Enemy Force - Base Case
US - WIG Lift
Enemy Force - WIG Lift
Figure 7.5-3
Combat Power Comparison in SWA Scenario
Figure
Figure 77.55-33 presents
presents results
re from the simulation of a SWA scenario using BDM's METRIC ^
forces for & fease case
„ode.. The «r«££££ ££££ sed t0 inL „, „H, of MLRS/ATACMs

an excursion in which three 3000 ton wingsmp* <u ...VAnm vehicles) in the
(18 launchers), THAAD (9 launchers). Patriot (8 launchers), and LAV-AD (24 vehicles)
7-10
initial days of the battle (during this phase, overwhelming enemy forces are advancing on light
U.S. forces in defensive positions). Defending U.S. forces were able to use the additional air
defense and anti-armor weapon systems with great effectiveness, resulting in fewer friendly
casualties and significantly increased enemy attrition.
7.5.1.3 Prepositioned Assets in Nearly Simultaneous Contingencies
The ability to use fast, heavy-lift wingship platforms may provide a true capability to transport
prepositioned assets successfully in nearly simultaneous or sequential contingencies. Current and
programmed transportation assets cannot fully support the requirement to fight multiple regional
contingencies - this discrepancy could be eliminated with a fleet of fast, heavy-lift wingships. A
platform that could withdraw forces from one contingency and rapidly deploy them into another
would provide a new, unique U.S. strategic capability.
7.5.1.4 Value When NBC Weapons Used on Air / Sea Ports
The potential capability of wingships to off-load equipment and troops onto a beach may be utilized
to transport assets into or out of a theater when nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) weapons
have shut down the air and sea ports. NBC weapons are proliferating and the possibility that an
enemy may use them in future conflicts is high. Theoretically, an enemy could use NBC weapons
to destroy or contaminate critical transportation destination points, including airfields and sea ports,
thus severely degrading ovfr capability to lift military forces into the theater. An appropriately
designed wingship would not be constrained to off loading at established port facilities, and it could
successfully deliver large amounts of heavy equipment onto a suitably prepared beach. Movement
of forces out of the beachhead could, however, be a problem without a nearby transportation
infrastructure.
7.6 Wingship Combatant Findings / Indications
7.6.1 Naval Mine Warfare
Wingship platforms show significant promise in the area of airborne mine countermeasure
(AMCM) warfare. There is a requirement to deploy mine countermeasure (MCM) platforms and
systems overseas in sufficient quantities to clear all mines from an assigned area or to keep the
threat of mines to traffic as low as possible. A critical area of interest is in coastal shallow waters.
Currently, the air portion of the MCM mission involves the transport of an AMCM squadron to the
7-11
MU.tnn Analysis
win^Mp
wingsmp Inves"^'""
m"'»ii ™**l Re
P°rt —
• ~* (CM* C 5s and eight C-141s), followed by the employment of
cling, aad often «to. place a. significant distances ftotn the operattng area.
A —-d-edic^^^^^
7.6.2 NTACMS Variant vs. Massed Maneuver Forces
• * ♦wmninvment of the Naval Tactical Missile System (NTACMS), a
wingship could carry its ^ —

own unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) sensor for
targeting, and/or could
operate in an overall deep
strike architecture, utilizing
sensing and targeting data
from external sources as
illustrated in Figure 7.6-1.
The wingship could be
very effective at destroying
SffllTAC Ml
massed maneuver forces
within approximately 100
km of the coast. This
support may be necessary
to help early entry U.S.
forces fight superior
enemy forces and defend JSTARS
the port faculties that will
later be used for the off
load of reinforcements. Figure 7.6-1
Combat Wingships with NTACMS
7-12
Winfiship Investigation Final Report
7.6.3 Strike Warfare
Wingships show promise as strike platforms for launching land-attack cruise missiles including
Tomahawk TLAMs, SLAMs, and Tri-Service Stand-off Attack MissUes CTSSAMs) A smaller
wingship fitted with missile launch cells carrying land-attack missiles could be rapidly deployed to
™ e !*a deterrent to aggression, and to support early entry U.S. force, The wingships could be
used as the weapons-launch platforms in a future architecture for locating and destroying critical
mobile targets (e.g. ballistic missile launchers) as illustrated in Figure 7.6-2.
Wingships with
Stand-off, Land-
Attack Missiles
U.S. Forces
Defending Port
U.S. Forces
Defending Airfield
-~ Figure 7.6-2
Combaf -Wingship Targeting Criticaj Mobile Targets
with Land-Attack Missiles
Depending on the scenario, a strike warfare wingship would be conducting a mission that could be
filled by a number of other alternatives, including ships, submarines, earner-based naval aviation,
and sJtegic bombers. Rapidly depioyabie wingships will have to prove themselves preferable to
these other alternatives.
7-13
M;..8nn Analysis
764 Amphibious Assault
or simply lift troops from CONUS and *» «£ £ for noncommittal „f
765 Theater Air Defense Capability
anair .arch radar and fire «*«*£%£* I ascent phase. TW. radar wingship could
medium range bafflstic missiles < ^« V.6 surface-to-air «ta in a cooperanve
work with another wingship f«ed wft 1 unchee sW I ^ ^ drfense
angagement concapt, and/or could relay advanced^targeu g ^c^Hdr „»ssiles capable
^^ÄÄl^ Within1provemenBinra.:systemd=sIgn,1«
^^:C^radaraJ1dn,S,e,unchce,,sinonew1ngstap.
airdefense assets, to provide protects *"%*" * could te retai„ed to prov.de

