Talk:Hovercraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |  |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale | |
| Top | rated as top-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] Flarecraft/ACV
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?
"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.
---
As one of the original editors of this page, now returned to see it all in mass confusion...
The chief problem here is that no differentiation is being made between "surface effect vehicle" (the set), and "hovercraft" (the sub-set). Clear that up and all the arguing would disappear. It seems clear that there was literally decades of messing around with various "hovercraft-like" surface effect vehicles in several countries before the first "hovercraft" per se. was "invented."
Sir Christopher was indeed the first person to invent a working hovercraft with all the bits that we would look for to identify any standard hovercraft today. This is derided by some as being "He came to the market first" (but others "invented" it previously). This would only be the case if separate individuals all invented the same thing at more or less the same time, but they did not.
Charles Fletcher did not create a working hovercraft as far as I have been able to find out. Even if he did, the annular ring of air and the skirt are the most identifying features of any hovercraft and as far as I am aware, he did not have those.
The article should be restructured to reflect the difference between years of research in many quarters on surface effect vehicles, and to differentiate Sir Christopher as the single inventor of the "Hovercraft" (the one with the skirt and the downward facing blower etc. that we all know).
Certainly, as others have pointed out here, if the Wright Brothers get credit for inventing the airplane, then Sir Christopher should get the hovercraft. Nothing the Wright brothers did was original to them, they merely pieced together ideas gained from a tour of the airplane clubs of europe the summer previously.
In Sir Christopher's case, his design used an annular ring of air assisted by a rubber skirt. That was his input as far as I am aware, and the exact detail that differentiates a hovercraft from other failed attempts. Anyone who can prove that those two things were included by others on their attempts, might have a case for prior invention but otherwise the win must go to Britain on this one.
[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)
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)
In 1993 the LACV-30 Hovercraft program was closed out and moth-balled on the James River near Fort Eustis. Some were sent to Alaska to work on the Tundra. I understand those have since been destroyed. I worked on them during the Mid Eighties. These craft were built by Bell Textron and became the Army's biggest embarrasment. The most expensive beer can ever bought. The main downfall of these craft were that Bell designed them with aluminum fuel lines with Stainless fittings. The galvanic corrosion that took place soon rotted the entire fuel system and with one craft torn down We started working on a new fuel system. I designed an aviation style fuel sytem with flex hose and solved the corrosion problem. We were given the go ahead to rebuild the first one to prove our point. After the rebuild, the contract was given to Bell Textron to complete the rebuild on the remaining 23 craft. The bid was too much and the Army gave in to scrubbing the program. Just a bit of trivia to those that seem to know so much about hovercraft. --Diver7 23:35, 17 September 2007 (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)
- Another editor claims that Charles Joseph Fletcher invented the hovercraft. I've tagged it with {{fact}}. Should this be removed completely from the article? Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2008 (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)
[edit] Air cushion
I believe, that until air cushion vehicle redirects here, we should not consider developments prior to 1956 "unimportant". Hence, I splitted "history" section into two subsections: "early air cushion developments" and "air cushion on hovercraft principle".Cmapm 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Personal Hovercraft
I just watched an early 1970's episode of Let's Make a Deal on GSN. One of the prizes was an Air Cycle 720 made by Air Cushion Vehicles of Troy, New York valued at $1,495. It could go up to 40 MPH. What happened to this company? Looks like a fun vehicle!
Kfinto 02:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
|
Hovercraft 1.jpg
1970's personal Hovercraft |
Hovercraft 2.jpg
1970's personal Hovercraft |
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hovercraft 1.jpg
Image:Hovercraft 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hovercraft 2.jpg
Image:Hovercraft 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Denys Bliss and the segmented skirt
Working with Cockerill, Bliss invented the segmented skirt which was the vital evolution from early versions of the hovercraft. It would be useful if anyone could find out more about this. Also Bliss went on to develop the test track at Cambridge, again more information would be really helpful as this was a fascinating and controversial major experiment. Excalibur (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Denys Bliss and Latimer-Needham
I wonder if anyone knows where the following comes from: "The skirt was an independent invention made by a Royal Navy officer, Latimer-Needham, who sold his idea to Westland (parent company of Saunders-Roe), and who worked with Sir Christopher to develop the idea further." That may be true at least in part - this was a complex project and lots of engineers contributed. Nevertheless it would be useful to allocate due credit for each invention - the list of patents is formidable: according to: [1] - and I'm relying on the google cache as the main site appears to be offline: Sir Christopher Sydney Cockerell C.B.E., R.D.I., F.R.S. 4th June 1910 - 1st June 1999 Hovercraft patents (Some titles have been shortened.)
Dec. 1955 854211 Basic air curtain case.
May 1957 893715 Air cushion platform.
May 1957 894644 Landing air cushion for aircraft.
May 1957 895341 Air cushioned aircraft carriers.
Jun. 1958 944501 Side wall vehicle-curtain end seal.
Sept. 1958 935823 Injectors applied to vortices.
Sept. 1958 935824 Pressure induced outboard recovery.
Apr. 1959 919350 Inboard recovery of curtain air.
May 1963 935824 Outboard recovery-to form a second curtain.
May 1963 935826 Outboard recovery-to form a second curtain.
Sept. 1958 935825 Flexible skirt/curtain cushion seal.
Apr. 1959 924496 (With R. Stanton Jones) Recirculation using injectors.
