Hovercraft - what happened to them?

[NARSES2]

Crossed the Channel by hovercraft, came back by ferry 

[Nick]

Back 20+ years ago I took the small hovercraft from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth, and back again. I had a return Ticket to Ryde 

[steelpillow]

I had a return Ticket to Ryde 

Did you have to post that so I'd read it just as I had finished eating my dinner? 

[Rheged]

I had a return Ticket to Ryde 

Did you have to post that so I'd read it just as I had finished eating my dinner? 

It  could have been worse.  You could have been drinking a mug of tea/coffee at that moment

[Rick Lowe]

Well Played, Sir. (applause emoji)

[Nick]

I had a return Ticket to Ryde 

Did you have to post that so I'd read it just as I had finished eating my dinner? 

It  could have been worse.  You could have been drinking a mug of tea/coffee at that moment

    

Well Played, Sir. (applause emoji)

Thank you, I thank you very much! 

If anyone is interested - We were on Scout camp on the island and one of the scouts had to leave early for a family holiday. So I had to escort them over the water to where his dad was waiting. Free hovercraft ride 

[NARSES2]

Back 20+ years ago I took the small hovercraft from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth, and back again. I had a return Ticket to Ryde 

I will be having a word at the London Show 

[RAFF-35]

I just stumbled across something with a good amount of whiffing potential.
It turns out that the Russians actually invented the hovercraft in the mid 1930's. The Levkov L-5 was built in 1937 and was eventually capable of travelling at 90 knots. It was a multipurpose vehicle initially designed as a fast torpedo craft. 9 were built and evaluated by the Soviet Navy.
It's a shame they didn't see some action during WWII or weren't developed any further.

[steelpillow]

I just stumbled across something with a good amount of whiffing potential.
It turns out that the Russians actually invented the hovercraft in the mid 1930's.

The Levkov L-1 is thought to be the world's first successful hovercraft, though the idea goes waaay back (steampunks please note!)

Link to source of the above pix, with text and the odd extra image: LEVKOV'S HOVERCRAFT - War History.

Hover tank mockup, based on the L-1 work but never built:

[PR19_Kit]

Link to source of the above pix, with text and the odd extra image: LEVKOV'S HOVERCRAFT - War History.

Reading that fascinating link, it would seem that Cockerell sorted out the loss of pressure under the craft by his use of the angled-inwards air jets around the periphery of the craft, and by ensuring that the angled jets went all the way around the vehicle, and later on by the use of the skirts, now used universally for hovercraft.

I've often wondered how the Denny sidewall hovercraft worked efficiently as they had open bow and stern just like the Levkov craft,

And on the historical front, an Austrian naval officer, Dagobert Müller-Thomamühl, built an air cushion vehicle in 1915, quite a bit prior to Levkov. Müller-Thomamühl's craft needed to be moving forward before it generated enough lift to 'fly' clear of the surface though. Neither did it 'fly' over land either, but then neither did Levkov's craft.

[Weaver]

Imagine if enough of WWII battlefield's terrain had been such that hovertanks took off (pun intended).

You'd probably see machine-gun turrets progress up to 37mm weapons, but armour would always be limited both by absolute weight capacity and the size of the platform needing to be armoured relative to it's weight capacity. With weight and recoil both intractable issues (try firing an 88mm sideways from a hovercraft... ) you might have seen recoilless guns and rockets get more attention sooner, followed more quickly by guided missiles. Visibility and situational awareness would be more important at the relatively high speeds, so cupolas would get more attention too.

Thoughts?

[Weaver]

I've often wondered how the Denny sidewall hovercraft worked efficiently as they had open bow and stern just like the Levkov craft,

The Russian have a couple of Bora-class missile corvettes that look like catamarans but are actually rigid-sidewall hovercraft. They have retractable skirts at front and rear, and SIX propellors: two normal ones on the bottom of the hulls, and two push/pull pairs on folding legs that look more like they belong on a hydrofoil. Apparently they're quite good, but the first one was finished at the end of the '80s and with the end of the Cold War and the situation in '90s Russia, it took until 2000 to finish the second one. They both serve in the Black Sea and one has been hit by a Ukrainian drone strike, with disputed results.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bora-class_corvette
Covert Shores (EXCELLENT website BTW): http://www.hisutton.com/Russian-BORA-Class-Misssile-Hovercraft.html

The Norwegian Skjold class corvettes use a similar system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold-class_corvette

[PR19_Kit]

Firing any sort of heavy artillery from a non-surface piercing hovercraft would seem to be a trifle indeterminate. The recoil would have nothing to react against apart from the sheer mass of the vessel and it could well scoot off almost anywhere, depending on where the weapon was aimed. 

The first shot might be on target, but having to re-lay the gun every time would be a real pain, 'firing for effect' could be a non-starter.

On the other hand, a hovercraft monitor, carrying one BIG gun might work OK. They could get in really close and really fast, fire one BIG round and get  the hell out of there. 

Hmm, I have both a 1/144 and 1/72 LCAC at home...................... When does the Amphibian GB end? 

[steelpillow]

Imagine if enough of WWII battlefield's terrain had been such that hovertanks took off (pun intended).

The German invasion of Russia could easily have reached some of its vast frozen-waste-to-marshland-to-cold-desert open spaces. What if the deciding Staningrad tank battle had in fact taken place between German and Russian hovertanks, ekranoplans, and suchlike [what's the Russian for wunderwaffen]?

[PFJN]

Hi,

Although its been a few years I used to be involved in design of the US Navy's Ship to Shore Connector (which I believe are now known as the LCAC 100 class.

One rough rule of thumb about hovercraft that I recall is that due to physics and technology issues an upper limit on design for an air cushion craft would be for the Cushion Pressure/ the craft's cushion Length shouldn't exceed about 1.4 or so (in Imperial Units).

As such, if we try to build a WWII era air cushion vehicle with a cushion" size similar to the hull dimensions of say a Panzer IV, you would have;

Cushion Length = 19.5ft
Cushion Beam = 9.5ft

Therefor Cushion Area = 185.25ft2

Since Cushion Pressure = Wt/ Cushion Area = Wt / (Cushion L * Cushion B)
Or PC/L = Wt / (Cushion Are * Cusion L) = about 1.4
so maximum wt for such an air cushion vehicle would be about 1.4 * Cushion Area * Cushion L = 1.4 * 185.25 * 19.5 = about 5,057lb or abut 2.26LT as compared to the nominal 24.6 LT weight of the Panzer IV Auf H design from 1943.

As such the use of air cushion technology doesn't really seem to reasonable for an armored vehicle.