Once traditiona! air defense assets are move»^ * J * ^ foms ^ 0ver-water
a forward layer of air defense. A ^^JÄ ^ft and missile threats
kill against nos>uic uusvu"

nuclear, ..._i—:-«.
biological, o«ri
auu rhemical
and chemical
^ warheads.
warheads,
7-14
Analysis
instigation Final Report
Radar Covwag*
Attack
Aircraft
Tactical
Ballistic
Missiles
THAAD
U.S. Force?
Defending Port
^,"A~>i»«i:..
0— W^HipsâÄaU, Mr Defense
Potential Commercial Applications
forms of „anspornen. Wingsh.ps must •*» *£^ ^ ^ by providing capability
to transport cargo usually earned by slups. at speeds g

■ „„< certainly in early attempts at gaining market niches, will
Commercial applications for wmgstups. cenamly n ear y J for „^ uft
missions. Such smaller vehicles w,ll probably be develope
7-15
Mission_AS2Ü2£
ingships include:
«»•-"■^SS^"""""
disasters anou..-"
. ._..«.■, is destroyed.
7 8 wta8Ship costs 0
- ^-—--srss --
Wingship incepts we ^ based a tog asgJffle that a lift
aSSUffi
tlToSrseofcurren.C-5s. Because of üte iimited
^ ^K^dependentoneooee^^^^îsstudy
Cosimodels.by ft*»tu«. ^ J assumptions made *e cost
Aeronautical Systems Cotnp
7-16
Planning Directorate. The cost estimates, in FY94 billions of dollars, can be summarized as
follows (based on producing 30 wingships at two per year, production beginning in 2007):
Development (over 10+ years) Tens of Billions of Dollars
Average Unit Acquisition Cost Billions of Dollars
Life cycle Ops & Support Costs Up to a Billion Dollars

(per vehicle).
If a measure of effectiveness (MOE) of Unit-Fly-Away Cost per ton of cargo capacity is used the
comparison of the Aerocon Wingship to C-5 Aircraft and Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off
(LMSR) ships is as follows.
Wingship $1.6 Million

C-5 $1.6 Million
LMSR $ 6.0 Thousand
7.9 Cost-Performance Of WTET Audited Wingship
As mentioned in Section 7.3, the Aerocon DASH 1.6 version was closely examined by WTET
members and assessed to have about half the range predicted by Aerocon. When this performance
was considered, it was calculated that the effectiveness of the Wingship in strategic lift to
Southwest Asia would decrease about ten percent and the lift cycle cost would increase about ten
percent. These changes are attributable to the additional time spent refueling and the cost of the
additional fuel used. These factors are scenario dependent, having less impact in a shorter range
lift.
Figure 7.9-1 shows the results of closure comparisons for conventional assets projected for the
year 2005, the Aerocon concept, and the WTET-audited Aerocon concept. Included in this table are
the approximate additional life cycle costs for the wingships. Referring back to Fig 7.5-1 and using
the "ball-park" cost estimated from Section 7.8, a fleet of 23 Aerocon Wingships would deliver a
notional corps to the Persian Gulf one day quicker than the projected assets of 2005 at a cost
increase of just over 100 Billion dollars. If the WTET performance estimates are correct, it will
take one day longer at a cost of about 115 billion. Delivery of one Airborne and one Mechanized
Division to the Korean Peninsula with the 5000 ton wingship will reduce the closure time by
approximately one week as compared to the 2005 assets, but at a cost of about 70 to 75 billion
dollars.
7-17
Mission Analysis
Winpship In^Hfritlon Final Report
Days Saved Approx Add'l Cost"

