First off here is a page explaining what these things are: http://www.se-technology.com/wig/index.php

Basically they are a plane that flies low to the ground to get improved aerodynamic properties. They are similar to a hovercraft except they generate their air cushion by their forward movement rather than dragging it with them.

The page includes comparative graphs with power to load ratios and comparisons in fuel economy etc. So I think it should be possible to work out what these things would look like in SR terms.

Hmmmmm, sounds like either a hovercraft with a stall speed, or an aircraft with a very, very, VERY low ceiling. Either way, hopefully a watertight hull.
I would say go with an aircraft with a very low ceiling, and give it an economy boost in exchange.

They're already in Shadowrun, and you'll probably recognize the name: T-birds.

~J

What the OP is discussing is a common phenomenon where the air is "thick" near the ground. It isn't a factor of air pressure as much as it is of friction; the air "sticks" to the ground and creates a highly turbulent zone that has an effectively higher viscosity and thus higher lift for vehicles with lift-generating surfaces.

T-birds use ground-effect to maximize their jet thrust, as the exhaust is in "direct contact" with the ground. This is demonstrable by the fac t that a Tbird can hover in place, while the increased lift of ground effect is only applicable with horizontal movement.

Virtually all light aircraft pilots have trouble landing the first time because they encounter the ground effect zone and the plane gains lift.

IIRC, the russians had a GEV intended to be a "supercargo" vehicle. It was intended as a means of ferrying bulk cargo fairly quickly across the ocean. It was too dangerous to fly over land (given the narrow GE window) but the ocean and its inherently denser air (due to moisture) gave it a wider operational profile.

Here's a wikipedia entry on the russian cargo vessel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan

i used one of these as a luxury cruiser, in one game. like a cruise ship, only, y'know, in the air. i didn't bother with stats, though. i'd go with an airliner, arbitrarily reducing the flight ceiling and increasing fuel economy.

...kigmatzomat, you beat me to the punch.

Saw the Ekranoplan on Wings of the Red Star.

...neat concept

Ok first of conversion to SR shouldn't be all that hard. You just need top speeds and accelerations and if you can info on fuel and weight.

I'd only use the things for NPC type stuff. It just seems the design would be very hard to maneuver and nearly impossible to use on land. Plus if they took a hit the waters right there, and if you lose speed you'll hit it, you'd think they'd have a brutal modifier for crash tests.

Is there any reason why it would be worse than a T-bird?

~J

Two very important differences.

#1 While not normally what they like to do, T-birds have the option to hover. Meaning that if something happens and they lose airspeed they don't smack the ground. Airplanes start off higher and glide. A WIG that suddenly loses speed due to a hit would drop.

#2. T-birds stay close to the ground, but not THAT close. Rigger 3 gives their flight ceiling as 1,500 meters for example. Certainly "low altitude" but very different from 8 centimeters or so. Even Nap-of-Earth flight is typically 15-60 meters and I'm not sure how well something in those situations would do if it had to really maneuver or take a hit.

On the other hand there is something to be said for fun and WIGs seem to be that. So maybe your WIG has jump jet capability and just uses WIG mode to improve endurance (a constant problem for LAVs!). The jump jet abilities could be tied into a drive-by-wire + sensor + autonav system so they can be used to deal with things that happen as you're going along.

In that case I would treat WIG as a design modification for a T-bird or for a smaller version use the vectored thrust UAV. (though I believe the website said that only for larger vehicles is WIG efficient, though on a smaller vehicle it would let you travel REALLY close to the surface of the road/water letting you be really stealthy. Especially if you toss in some ED.

Anyway the modification would at +1 to handling when not in WIG mode and add some load from all the wings and stuff that would get in the way of jump jet mode maneuverability. However when operating in WIG mode fuel efficiancy would increase significantly allowing the craft to travel much further than a regular T-bird.

I suspect the WiG plane is probably very different from 8 centimeters or so as well. On that kind of scale, almost no large body of standing water can be considered flat.

~J

You get the idea.

Actually from the WIG page it looks like you actually might want to consider using it as an extension of the hydrofoil rules. Which is how they describe it being used.

These "wing in ground effect' vehicles have very high cargo capacities for their speed. Check out the models here:

http://www.yachtboutique.com/Designers/Ekr.../Ekranoplan.htm

The Aries has ~40 metric tons of cargo capacity and can travel ~450km/hr at around 3L/km. Compare to a 747-8I that can haul the same cargo at 100km/hr but sucks down 15km/L. Basically, you get 5x the fuel efficiency if you limit yourself to half the speed. For coastal regions, especially for low-swell seas like the Mediterranean, these vehicles are very effective.

