Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Wandering
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:56:32 -0700
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Jeffrey Mach wrote:

> *****PRIVATE: Ice
> >>>>>[Made it to S.F. on the tube with no problems. The new ID
Squatter

>>snip<<

> I will be here for a few days. I think I'm about ready for the teary
> reunion. After that, I've booked passage on a trans-pacific HLAV. It may
^^^^

Hmmm. I suppose I should have mentioned this here before I posted, but I
figured it was so small of a point that it wasn't worth making a big deal
about and can safely be ignored if people want to.

In ShadowRun literature, there seem to be three major ways of getting
around by air. In ascending order (all pun intended from the respective
altitudes as well as price) are SSTs, Semi-Ballistics, and Ballistics.
Something that they didn't consider, most likely because the concept
wasn't in the news yet, was a Heavy-lift Low Altitude Vehicle (HLAV).

There are a few flying models of this type of aircraft around, that rely
on what is called wing-in-ground-effect (which is an aerodynamic effect
where one can generate substantially enhanced lift near the ground if one
designs the aircraft to take advantage of this effect). What this means
for the aircraft is that they can become extreemly efficient despite being
really large. While it is not known whether or not they will go ahead
with it, one design from Boeing could potentially hold thousands of
passengers (and/or tons of cargo), flying for about the same cost as
shiping things by boat. It would be so large (utterly dwarfing a 747)
that it would need to take off from the water as a sea-plane, but could
easily fly across the Pacific. Which is just fine, because
wing-in-ground-effect only works well within one wing span of the ground
and over nearly flat and level terrain, so these kinds of planes would
best be used for trans-oceanic flights. Potentially, these aircraft could
become the 21st century equivalent of the 1930's China Clipper connecting
sea-ports of the world (including Seattle and the rest of the Pacific
Rim, or New York and the rest of the Atlantic for that matter).

So for the same cost of shipping things by boat, you can go across an
ocean at 300-400 miles per hour, or--to put it in perspective--in a matter
of a day or two as opposed to weeks. You can also share the journey with
a few hundred of your closest friends, as well as a few dozen cars, a
couple tons of electronics, and/or a few tons of fresh fruit. :) While
pathetically slow compared to ShadowRun's Mach 3 SSTs, it would also be a
fantastically cheap method of transport. That fit my character just fine,
especially in terms of his budget, so I just threw the idea in. I hope
nobody has a problem with this, and maybe some of you might want to use
the idea in the future.

Questions, comments, death threats?

--Catch you later

Jeff
Message no. 2
From: Mike Goldberg <michael.goldberg@*******.COM>
Subject: Re[2]: Wandering
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 19:26:25 MST
>Jeffrey Mach wrote:


>Questions, comments, death threats?

Death threats .... first, last, and forever. If I wasn't feeling
rusty at the moment, I would even do them in my various (lots) of
characters....

HLAV? I don't have any problems with it.... how long would it take to
get between say Seattle and Denver using one?

Later,
Mike
Message no. 3
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Wandering
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 21:08:18 -0700
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Mike Goldberg wrote:

> >Jeffrey Mach wrote:
>
>
> >Questions, comments, death threats?
>
> Death threats .... first, last, and forever. If I wasn't feeling
> rusty at the moment, I would even do them in my various (lots) of
> characters....
>
> HLAV? I don't have any problems with it.... how long would it take to
> get between say Seattle and Denver using one?

Well, since they are seaplanes, I'd say about never. Or the 5 million
years that it would take for there to be a waterway between Denver and
Seattle. =)

That's their main defect. They can't fly well much above one wingspan
above the ground, and they need the space between them and the ground
pretty much clear of any obstacles. So, they would have a serious problem
with things like mountains, buildings, trees, of which there are many
between Seattle and Denver. That's why they would be for ocean-going
routes. Not to mention that the pressure wave under the HLAV which helps
give it such great lift would give a serious headache to anyone underneath
it if it flew over. The worst swells you can expect to find, and
still have the weather short enough of a hurricane that the HLAV can still
fly is maybe 50 feet max. Therefore, they figure an ocean going one will
have a wingspan of at least 50 feet, preferably well over 100. Since the
wing shape that best takes advantage of wing-in-ground-effect (WIG) is
wider (front to back) than it is long (fuselage to tip), you can start to
see how these buggers can get real big real fast. According to a Boeing
engineer that was on the design study, they "found that if you wanted to
make a big [HLAV] you had to make it enormous." The Russians have been
developing designs for many years which they dubbed the Ekranoplan, one of
which, from it's location and size was nicknamed "The Caspian Sea
Monster." They can fly them over the water, or over the flat expanses of
tundra and ice in Siberia and the Arctic.