Time (Days) to Close
Number Aerocon Audit Aerocon Audit
2005 Aerocon Audit
Force ofWIngships Wingship Wingship
Assets Wmgship
1 -1 105 115
23 31 30 32 230
Corps to SWA 19 18 210
63 12 13
7 70 75
20 8
13 27 19 18 150 160
2 Divs to NEA 9 19
41 8
1 1 30 31
9* 8 8
Mech Brig to 2 7 7 60 62
2 2
Carribean 8
2 1 50 55
16* 14 15 88
10K to SWA 6 12 11 80
4 5
16
0 -1 40 45
6* 6 7 55
2K to SWA 4 2 1 50
6 4 5
• Airlift Only
•♦ Assumes Retention of Conventional Assets
Figure 7.9-1 , _ A
Force Closure Comparisons with Total Life-Cycle Costs
7 10 Preferred Missions
A me conclusion of fe Mission Anaiysis described in «his repot, d» ^p«*««d. MiK-
SS£J^ «■* *« P— f ' ™

(time eff nCy Perf
cost). The following applications are those which ranked high.
• Strike missile combatant

• SPECOPS-MkVSOC
• Mine Warfare
• Deep submergence recovery
• Urgent reconstitution of maritime forces
• Disaster response
• High speed auto ferry
7-18
7.11 Conclusions
The Mission Analysis conducted by the WMAT tentatively concludes that the wingship concept is
of potential high value in several military applications. The missions for which the concept seems
well suited are fairly narrow in scope and the vehicles must be used as part of an overall
architecture, rather than in a stand-alone role. Nevertheless, the possibility of performing rapid
insertion of critical equipment, mine clearing and laying, and special forces insertion in ways that
are not currently possible, stirs interest in the concept.
While wingship concepts promise high value, they also carry a high price. Cost estimates included
in the part of this mission analysis are based on rather sketchy data, but the consensus is that costs
are reasonably defined and probably in the low end of the expected range of variation. Based on
these estimates, the cost-effectiveness of wingships is predicted to be comparable to that of strategic
lift aircraft, although much higher in cost per ton delivered than sealift ships.
The ambitious performance characteristic goals of the very large scale Aerocon wingship concept
give it impressive predicted effectiveness. There is, however, little technical detail to build
confidence that those performance characteristics are achievable. WTET estimates of likely
performance of the Aerocon concept yield effectiveness reduced by ten percent and life cycle cost
increased by ten percent. The concept of a very large wingship transport is too expensive for the
improvement in closure times that it might achieve.
There are, as mentioned above, roles which promise value and require sizes in a range of less than
one thousand tons, gross takeoff weight (GTOW). State-of-the-art aircraft designs exist in the five-
hundred ton GTOW regime and Russian wingship experience reaches a similar level. A long-term
approach that closely examines the possibilities of applications, military, civil or commercial, in that
size range, aimed at scaling up, by a factor of two, to a military vehicle of nearly one thousand tons
GTOW, will allow careful consideration of the technical and cost risks at each decision point. The
challenges, anticipated and unanticipated, will be more manageable in this way. If vehicles less
than 1,000 tons GTOW are successful, they will serve as the technology demonstration and
development stepping-stones to the very large scale, military lift concepts. The WMAT has
concluded that there are several useful applications which require payload, weight, and size
configurations in the 400 to 800 ton range. It is possible that all of these useful applications could
be performed by wingship variants of a single basic design. Any continuing Mission Analysis
effort should investigate this possibility with this stepping-stone sequence in mind.
7-19
Wingship Investigation Final Report Significant Technical Findings
8. Significant Technical Findings