15 L/km, you mean? 15 km/L is a lot better than 3 L/km.

~J

Yeah, I mistyped b/c I'm not used to putting things in terms of liters per kilometer. I pulled the 747 data off the wikipedia site, just for reference.

Take the 737 out of mass production and see what the cost does.

Edit: though according to Wikipedia, some models of the 737 sell for up to $80.5 million.

~J

...that is for the most advanced models. For about two thirds the price of the Bentley Aries (cute name BTW), you can get a BBJ with a 10,00 km range & a cruise of about Mach .8.

[edit]

One of my concerns is how a GEV would handle rough seas or operations during a major strom. the BBJ on the other hand could just fly around or over it. I'm not saying that the GEV is a bad concept, & I think it would be cool to see them on the water. However for the cost it is more practical for cargo ops, high speed ferry service, and possibly some military ops as opposed to a rich boy's play toy.

Though, I will admit, watching "Unlimited" GEVs out on Lake Washington battling for the Seafair Cup would be a kick. I may have to put that into my setting.

I think it should be noted that many of these GEVs can also operate at much higher altitudes losing the efficiency boost of the ground effect, but operating as aircraft. Also since many are designed to work over water they are built seaworthy.

GEV operation is used to increase efficiency, but not as an exclusive mode for movement.

...I certainly wouldn't want to be flying at 100 - 300m altitude through a North Atlantic storm. Think of the wind shear & turbulence you'd be dealing with.

They may be built seaworthy, but it would still make for a pretty rough ride when swells exceed 6M. Keep in mind you have something about as large as a DC8 62 (Gemini) to C141 Starlifter (Aries). That is significantly smaller than a ship like the HMS Queen Mary II or SS Norway both of which also have stabilisation to dampen the effects of rough sea conditions.

Turbines also have a nasty habit of flaming out when they ingest large quantities of water in a short amount of time. This constantly plagued the early turbine powered hydro racers and required design modifications to minimise the effect. Also, hydro racers generally operate on relatively calm inland waters on fair days rather than the open seas.

I saw a single person one of these on Beyond 2000 years ago that looked more like the Bat-plane than something like the ekranoplan, but as yet I can't find any thing on it. But the wikipedia article on Ground Effect Vehicles had some other links of possible interest.

The Boeing Pelican

Hovercraft/GEV Hybrids from Universal Hovercraft

The German built 'Hoverwing'

Another interesting thing I don't think been mentioned yet is that, apparently, the Ekranoplan's benefits to the Soviet Military was not just fuel efficiency, but that it flew below radar but above sonar.

Which makes them great for smugglers.

On the opposite side, they also make great antismuggling platforms. Think about it you've got a 250 mph vehicle that moves between radar & sonar, doesn't fly so high that it is visible for any great distance aaaaand it can carry a huge amount of weight, aka weapons and armor.

Just look at the wikipedia image of the Caspian Sea Monster and tell me it doesn't cry out to be equipped with multiple turrets, a torpedo launcher, and a missile rack.

...actually as a military vehicle the Ekranoplan is an excellent concept. Not only can it serve as a high speed seagoing intercept, but also as a covert landing/insertion craft.

@kigmatzomat: As for smugglers, I am going to have to stat one or two of these up.

[edit]

I have a copy of Soviet Military Power 1987. I believe it has is mention of the Ekranoplan it's speculations on its deployment. I'll have to check when I get home.

I'm not sure I'd want to deploy these monsters in true deep water conditions. They worked on the Caspian, which really a giant lake. I'm sure the Caspian gets some significant waves but nothing like what you'd find in the deep atlantic or pacific, with literally thousands of miles for waves to form. I found at least one verifiable, scientific account of 30m (95ft) waves in the Atlantic.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiege...,408953,00.html

You might see ekranoplans in the Mediterranean, which I'm told is a millpond compared to the horrors of the Atlantic. Also on large bays, gulfs, or even particularly straight rivers (imagine one of these buggers jetting up the Nile).

...my concerns as well (see earlier post).

I could see them on the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, The Inside Passage, and even possibly The Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico (taking into account occasional hurricanes). .

immune to submarines? maybe torpedoes, but vulnerable as hell to anything else.

with the right solution a harpoon ASM would kill it. (radar guided)

also wasted by any aircraft carrying anything more substantial than a medium machine gun.

