Talk:Hovercraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hovercraft is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

It's not clear to me what the difference between a 'flarecraft' and a 'air cushion vehicle' is. Is a flarecraft one that can go over 95mph?

  • The 'flarecraft' seems to have been a model of GEV, wrong article. Meggar 05:55, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

"This service ceased in 2002 when the Channel tunnel took over the fast transit of cross-channel traffic."

Hold on there. The Chunnel is in direct COMPETITION with the port of Dover. It seems more likely that the hovercraft were retired because they were obsolete. They were replaced with SeaCats.

Contents

[edit] RE: Adding information about Charles Fletcher's invention.

I'm preparing to add some information regarding Charles Fletcher, the American inventor of the hovercraft who designed a vehicle classified by the DoD during WWII in the U.S. well before his British counterpart who continues to get all the credit is said to have invented (or "re-invented") it. I also intend to mention the patent lawsuit against the Americans that uncovered Fletcher's original invention. Any discussion regarding the addition of this point? —ExplorerCDT 23:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Remember WP:NOR, be ready to cite the heck out of it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is simply a POV. It does not fit well the the factual basis of the Hovercraft section and stands out as sore POV by Fletchers friends. Get over it. The Hovercraft became commercially viable because of the work Sir Christopher did. Using his principle the British built the first commercial Hovercraft.

    • Making something commercially viable isn't the same as inventing it. —ExplorerCDT 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not even related, or have ever met Fletcher. Sir Christopher was a johnny-come-lately, and invented his "hovercraft" 20 years later after Fletcher. My interest in it is solely with the legal case I cited, as I have an interest in intellectual property law especially those cases where military technology classifications have denied inventors patents or credit. The only connection, remote as it is, is that Fletcher lives about a half an hour from where I grew up. But considering it's all within the NYC metropolitan area, that doesn't mean much.—ExplorerCDT 15:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If Mr Fletcher was the first source of the hovercraft and did such a great job then why did Bell buy SR.N5's from the BHC in the UK for US Military use in Vietnam? If he had a viable design then why didn't he supply the US military with the craft they were looking for? Not only did Bell buy the SR.N5's from BHC they also bought the rights to produce them and made a modified version called the SK5. This is because the UK was the first source of a commercially viable hovercraft and that was a product of the work done by Sir Christopher no one else. The UK joint forces test center in Lee-on-the-Solent UK was testing the SR.N2, SR.N3 and SR.N5 long before the US had anything to show (the LCAC came and lot later). Hence this is why Bell bought the SR.N5 as the first viable, working hovercraft built by BHC and a product of the invention and development of the Hovercraft in the UK by Sir Christopher.

    • As a result of the DOD classification, fletcher couldn't even admit he designed such a craft in 1944, and as a result couldn't patent it or economically benefit from it. It was a U.S. Government state secret. And, as with a lot of things after WW2, the paperwork fell between the cracks. —ExplorerCDT 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should read some case law before you ask stupid questions like that. If you really knew your stuff about hovercrafts, you'd probably have self-answered those questions by now. —ExplorerCDT 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As I suspected you are a biased 'not invented here' Fletcher fan. That explains why this section on Hovercraft is so inaccurate. Thanks for letting me and everyone else know. By the way plural of Hovercraft is Hovercraft...no 's'. That was an after the fact re-invention of Sir Chritophers word in American dictionaries. The word is British and OED is the correct source of the word in its correct for for both one and many craft.

    • No, not any more biased than you are about insisting on Cockerell as the sole inventor (which he is not). I just like seeing a guy get his due credit, saving an occasional great thought or person from the dustbin of history and correcting inaccuracy when i see it (like claims of Cockerell being the inventor of the hovercraft for one). On an aside, I don't care about Britishism/Americanisms. If you're going to start nitpicking tangentally about colloquial linguistics, then it's only evidence that you don't have a case when it comes to the true matter at hand. —ExplorerCDT 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What was the patent case? I presume that British Hovercraft Company tried to enforce a patent that they thought they had so could get licence money from anyone else building hovercrafts but Fletcher proved his prior art. Equally Fletcher didn't cross the English Channel on his creation and his contribution to the modern hovercraft is actually minor. GraemeLeggett 14:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Graeme, that is precisely what it was. However, his contribution to the modern hovercraft helped the navy develop landing craft in the last months of WW2, which isn't exactly minor. —ExplorerCDT 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact so minor no one's ever heard of the poor chap. I have researched the history of this subject and also met Sir Christopher and many of his associates. I would be a little more accepting he made any conrtibution but there are no craft on show anywhere that he designed or made. The Hovercraft I have found in a US Museum: One in storage at the Smithsonian (a Dr. Bertelsen design), One SK5 at the Army transport museum in Virginia. In service in the US there are a few Griffons (UK craft), Slingsby (UK craft) Hoverworks craft under construction (UK designed craft). The Canadian coast guard used SR.N5's and are in the process of switching to Griffons. But there is not a single sight of one 'Fletcher'design. Where can everyone go to see one? With you extensive knowledege of law you must know where the evidence is?

