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

it's flying, but it doesn't seem like it's an aircraft in the
strictest sence... would something like this be equivalent to a
seaplane or more of a hovercraft?
opinions?

"mad8" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle
>
> it's flying, but it doesn't seem like it's an aircraft in the
> strictest sence... would something like this be equivalent to a
> seaplane or more of a hovercraft?
> opinions?

It is such a unique blend, that makes it perform as it does.

So, is it an airplane, or not? Some things make it appear as it is, and some
do not. I think that it depends on what you put as the most important
characteristic.

It gets lift from wings. Those wings will not support it, if it gets too
high above the water. It uses all of the normal flight controls, such as
ailerons, rudder and I think elevator, and some have flaps to get up before
they get going at cruise speed.

I personally think it is its own class; neither hovercraft or airplane.

By having its own class, as a ground effect vehicle, it violates no rules of
other classes, and everyone is happy.

Of course it could be argued that the Wright Brother's first powered heavier
than air craft was really not and airplane, but a ground effect vehicle.
True? Perhaps.

A stronger engine would make it fly out of ground effect. Perhaps all
ground effect vehicles would be airplanes with stronger engines.

No questions answered, but lots of new questions.
--
Jim in NC

mad8 wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle
>
> it's flying, but it doesn't seem like it's an aircraft in the
> strictest sence... would something like this be equivalent to a
> seaplane or more of a hovercraft?
> opinions?

I'm pretty sure the FAA has not tried to regulate it so it isn't an
aircraft. If you must, and I don't see why you must, put it in a class with
something it would be closer to hyroplanes.

On Feb 14, 2:48 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "mad8" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle
>
> > it's flying, but it doesn't seem like it's an aircraft in the
> > strictest sence... would something like this be equivalent to a
> > seaplane or more of a hovercraft?
> > opinions?
>
> It is such a unique blend, that makes it perform as it does.
>
> So, is it an airplane, or not? Some things make it appear as it is, and some
> do not. I think that it depends on what you put as the most important
> characteristic.
>
> It gets lift from wings. Those wings will not support it, if it gets too
> high above the water. It uses all of the normal flight controls, such as
> ailerons, rudder and I think elevator, and some have flaps to get up before
> they get going at cruise speed.
>
> I personally think it is its own class; neither hovercraft or airplane.
>
> By having its own class, as a ground effect vehicle, it violates no rules of
> other classes, and everyone is happy.
>
> Of course it could be argued that the Wright Brother's first powered heavier
> than air craft was really not and airplane, but a ground effect vehicle.
> True? Perhaps.
>
> A stronger engine would make it fly out of ground effect. Perhaps all
> ground effect vehicles would be airplanes with stronger engines.
>
> No questions answered, but lots of new questions.
> --
> Jim in NC

mxsmaniac and other french speakers, here's another nice page (quite a
bit of info not in wiki)
http://membres.lycos.fr/dracken/Ekranoplan/historique.html
(i actually managed to get about 75% of it using what i remembered
from high school french)

On Feb 14, 10:02 am, "mad8" > wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle
>
> it's flying, but it doesn't seem like it's an aircraft in the
> strictest sence... would something like this be equivalent to a
> seaplane or more of a hovercraft?
> opinions?


Legally, an aircraft is "a device that is used or intended to be used
for flight in the air." Source: the FARs, as published in Title 14,
chapter 1, subchapter a, section 1.1 of CFR, available from http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

The legal definition doesn't require it to be able to get out of
ground effect, so I'd say those things probably fall under the FAA's
legal jurisdiction, at least if they're flown in the USA.

But my gut logical feel says that if it doesn't have an altimeter, and
if a barometric altimeter could serve no reasonable purpose related to
control or navigation, then it shouldn't be considered an aircraft.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:02:30 -0800, mad8 wrote
(in article . com>):

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle
>
> it's flying, but it doesn't seem like it's an aircraft in the
> strictest sence... would something like this be equivalent to a
> seaplane or more of a hovercraft?
> opinions?
>

It can truly be said that it is neither fish nor fowl.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

("Morgans" wrote)
> So, is it an airplane, or not? Some things make it appear as it is, and
> some do not. I think that it depends on what you put as the most
> important characteristic.


It's my understanding: (in Minnesota)

If it cannot sustain flight outside of ground effect, it's a boat - for
licensing purposes.

I've seen the rule, but can't find it. More Googling...


Montblack