Yes, but a Harpoon can be fired from anything, and at substantial distance the advantage of a submarine is somewhat lost. Using a harpoon is not a "submarine attack".

And as Harpoons are anti-ship missiles, designed to assure high effectiveness against ships and for Fire and Forget so the attacker can engage multiple targets, the extra fragility of the Ekranoplan over a traditional destoyer, might not be as much of a factor as it seems, especially in the case of harpoons. Then there's always the possibilty of mounting anti-missile defence systems on the Ekranoplan. A similar issue with plane attacks and mounting anti-air weapons.

If designed as a destoyer, it would have similar defences to a destroyer. Yes it's more fragile, but the advantage is speed. I'm don't claim to be a military expert, and I've no idea where the balancing point would be. I'm only relaying information I've read from articles I've seen as a result of this thread. Personally I'm thinking the apparent inability to be used on the open sea as a stumbling block regardless.

Harpoons and other ASM weapons are not going to have a good day chasing ekranoplans (EP from now on) due to their speed. SA missles have the speed to catch an EP that travels at about 250mph but the explosive blast may not be enough given the extra armor an EP can pack. It'd be like shooting at a giant A10.

A standard ASM won't have the maneuverability for a head-on shot at an EP and may not have the endurance to catch a fleeing EP.

Torpedos will be able to track it with sonar but will be likely to overshoot the target because it isn't actually in the water.

Here's some back of the napkin calculations:

WIG speed 350 kmh

ASM 1 (harpoon)
speed 850 kmh
range 200 km

It take the harpoon around 14 minutes to cover the whole 200 km, during which time the WIG can cover around 82 km. This means that firing at a WIG at maximum speed and already running away your range is cut to around 120km.

ASM 1 (SS-N-22)
speed 2,800? kmh
range 120? km

It takes the SS-N-22 around 2.6 minutes to cover the whole 120 km, during which the WIG can cover around 15 km. This means that your range is only reduced to aroudn 105 km.

Both of the missiles will blow the WIG to kingdom come.

Of course, the real danger to the WIG still comes from aircraft, not other ships. The aircarft can easily catch it, and use ASMs to destroy it.

the harpoon was just an example. submarines don't carry deck guns anymore.

although they may again soon, as their role is being changed to long range fire support, and commando-carrying. might was well include boarding actions with those commandos.

I think a few things about Ekranoplans needs to be taken into account :

- they need a closed sea or a big lake, as earth provides too many obstacles.
( Maybe they could be used on frozen ice and on tundra and flat deserts... that
would greatly expand their use, but I suspect they will always be restricted to water )
they have been used on the Caspian sea so far, nobody knows how they will behave
somewhere else.

- the Ekranoplans are considered to be ships not planes by some people :
see here especially the
bibliography.

The First time I heard about it was in a Combat Fleet of the World. ( the French
equivalent of Janes Fighting Ships )

- The USSR built them with the idea to develop yet another platform for mobile
nuclear missiles. It's tough to intercept ( in the Caspian Sea remember ) a 350kmh
moving ship... especially with an IC®BM ( as it's what would have been used
against a potential 'launching site', I agree the harpoon would reduce an ekranoplan
to splinters [ or the abrupt landing after the hit would anyway ], but you have to be
able to put said harpoon in launch range... not easy in the Caspian sea )

The only real world tactical and strategic use of Ekranoplans ( beside being a missile platform ) would be for assault landing... Imagine loading them in a CVN sized LPD. you come some 40/50 km from the beach you're about to storm... you put them on the water, load them, and start rolling... they are below the radar, the only way to see them is eyeball Mk1 and Ear Mk1. By the time you've located where they are they are upon you and unloading their troops. Faster than a LCAC, safer than a parachute drop, carry heavy loads ( read : MBTs, APCs, MLRSs )...

In SR world ekranoplans would be used all around the world, where sea condition allow it to smuggle things in and out of countries, and as fast response vehicles for off shore arcologies in some places.

...20 min to take your rig across Lake Michigan, 10 Min from Tacoma to Everett, 30 min for Honolulu to Hilo, 10 min Europort to Dover (heck you could "taxi" it up the Thames for all that matters & still make London Central in about 25).

No having to be at the airport an hour or more before flight time, no waiting for takeoff clearance, heck no drive to the airport at all.

Yeah, that would sell tickets.

I'm beginning to see these things as being very useful.

...OK found some vid. Unfortunately the Narration is in Russian & it's about 7 min long but it shows a couple variants including the SS N 22 missile carrier actually performing test launches.

Ekranoplan vid