Mar. 1959 944502 Stability and trim control by compartmentation.
Oct. 1959 965748 Variable incidence surfaces for aerofoils.
Aug. 1963 944503 Stability cushions distributed around primary cushion.
Aug. 1963 944504 C.P. Shift.
Jun. 1959 959025 Steering and propulsion.
Mar. 1959 946917 Stabilization of airflow and prevention of negative lift.
Oct. 1959 959825 Cushion (heave) control for travelling over waves.
Oct. 1959 966135 Recirculation by Coanda effect.
Jan. 1960 968194 Vortices generated by rotating pads.
Mar. 1960 968381 Side-wall vehicle with paddle wheel/air pump.
Apr. 1960 973072 Propulsion by blowing into a cushion.
Apr. 1961 975558 (With D. Hardy) Recirculation-tapering duct arrangement.
Apr. 1960 977060 Recirculation-induced recovery system.
Apr. 1960 975241 Reinforcement of rear curtain by ram air.
May 1960 972068 Hovercraft with inflated side parts.
Apr. 1960 975242 Flexible rod skirt.
Apr. 1960 977061 Positive displacement pump at periphery.
May 1961 983446 Recovery of front curtain air to form a rear cushion.
Aug. 1960 995127 Rail car.
May 1961 997943 Protective air cushion for aerial body.
Jun. 1960 983142 Air bearing.
Oct. 1960 989222 Air pump-fluid brakes.
Jun. 1961 989534 Water separation from recovered air.
Jan. 1962 990745 Inflatable load lifting devices.
Jun. 1961 1002572 Sponge support members.
Jan. 1962 1000771 Controlling flow of fluid by a fluid curtain.
Oct. 1961 1029960 Travelling waves on sidewalls for propulsion.
Dec. 1962 1056070 (With L.A. Hopkins) Flexible wall, inflated parallelograms.
Nov. 1962 1064221 Flexible skirt with coandering fluid curtain.
Dec. 1965 1064222 Inflated skirt, perforated wall, forming skirt deflecting cushion.
Jun. 1963 1073731 Controlled vertical movement of wall to correct roll and pitch.
Jun. 1963 1087734 Flexible wall actuated by fluid flow.
Oct. 1966 1072732 Inflated bag/segment wall.
Nov.1963 1103191 Guiding means for docking (vertical).
Apr. 1964 1095756 Propulsion by surface effect W (free belts).
Apr. 1964 1110212 Propulsion by surface effect 'B' (discs).
Apr. 1964 1095775 Propulsion, radial members (flails).
Jan. 1965 1092816 Propulsion by modified paddle.
May 1964 1075662 Spray prevention.
Apr. 1965 1135768 (With Messrs Grace & Boutland). 'Boiling water' cushion.
Apr. 1965 1138532 Air-feed flexible duct within cushion space.
July 1967 1236571 Trim control-tapered roller.
Feb. 1967 1216475 Hovertrain-ram air deflectors.
Jul. 1967 1239745 (With D.S. Bliss). Anti-ditch shift of cushion C.P.
Feb. 1967 1219285 A.C.V with wave-top slicer.
May 1967 1228588 Hovertrain-{;one or belt current pick-up.
Oct.1981 1584154 Cushion seal for A.C.V.
[edit] Modern Hovercraft Development
The real innovation in hovercraft development occurred in 1957, and was revealed to the public in 1960. It was the invention of the "Double-Walled Flexible Skirt" by Mr. Norman B. McCreary in Little Rock, Arkansas,USA (Patent No. 3,532,179) and was published in the Arkansas Gazette Newspaper on Jan. 25, 1960 and in Science and Mechanics Magazine in June, 1960. This was the Conception and Technological Development that enabled hovercraft to travel over uneven terrain or waves of the sea. It later became known as the "Bag Skirt" as it inflated around the edge of the hovercraft. It would raise and lower the hovercraft off the ground by inflation and deflation of the Double-Walled Flexible Skirt. Later fingers were added to the bottom of the skirt to compensate for wear and reduce drag. After this concept was made public in 1960, all hovercraft utalized a "Double-Walled Flexible Skirt" system for practical hovercraft operations, (see time line Naval Engineering Journal, Febuary 1985, page 261). 6262 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwmccreary (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Other uses
In the UK the RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) operates a hovercraft as its rescue vehicle on Morecambe Bay. Morecambe Bay lies between Lancashire and Cumbria, and reduces to vast areas of mudflats and quicksands at low tide - a hovercraft is therefore ideal for rescues that might include people stuck on sandbanks who might perish before the water became deep enough for a conventional lifeboat to reach them. NorthernSpinney (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Atlas Hovercraft Inc.
Would someone like to write an article on this manufacturer of hovercraft? These things are a bit outside my areas of knowledge and I don't feel I'd be able to write a high enough quality article. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Never heard of them. If you have some reliable online sources, post them here, and I'll look at them, and see if the company qualifies as notable. I'm not a great from-scratch writer, but I can try at get something started anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Records
Quote: 137.4 km/h (85.87 mph), 34.06 secs measured kilometre
Can anyone verify this? It's clearly wrong since 34.06s/km = 104.696 km/h. 137.4 km/h = 26.201s, so not an obvious typo. Not only that, but 137.4 km/h (@1.609344 km/mile) = 85.376 mph. Also, no sources are cited. --PuzzleScot (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