There has been significant engineering, analysis, experimentation and design effort on WIG
vehicles during the past 60 years. Investigators from many countries have contributed. The
Russians, by far, have had the biggest programs and have designed, built and tested the largest
vehicles. The current Russian program has been underway for about 30 years.
There have been no actual operational deployments of WIG vehicles.
The large Russian wingships are a significant technical achievement. They have lifted the largest
weight ever (about 1.2 million pounds) from water.
The Russian programs focused on-entirely different applications than current U.S. interest. They
concentrated on tactical military short range missions--not on the strategic supply mission. They
are rugged, heavy, military vehicles built by the shipbuilding community. The design legacy is
from surface vehicles-not aircraft.
Several intrinsic deficiencies limit achievable wingship performance. The takeoff thrust
requirements result in large engine weight and drag which penalizes the cruise portion of the
mission and increases life cycle cost. The water impact loads even in relatively smooth water
contribute to large structural weight fractions. The significant aerodynamic drag of required
hydrodynamic features (steps, spray strips, etc.) and the required large horizontal stabilizer detract
from the improved efficiency in ground effect.
Russian wingships are technologically primitive by western standards. Even with blowing under-
the-wing for takeoff, the thrust required for takeoff is three to five times that required for cruise.
Existing design are very inefficient during low-speed maneuvering. In cruising flight, they turn by
banking as a conventional aircraft does. They use aviation engines with modifications to adapt
them to the marine environment. All Russian craft have been experimental flight test articles or
concept demonstrators.
Existing prediction methods are inadequate to address performance of under-the-wing blowing.

Russian designers believe the scaled up design beyond a factor of three (about 2.5 million pounds
based on their heaviest current design) would be vejy risky. The Russians see limited utility
beyond this size.
Several available western technologies could improve the overall performance of wingships.
Remote sensing and advanced navigation systems could help avoid obstacles and rough water and
8-1
, _. . -.Mr» Significant T^hnical Findings
Wineship Investigation ^"«1 Report . fi
optimize routing. "Intelligent" controls and digital systems may facilitate improved takeoff and
landing performance. Advanced structural materials and concepts may improve the currently
l«ive structural weight fraction, Thrust augmentation of high-bypass-raUo engmes may
help mitigate the takeoff power problem.
8-2
Wingship Investigation Final Report Conclusions
9. Conclusions
Several military missions which emphasize the speed and persistence possible in wingships have
been identified and appear promising. However, the completed phase of the missions analysis
study has not fully evaluated the alternate applications for existing or projected (within 20 years)
capabilities of wingships. Specifically, preliminary analyses have not shown a strategic heavy lift
mission to be promising.1
The Russian programs have not resolved many issues that are fundamental to developing wingship
with attractive range-payload performance. These issues remain either because they are too difficult
or because the Russian program did not strive for competitive range-payload performance. They
have demonstrated significant performance (in raw weight lifting) but they have not built many
(more than 5) of any design. There is no evidence of operational capability.
Modem technologies have not been fully adapted to the wingship application. Some could improve
performance. For example: (1) composite structures may reduce structural weight fraction; (2)
digital flight controls may improve safety and permit greater design freedom; (3) advanced
propulsion technology may improve efficiency and other performance measures. These
technologies also improve the performance of conventional aircraft and ships.
Wingships approaching th& efficiency and capacity required for strategic mobility are ten times
larger (in gross weight) than any similar craft. Such wingships are about 5-times larger (in weight)
than the experienced Russian or American design teams would pursue at this time. Adequate
propulsion concepts for these very large wingships do not presently exist, and there are no current
plans to develop wingship-specific propulsion concepts.
1 There is considerable divergence of opinion on the potential utility of the 5000-ton class wingship for
strategic mobility. Uncertainties contributing to these divergent opinions are: (1) affordability; (2) infrastructure
impact; and (3) relative competitive advantage over alternatives. A minority report on the utility of the 5000-ton
class Wingship is included in Appendix M. There is also considerable divergence of opinion on the commercial
potential of wingships of all sizes. Uncertainties contributing to these divergent opinions are: (1) affordability; and
(2) whether it is more practical to designjbr broad market applications (the aircraft approach) or the design for
specific routes (the ferryboat approach)."'
9-1
Wingship Investigation Final Report Taxonomies of Demonstrators
10. Taxonomies Of Technology And Concept Demonstrators
In facing the complexities associated with technology, the technology base and the status of the
"wingship," it may be useful for the purpose of discussion to over simplify the relation between
two classes of "demonstrators." One of these is a so-called 'Technology Demonstrator" and the
other is a so-called "Concept Demonstrator." The former answers a simple question namely, "Will
the idea work?," or "Is the idea feasible?," while the latter is directly related to the first step of
development of a new product. Understanding the basis for a "Technology Demonstrator" requires
some discussion of our "technology base." Again over simplification helps the explanation of what
is really not an orderly process. The "technology base" is really a collection of information. The
collection is very broad indeed, encompassing the entire universe of technical knowledge. In given
circumstances the breadth is much less imposing, but is never the less very broad.
The origin of this information is equally catholic. One normally thinks of this information as
flowing either directly from scientific knowledge, or from knowledge that is the out-put of applied
science (i.e. the application of scientific principles and knowledge to new situations). Actually the
sources are much more diverse and include information from the field on current products, both in-
house and from the competing products; from design studies of potential products; from
construction of analogies and from inventors. This is shown in Figure 10-1. Of course there is a
continual feedback process. Thus some applied science is stimulated on results generated in the
technology base as is some science.
DOES IT WORK?
Vr
YES
KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TECHNOLOGY
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION
SCIENCE
L*- NO
Figure 10-1
A Simplified Taxonomy of "Technology Demonstrators"
The central point is that whether or not a "Technology Demonstrator" is constructed to answer the
question is "Will the idea work?". The "Technology Demonstrator" demonstrates a proof of
principle. It is not usually central to product development, even through the people constructing the
"Technology Demonstrator" may well have a product in mind and in practice often do. In the DoD
budget line, a "Technology Demonstrator" belongs in the 6.2 budget line. There is no program
associated directly with the demonstration, although if the "Technology Demonstrator" answers the
"Will it work?" question as yes, some further steps may happen. To follow this further we need to
show the corresponding flow of information related to product development (Figure 10-1).
10-1
. , r» „l ».„„..♦ TrnfA"""8" nt
npmonstrators
Wingship Investigation Final Report _ i»i ■
This report shows that the Russians have completed a technology demonstration on a 540 ton
machine, the so-called "Caspian Sea Monster" (CSM). The report shows that the phenomena
encountered by a trans-oceanic transportation system, of which the "wingship" is an essential
feature, favor a very large sized machine.
The report also shows that there are essential teehnology elememyhat hive yet to be demonstrated
on any scale larger than the CSM sueh that a scale-up of a factor of 10 in we.ght (2.15 m lengtit) ts
a very high risk, (and that the costs associated with the scale-up will also be of the order o brihons
of collars). In short, a technology base is no. ye. available to snpport a »Concept Demonstrator of
a size needed.
The basis for this conclusion is illustrated by the following line of reasoning. Preliminary design
studies suggest that the sum of fuel weight plus the payload weight for a compete ^
be around 65% of the maximum design gross weight. For current aircraft design (i.e. 747 which
weighs about 800,000 pounds) this ratio is about 50%.
WILL SYSTEM WORK? ^ ^ PROCEED TO SYSTEM

