Super high speed vehicle of big payload
Super high speed vehicle of big payload
Author: David Judbarovski, principle
inventor, retired engineer, Israel
Here it is disclosed and evaluated quite
detailed an incredible vehicle, had been published as a principle invention
idea and was archived in Russian in my blog more than 10 years ago (2007-02-18
10:37:27), but isn’t noticed in the world.
It can be an Ultra heavy military
transport, is better than Pelican Boeing Ultra (ground effect vehicle). Such
conception can be helpful for many civil applications too as a super high speed
transport of big payload.
A key element of my invention is to add the
water steam cocoon to the hull of conventional design of ship. Such method
allows the friction losses of energy to be practically zero, so the
hydrodynamic losses to be practically zero too, if following to the classical
hydrodynamics theory for ideal environment, and if front flow power being
considered as removing/pumping water environment by the sharp ship’
nose, further divided by a time of the pumping, while it is evident, that loses
because the water viscosity are much less than the said pumping energy.
While uniform pressed air cocoon around the
ship’s hull is a big engineering problem, the uniform water steam cocoon around
the ship’s hull below the waterline can be created by electrical evaporation of
the water along a surface of the ship’s hull below its waterline. The water
evaporator can be a simple thin metallic lattice gapped from the ship’s hull
and isolated by thin covers including thermal insulation of the said hull.
Certainly, such evaporation consumes a lot
of additional energy, but not critical quantity.
Below I show numerical evaluations. Anyone
can repeat them for any other cases, using my technics of evaluation disclosed here
clearly.
If a cruise velocity being 900 km/h = 250
m/s and a nose angle being 30 grade, the water pressure on the nose is P = k *
1000 * tan (30/2) * 0.5 * 250^2 Pa.
k<< 1, because the front water flow
is forced out to the water surface by the shock. And the shock of 900 km/h is
so big, that water replacement goes practically the all in the air as a wave
with k * 1000 ~= 1.5 approximately, so P ~= 12500 Pa = 0.125 bars = 1.25 m of
the water pressure forming a wave some meters and tens meter width along the
ship route..
It is extremely helpful for our super
high-speed, and for now used speeds no more than 100 km/h, there was practiced
to make the ships’ noses tilted back and above and thickened below with
analogous effect, was not understood.
If further supposing the ship going
slightly deeper the sea level and a beam = 10 m and height = 6 m for fuselage,
the nose is removing 6 * 10 * 10 / ((tan (30/2)) / 2 = 600 m3 in (10 / 2 / tan
(30/2)) / 250 = 20 / 250 = 0.08 sec., or = 600 / 0.08 = 7500 m3/s, so drag power W ~=
7500 * (6 /2 + 1.25) = 32,000 kW
The said steam is about 2 bars, so it is
120 Centigrade.
The steam compensates the cocoon
condensation by the cold water environment. If the vehicle length being supposedly
120 m, so a condensation area is about 2 * 50 * (6 + 10) = 1600 m2.
2 *10^4 * 1600 = 32,000 kW for payload about
4800 ton =120 * 6 * 10 – 6 * 10 * 10 /(tan (30/2)).
I can recommend the cocoon thickness to
enhance before reaching the cruise velocity, and it needs in order of magnitude
less power than 32.000 kW, and then to support the thickness by all of that
power
.
Totally, W = 64,000 kW.
For comparison of my design vs. Boeing
Pelican Ultra
Length 120 m vs. 122 m
Wingspan none vs. 152 m
Height of fuselage 6 m vs. 6 m
Wing area none vs. >4000 m2
Useful load about 4500 metric ton vs. 1273
metric ton
Total power plant 64,000 kW vs. 240,000 kW
Cruise speed 900 km/h vs. 445 km/h in
ground effect
Route under water vs. above water surface
Fly route doesn’t need vs. 6000 m ceiling, but it is very vulnerable for
attack
Runway isn’t needed vs. very long inland runway
Loading after delivery to the sea vs.
inland loading is possible
Energy consume is 0.015 kWh per 1.0 ton-km vs. 30 times more
Comments
Post a Comment