According to:

http://www.indo.com/distance/

The distance from Seattle to Tokyo is 4793 miles (7713km) as the crow (or
in this case HLAV or WIG) flies, so at say 300mph (500kph) it would take
about 16 hours once they got in the air. Longer if they stop at Juneau or
Hawaii. Not unbearable, but not like an SST, which at say the quoted
speed of Mach 3 (about 3750kph or so depending on altitude) could do the
flight in around 2 hours plus some for taxi, accelleration, decelleration,
and final. But, needless to say, faster than a ship that would do it at
around 20mph. And even hydrofoils have a hard time getting above 100kph.

And for the curious, the New York to London flight, at a distance of 3471
miles (5586 km) would take about 12 hours if the thing got to 300mph, or
about 9 if they could push it to 400mph. Then again, if the efficiency is
anything like what they say it should be, the flight should cost you less
than a hundred bucks, maybe more if you want to travel better than 3rd
class. Then again, they could turn one of these into an exclusive
cruise-plane complete with spa that can wisk you to visit the
Mediterranian in the lap of luxury, for those of you who want to
contemplate _Speed 42: We Don't Need No Stinking Plot_. For that, expect
to pay more.

--Catch you later

Jeff
Aerospace Major
in residence
Message no. 4
From: Brad Shantz <BradS@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Wandering
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 08:32:10 -0700
Normal air travel will get you from Seattle to Denver in about 2 1/2
hours. It takes me 1 hour and 45 minutes to fly from here to San Jose.


Brad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Goldberg [SMTP:michael.goldberg@*******.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 7:26 PM
> To: PLOTD@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re[2]: Wandering
>
> >Jeffrey Mach wrote:
>
>
> >Questions, comments, death threats?
>
> Death threats .... first, last, and forever. If I wasn't feeling
> rusty at the moment, I would even do them in my various (lots) of
> characters....
>
> HLAV? I don't have any problems with it.... how long would it
> take to
> get between say Seattle and Denver using one?
>
> Later,
> Mike
Message no. 5
From: Justin Fang <justinf@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Wandering
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:41:44 -0700
Jeffrey Mach wrote:
{HLAV's]

Hey, I think I remember reading a short artcile about these things once.
Nifty idea, anyway. Enough room for seats that *really* recline, not just
tilt back a bit.

>Since the wing shape that best takes advantage of wing-in-ground-effect
>(WIG) is wider (front to back) than it is long (fuselage to tip), you can
>start to see how these buggers can get real big real fast.

Er, so what do they look like? I had a vague image of a giant flying wing,
but that's not correct if I'm reading you correctly.

--
Justin Fang (justinf@****.caltech.edu)
This space intentionally left blank.
Message no. 6
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Wandering
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:55:12 -0700
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Justin Fang wrote:

> Jeffrey Mach wrote:
> {HLAV's]
>
> Hey, I think I remember reading a short artcile about these things once.
> Nifty idea, anyway. Enough room for seats that *really* recline, not just
> tilt back a bit.

Depends, or they could pack people in, same as always, and charge you a
lot less. It's an economy of scale thing. But yes, like I described, if
they wanted to do a luxury-liner model, effectively people could get
sleeper cabins if they wanted (maybe first class), since the flight would
be even slower than current aircraft, and their lift capacity is so huge
that the extra immenities wouldn't ammount to much at all in terms of
weight. We are talking on the order of a several million kilogram(+)
aircraft. Potentially, these things could aproach the size of a flying
cruise-ship.

And for those with militaristic ideas, while they would fly pretty
low--the Russians mounted cruise missles on one of their prototypes for
use as a surface-skimming launch platform--the commercial versions would
be so large that hiding one would be like trying to hide a freight train
(and about as maneuverable). However, given sufficent support, you
probably could use them to deposit an enormous amphibious assault.

> >Since the wing shape that best takes advantage of wing-in-ground-effect
> >(WIG) is wider (front to back) than it is long (fuselage to tip), you can
> >start to see how these buggers can get real big real fast.
>
> Er, so what do they look like? I had a vague image of a giant flying wing,
> but that's not correct if I'm reading you correctly.

More imagine a short and stubby but huge wing attached to a flying boat.
The article you read was probably the one that came out in

Cameron, K.A., "The Boat that Flies", Popular Science, April 1992, pp.56

It had the Boeing design study on the front cover. I have been trying to
find that picture on the web, but so far no luck.

The best website I have found on the topic, yet, has been:

http://www.io.tudelft.nl/~twaio/edwin/html30/referenc.htm#DESIGN

--Hope this helps

Jeff
Message no. 7
From: Kevin Prier <prier@*******.UOREGON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Wandering
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:23:38 PDT
For images of HLAVs, there are a lot of them at the same web site
Jeffrey gave, but a different page. Try:

http://www.io.tudelft.nl/~twaio/edwin/html30/ussr.htm

for in-line images of Soviet HLAVs, and

http://www.io.tudelft.nl/~twaio/edwin/html30/images.htm

for his complete archive.

Kevin

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Wandering, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.