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT
DEFINITION DEMONSTRATION
NO
REQUIREMENTS
— THREAT
- MISSION ANALYSIS
TECHNOLOGY NOTE' FOLLOWING GEN KENT
INVENTION ■ XEî-.?^ 0
^?^ N0T
REQUIREMENT DRIVEN
OTHER
Figure 10-2
Product Taxonomy
Advances in material suggest that if the 747 were to be designed now, the ratio would be about
50% However, the difference between an 800.000 pound machine and a 10,000,000 pound
machine are such that it is not clear the technology base exists to support the design of a wing-
carry-through-structure of modem light weight materials. Hence it is appropriate to consider a
sequence of "Technology Demonstrators" whose purpose is to show, for,example, suitable full
sized wing-carry-through-structures can be built for machines of 1.5 million, 3 million, 6 million
and 9 million pounds to provide a technology base to ensure a light weight structure can be built for
a 10 million pound "wingship". Naturally it would be necessary to build a "Concept Demonstrator
to verify the actual design for a real vehicle of that size.
10-2
Wineship Investigation Final Report Taxonomies of Demonstrators
This report also shows that the Russians have made the attempts at concept demonstrators (the
ORLYONOK and the LUN) and neither of these concepts became operational. The reason for
these craft not becoming operational may be either as a result of concept deficiencies or the general
conditions in the FSU. To determine whether or not the wingships of currently practical sizes can
be of significant value to the DoD requires completing the study of missions and applications.
10-3
Recommendations
Wingship Investigation Final Report _ _
11. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the content of and conclusions reached in this report, the ARPA Program Manager makes
the following recommendations:
1 Recommend completing the mission and utility analyses. This effort should be
further broadened to include missions other than long range heavy lift. It should consider the
possibility of dual-use (military and commercial) technology and craft designs. The analysis must
involve potential user communities and assess cost effectiveness. The design and technical
feasibility of the wingship is strongly dependent on the types of missions it is required to perform.
The Wingship Mission Analysis Team has looked at a wide variety of missions that could be
performed by wingships. A number of promising military and commercial missions have resulted
from this effort.
2. Recommend a preliminary design study to determine the physical characteristics of the