  • Actually, Fletcher's first prototype of his design is on display in New Jersey, given to a technology museum about 5-6 years back or so. It's in the Aviation Hall of Fame & Museum of New Jersey. Even a quick google search would have shown you that. If I recall correctly he was insistent that the prototype remain in New Jersey for display. Besides, if you've researched this subject, you should have come across the case law. It was big news both in US and UK papers. Cockerell was later lambasted in the press over the decision, because it firmly established Fletcher's role going back to 1944 and made Cockerell look excessively haughty in singing his own praises before the decision. So much for your "research." Maybe you should spend the $6, next time you get to New Jersey and go see it, I have not. Back to the books, your research is faulty. —ExplorerCDT 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Post Script: Fletcher is to Cockerell as Antonio Meucci is to Alexander Graham Bell. Only Meucci didn't have his telephone invention classified by the DOD. It's time to give the man his due, that's my only desire. I have no interest in the Fletcher, I've never talked to him, but in my research it's just another case of a guy getting shit on by the system, and someone else claiming the credit for something not entirely his. I'd like to see the guy get some credit for accomplishments he is responsible for. If it weren't for the USDOD, Fletcher would have made billions off it. The Courts recognized that in the 1980s. Instead, he went off and designed rockets, printing presses, and a few other things, and made a fortune that way. I don't doubt Cockerell's invention. Likewise, Cockerell deserves as much attention as Fletcher does. In fact, you'll notice I haven't messed with discussion of Cockerell and his contributions in the article. It is just that I think Fletcher deserves more credit than history has thus far afforded him, and often history needs to be corrected. As with Meucci. —ExplorerCDT 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal hovercrafts

Hey, I'm thinking about writting an article about personal hovercrafts. There are kit-built ones used for leisure, there are race hovercrafts.. and hovercraft races... there are companies which sell personal hovercrafts which are in size bit more than an average boat... I think many ppl would be interested to know that for a reasonable price they can have a hovercraft for themselves :) What do you think? Should it be a separate article or part of this one? --Robert 11:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Be bold and go for it! At best, we get an awesome new article about a relevant subject. At medium, it gets merged back into Hovercraft, and at worst it ends up being deleted back to the stone age. There are different articles for Trucks and Cars, right? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and write the article! The two big sources of plans for homebuilt hovercraft in the US are Universal Hovercraft and Sevtec. Both have models that range from single-person to 25' craft. UH craft are typically faster and a little less comfortable, while the Sevtec crafts are built for cockpit space but wouldn't win too many races. I'm building a 16' Sevtec so I am a little biased, but I feel its more of a utilitarian craft. A 20' Sevtec craft with an 80hp engine made a voyage on open water from Puget Sound to Juneau, AK.

 UH website: http://www.hovercraft.com
 ST website: http://members.aol.com/sevtec/sev/skmr.html

64.223.42.127 04:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)DHyslop

I don't understand the first sentence.

I understand now.

[edit] Sorry, hovercraft invented in Britain in 1950s

It appears that a partiotic American has tweaked the article to suggest that someone called Beardsley invented the hovercraft, and that Cockerill only added the finishing touches to Beardsley's research.

Sorry, this is not true. Beardsley's patent number 3195665 is dated July 1965, but a fully functioning hovercraft was in use in Britain in 1959.

If you want to claim that an American invented the hovercraft and Cockerall only did the finishing touches to bring the thing to fruition, then under that criterion you could equally well say that the British invented powered-manned-flight and not the Wright brothers, who only did minor tinkering to finish it.

I posted some info and a link about cushion boats which were built by Vladimir Levkov in the USSR. Sea diver 10:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Hovercraft

I recently discovered that the Bora Hovercraft was substantially heavier than the Zubr (1050 tons vs. ~550 tons + 150 tons cargo), so I corrected the article accordingly. Just for those who are wondering why the image captions changed... --Oceanhahn 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bora is a side wall Hovercraft and as such, some of the side structure is in the water. This should be made clear in the article as a true Hovercraft has all hard structure clear of the water when on cushion.

Thanks for adding that. I knew it was different in that way, but didnt know what name to give it. I presume you also edited the Bora page itself, so, kudos! --Oceanhahn 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Cockerell's channel crossing hovercraft?

It would be nice to have a picture of the first hovercraft. I remember seeing archive film of this, so I'm sure photos exist somewhere.

As far as I recall it was disc shaped with a central funnel-like fan and a cabin in front of the fan.

I do not know how to add photos myself.

[edit] Links to books

To the anonymous editor who last edited from 71.42.59.58:

You should read the page WP:REF, which discuss how to cite sources in a Wikipedia article. The "References" section of the article is to reference sources used in the creation of material in the article. It's not "Further reading", or "Related material" - that's why there's a big list of external links. If you used those books to contribute material to the article, then by all means include them as references (pointing out which material is sourced from them would be helpful in this case). But without that, sticking them at the top of the list just looks like advertising. Orpheus 02:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, blanking sections of talk pages isn't particularly constructive. Orpheus 04:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/v/Talk%7EHovercraft_a160.html"