Boeing Pelican

[usn_skwerl]

I know the concept has been kicked around for about 10 years or so, but what are youse guys' thoughts on the Boeing Pelican? <br /><br />IMO, I think its a pretty well rounded design, especially considering it can go to 20,000 ft altitude to dodge some cases of bad weather or over land.<br /><br />An excerpt from the Boeing Pelican website;<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Dwarfing all previous flying giants, the Pelican, a high-capacity cargo plane concept currently being studied by Boeing Phantom Works, would stretch more than the length of a U.S. football field and have a wingspan of 500 feet and a wing area of more than an acre. It would have almost twice the external dimensions of the world's current largest aircraft, the Russian An225, and could transport five times its payload, up to 1,400 tons of cargo.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[billslugg]

WOW! I want one!<br /><br />Flying at 20 feet over the ocean would make one subject to rogue waves - no?<br /><br />There is a need for the ability to handle a single parcel of 250 tons by 22 feet by 22 feet by 30 feet. It is the largest item in commerce that cannot be made any smaller. They are the largest castings in history, made out of iron, and cannot be "cut" in half and reassembled. Lighter, yes. They can take some of the guts out. But the overall dimension will not change. Some paper machines utilize a cast iron drum in the final drying step. It can be as large as cited above. They can fail catastrophically, rendering the machine useless until a new one is delivered. With a billion dollars in capital sitting still, they want the new one there fast. Boat delivery takes months. The C-5A can handle only a 15 foot overhead dimension. One supplier of the drums told me they had sent a 20'(?) one by Antonov to Australia years ago.<br /><br />BTW - A C-5A on final approach appears as if it is standing still. You wonder why it does not fall out of the sky. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I love giant airplanes, so I'd love to see the Pelican concept actually fly. That's a good point about rogue waves, though. And I wonder about the fuel savings. What makes the Pelican superior to conventional ships? It's easy to show how it beats airplanes, but what about ships? I suppose the fact that it's essentially amphibious -- I would think it could use ground effect just as well over land, assuming it can find conveniently flat land.<br /><br />I read about a consumer aircraft that used ground effect to fly across the water. It was unable to rise very much above the water, and was built as a seaplane -- but regulated as a boat, not an aircraft, the upshot being that you could operate it without a pilot's license. It was being promoted as an alternative commute vehicle, though it was pretty limited since you could only use it to commute between two points with convenient water access. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

First, the homepage states that the Pelican would not normally land on water. It was designed exclusively for operations from land. It might be able to land on water in an emergency, but then a 767 has already done that (and killed many of the passengers on board).<br /><br />Second, the advantage of the Pelican over container ships is time. In the time a container ship needs to make one trip, a Pelican could make several.<br /><br />Third, unlike the craft you mentioned, the Pelican was designed to ascend higher. Over land and rough water, it could cruise at 20,000 feet. (Enough to get over mountains anyway.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">I read about a consumer aircraft that used ground effect to fly across the water. It was unable to rise very much above the water, and was built as a seaplane ... </font><br /><br /><br /><br />Sounds like the SeaFalcon ?<br /><br /><br />c/net photo <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Yes! I think that was it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[thebigcat]

Back in '77 there was an article in Popular Science about aircraft like that. The extant type profiled with a cover photo was a German plane with a reverse delta wing with the wing root running almost the full length of the fuselage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture2]

The Pelican, like the Sonic Cruiser, was a gutsy and imaginative proposal from Boeing. But no private operator could afford to invest in such a radical new design without a flying prototype, and Boeing couldn't afford one. That's where NASA might once have stepped in, to make the investment in demonstrating whether a new technology will really "fly" in the practical sense, to get over the hump that private industry can't. But unfortunately NASA is too wrapped up in re-enacting Project Apollo to remember that its original mission was to advance the technology of flight.