wingship and related potential vehicle configurations which could perform these missions.
Vehicles which are true hybrid craft - having a sea sitting capability approaching that of Russian-
style wingships, but with an altitude capability more characteristic of seaplanes - should receive
consideration. More detailed cost and effectiveness analyses of these configurations would (1)
reduce the uncertainty inherent in the current assessment, (2) provide a more accurate
characterization of the wingship's potential as an operational vehicle, and (3) provide guidance for
planning relevant technology development.
3. Recommend that a technology development program focused on key technical issues

associated with a selected wingship concept be implemented. This effort should be sponsored by
an eventual wingship user. Major deficiency areas such as wingship specific propulsron and
structures must be given the highest priority. Consideration should be given to involvmg Russian
expertise in relevant areas such as advanced design and hydrodynam.es. Resolution of these and
other issues, and the attainment of solutions to know» technical problems are viewed as prereqmsxe
to further design and development activities associated with larger wingshtps. The technology
roadmap developed by tire technical evaluation team should be used for guidance m tins effort.
4. Recommend oomp.et.ng ongoing studies to address the very most important wingship-
specific propulsion problems such as the large power required for takeoff.
11-1

Ada 294979

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ada 294979

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ada 294979

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wingship

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AN6 Abbük^ks) a PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Final Accesion For

Volume 3 - Technology Roadmap

Hgurez.^-i Usefui Load Fraction of Aircraft ••• — •" 3-1

Figure 5.4.^ / Albatross Type Seaplane .:v 5-28

Sfurasllt H££ Tolerance -Motion Sickness

ggSvif1"5 ^SÄs^nstyie^wÄ =:==. U

Figure 101 AslmpSTaxonomyof'TechnologyDemonstrators »;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 10.2

Stephan Hooker wrote a minority report on the performance characteristics of a large-scale

2.1 Background And Purpose Of The Evaluation

2. Plan experiments and studies to verify and/or validate these assessments.

"^^Z^^^ for technical evaluation, utility analysis, and evaluation of

Figure 2.1-1 Congressional Direction

2.2 Wingship Definition

2.3 Overview Of Transportation Systems

400 Ton Wingship

5000 Ton Wingship

Figure 2.2-1 Two Wingships, One WIG, and . Wingship C.neept

as a fracdon of grcss «£^P-Z« alaoie and p^sion ,ecnno,og,

AERODYNAMIC CONFIGURATION TYPES:

V. L/D - 21000 (NASA ESTIMATE)'. '^]''.\

2.4 Wingship Promise

Figure 2.4-2. Useful Load Fraction of Aircraft

2.5 Wingship Limitations And Risks

This ARPA report will strive to:

, Provide an objective assessment of the feasibility, performance potential and limitations of

3 Provide a preliminar, «commendation for future development activities (roadmap) based on

2.7 What The Report Contains

3. Methodology and Procedures

Technical Evaluation Team

WIG Expert Bob Wilson. DTRC

Figure 3-la. Wingship Technical Evaluation Team (WTET)

Strategie Lift Analysis, Co« and Effectiveness

Lockheed, Aeronantieil Syitenu Strategic Lift Analysis,

' Figure 3-lb. Mission Analysis Team TasK Assigning

Capt(C^A»dr«U*vinenko ^ l^^ng In«. MoD

Central Hydrofoil (Alexeev) Derign Bureau

Krylov Shipbunding Besearch Insnmte

Figure 3-2 Russian Participants

Plan Data Gathering and Russian Program

Figure 3-3. Wingship Study Work Breakdown

Recommendations to Secretary of Defense A 4

Figure 3-4. Schedule

The specific tasks for the Technology/Design Assessment Team were:

2. Synthesize results to surface strengths and limitations.

3 Prepare plan for assessment of Russian activities/progress in wingship development.

7. Support integration of results with mission analysis to generate recommendations.

The specific tasks for the Mission Analysis Team were:

1. Provide initial operational analyses of several viable candidate wingship concepts to

2. Identify system requirements necessary to assure wingship concepts are competitive

3. Identify limitations/shortcomings arising from these analyses.

5. Support integration of results with the technology assessment leading to

4. Ground Rules And Assumptions

4.1 General Classification

4.1.1 Focus On Non-Amphibious

4.1.2 Consider Only Aircraft-Configured Craft