 

[docm]

Boeing/NASA X-48 BWB<br /><br />Not full sized to be sure, but that's fine for proving the aerodynamics.<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/jul/HQ_07165_BWB_First_Flight.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Well, I'm surprised that the military didn't pick up on it. The Army would love to have a transport aircraft that could lift a fully combat ready tank company in one flight to practically anywhere in the world. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I don't know if the Pelican was designed with short unpaved runways in mind. In that regard, it might not be any better than the Galaxy, which requires a longer paved runway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Oh, this is definitely not a STOL aircraft. I don't think that the C-5 is meant to be one either. The point is that if you have a long enough runway you can move a <i>lot</i> of equipment in one trip. To put things into perspective a C-5 can lift only one combat ready M1A2 Abrams (two without fuel or ammo). In contrast one of these bad boys can lift <font color="yellow"><b>20!!!!!</b></font><img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" />) fully loaded Abrams. You could easily fit an armor company of 14 M1A2s plus support vehicles into <i>one</i> airplane! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

The post I replied to suggested the Pelican could land anywhere with a combat load. Essentially, anywhere a C-130 could land. As is, Tom Clancy wrote that Air Force planers "moan about the lack of landing strips that can handle a C-5." That is why the Air Force urgently needed C-17s. Now C-17s can't carry everything a C-5 can, but they can land in places a C-5 could never dream of landing at. Simply being able to land where an AN-225 can land would be an huge improvement for the C-5. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[phaze]

Nevermind rogue waves... what about an inopportune sneeze? 20 Feet above the water on a trans-oceanic flight sounds more like a daredevil stunt than a normal operating mode.

 

[bdewoody]

The Russians built and flew something like this right after WWII. I saw it on the Discovery wings channel before it became the Military Channel. Rhere's a link to the Russian version.<br /><br />http://www.gizmohighway.com/transport/ekranoplan.htm<br /><br />and another<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>Boeing/NASA X-48 BWB<br /><br />The Pelican is pretty different in configuration, with its box-car fuselage and drooped wings, but I agree a similar moderate-scale flying prototype might have gotten the idea accepted. However NASA was apparently not interested.<br /><br />Regarding the X-48 itself, I have been trying to figure out who is the customer for the blended-wing design. I got the impression that after the fatigue problems with the 747 Boeing wanted to stick with round fuselages, at least for pressurized aircraft. It looks cool, but is there really enough advantage in drag to make up for the larger surface area?<br /> <br /> />>Nevermind rogue waves... what about an inopportune sneeze?<br /><br />I agree this probably discouraged investors, however most of the ocean is calm most of the time, and the concept was that with continuous satellite data storms could be detoured around or, if necessary, they could leave ground effect and fly at altitude, at the cost of increased fuel consumption. The web page says it required a paved runway but doesn't give the length.

 

[willpittenger]

I don't remember the name, but it was big. Just not as big as the Pelican would be. The biggest version in the 60s had 8 jets to pump air under the wings. They where turned off once underway. Two more jets in the tail provided cruise power. All versions were confined to cruising over water. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

"It looks cool, but is there really enough advantage in drag to make up for the larger surface area?"<br /><br />Yes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

for ultra-high tonnage I'd put my money on dynamic lift airships like the Aeroscraft, due to their STOL capabilities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

Is STOL really that necessary and worth the huge reduction in transit/response time? Airspeed is a killer for airships. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[steve82]

"Is STOL really that necessary and worth the huge reduction in transit/response time? Airspeed is a killer for airships."<br /><br />Good point and it leads to the overall question of whether the fast transport of the 1,400 tons of cargo is worthwhile if you carry so much cargo that it has to sit in some kind of port/container facility where it takes a couple of days to unload. At some point the size of cargo that can be carried by one plane at a certain speed is offset by the time it takes to unload.<br />It's sort of like those hypersonic transport studies in the 80's: Boeing did a lot of studies and found that a certain point of diminishing returns is reached beyond which shaving the time down to a few hours to get from LA to Tokyo is offset by the traveler's having to spend 2 hours in traffic to get to the airport and another hour and a half inside the airport getting on and off the plane.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">I don't remember the name, but it was big. Just not as big as the Pelican would be. The biggest version in the 60s had 8 jets to pump air under the wings. They where turned off once underway. Two more jets in the tail provided cruise power. All versions were confined to cruising over water. <br /></font><br /><br />You must be refering to the Caspian Sea Monster. The Russians did all sorts of research into ekranoplans/WIGs.<br /><br />Here's the wiki on it<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan<br /><br />and some video of it "flying" ... <br /><br />(includes some other odd Russian aircraft) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

I already posted that link!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Ooops ... and so you did. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

"It looks cool, but is there really enough advantage in drag to make up for the larger surface area?"<br /><br /> />>Yes.<br /><br />Do you know of a reference? Efficient lifting airfoils are long and thin, while efficient pressurized fuselages are circular in cross-section to minimize flexural stress. Lifting bodies tend to have high induced drag and would present a difficult volume to pressurize.