| 词条 | Boeing Pelican | |||||||||||||||
| 释义 |
The Boeing Pelican ULTRA (Ultra Large TRansport Aircraft) was a proposed ground effect fixed-wing aircraft under study by Boeing Phantom Works. DevelopmentThe Boeing Pelican ULTRA is intended as a large-capacity transport craft initially for military use, with possible subsequent availability as a commercial freighter[1] serving the world's largest cargo centers.[2] It is significantly larger and more capable than the biggest existing commercial airliners, commercial freighters, and military airlifters.[3] The Pelican is not targeted for civilian transportation,[4] but it can be converted to a commercial airliner transporting up to 3,000 passengers.[2] Internal deliberationThe design process for what became the Pelican began in early 2000, when designers in the Phantom Works division of Boeing started working on solutions for the United States armed forces objective of moving thousands of troops, weapons, military equipment, and provisions to a war or battle scene faster,[6] such as successfully deploying an Army brigade of 3,000 troops and {{convert|8000|ST|MT|abbr=off}} of equipment within {{convert|96|hour|day|abbr=off|spell=in|0}}[7] instead of the {{convert|3|to|6|month|day|spell=in|abbr=off}} it required in the past. In particular, the Department of Defense had requested a vehicle of any mode (land, air, or sea) with the ability to move {{convert|1000000|lb|kg ST MT|abbr=off|spell=in}} of cargo.[4] Knowing that the United States Army was investigating large airships and airship-airplane hybrids,[7] Boeing Phantom Works internally considered and rejected at least three known design iterations: a large blimp or dirigible airship, a smaller but wider airship that creates dynamic lift while in forward motion, and then back to a larger airship that flies at low altitude with wings spanning {{cvt|700|ft|m|0}}.[4][11] It also looked at and discarded a fast oceangoing ship and a sea-based ground effect vehicle.[1] Boeing Phantom Works then selected a land-based ground effect vehicle with high drooping wings as its solution. It applied for a patent in October 2001 on a ground effect airplane that would form the basis for the Pelican, aside from some eventually omitted design elements such as a T-tail, upward-pointing (positive dihedral) winglets, an additional middle row of landing gears, and a loading ramp at the back of the fuselage. The patent also listed open-ended fuselage compartment dimensions of at least {{cvt|16|ft|m}} high, {{cvt|24|ft|m}} wide, and {{cvt|100|ft|m}} long, with an aircraft wingspan of at least {{cvt|300|ft|m}}. Its example fuselage length and wingspan of {{cvt|420|ft|m|0}} and {{cvt|480|ft|m|0}} would come close to the final Pelican configuration, though.[13] Initial artist drawings of the aircraft were made public in early 2002.[1] In May 2002, Boeing applied for a patent on variable-sweep, downward-pointing (negative dihedral, or anhedral) winglets to help ground effect vehicles avoid water contact while minimizing aerodynamic drag;[16] the patent drawings show a cylindrical fuselage, which may indicate that a pressurized aircraft was considered at the time, although the final Pelican design has an unpressurized fuselage. The next month, without explicitly naming Boeing as the aircraft originator, the Army cited the Pelican as an emerging technology to improve strategic responsiveness in its 2002 Transformation Roadmap.[17] In July, a U.S. Transportation Command team lead at Scott Air Force Base mentioned the Pelican as a practical solution for moving troops and equipment over long distances.[18] Meanwhile, the designers evaluated three different aircraft sizes with mean takeoff weights of {{convert|3.5|,|6.0|, and|10.0|e6lb|e6kg ST MT|abbr=off}}[1] and wingspans of {{cvt|380|,|500|, and|620|ft|m}}, respectively.[20] Public introductionThe Pelican was formally introduced to the public at the 2002 Farnborough International Airshow in July,[21] but with few specifics. As described in its physical form, the aircraft mostly resembled future versions of the Pelican, except that the winglets were reverted to upward-pointing to maximize lift. Boeing announced that the Pelican could fly up to {{cvt|2000|to|3000|ft|m|0}} in altitude and that the wingspan was limited by a {{convert|262|ft|m|adj=mid|width|0}} so that it could be used on existing runways and taxiways.[22] Both parameters were drastically smaller than the Pelican's eventual final specifications, however, and although Boeing's original patent called for a folding wing,[13] news reports did not mention a folding mechanism, so it was unclear whether the stated wingspan represented an unfoldable, unfolded, or folded width. On the other hand, Boeing mentioned a theoretical Pelican payload of up to {{cvt|2700|MT|lb kg ST MT|order=out}},[21] which was much larger than the final specified maximum payload and was actually about equal to the final maximum takeoff weight. While Boeing said that the U.S. Army was evaluating the Pelican in war games as a solution to "beat ships across the ocean," and that the company was jointly studying the aircraft with the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), it noted that full concept studies would not begin for another 5–8 years, and the aircraft would have to wait for at least 20 years before entering service.[22] In the September 2002 edition of its company news magazine, Boeing published an article highlighting the Pelican and revealing more of its final specifications, including a {{convert|500|ft|m|adj=mid|wingspan|0}}, a wing area of over {{cvt|1|acre|sqft m2|spell=in|0}}, a payload of {{cvt|1400|ST|MT|0}} of cargo, an increased flight service ceiling of {{cvt|20000|ft|m}} or more in altitude, and a range for a smaller payload of {{convert|6500|to|10000|nmi|mi km|sigfig=3|abbr=off}}, depending on the flight mode. In addition, it stated that the Pelican could move 17 M-1 Abrams tanks, and that the aircraft would be offered along with the C-17 Globemaster III transport, the CH-47 Chinook helicopter, and the Advanced Theater Transport as part of the company's mobility solution for the U.S. armed forces.[26] This article attracted international media coverage,[27] and as Boeing Phantom Works continued to mature the design (including selection of the mid-size vehicle option),[2] additional details about the aircraft began to appear over the next year in newspaper,[29][30][31][2] general science magazine,[33][34][7] and aviation industry print publications[36][37][1] and research conferences.[20][11][41] In November 2002, Boeing also applied for a patent on an automated system for controlling large, multiple-wheel steering aircraft (such as the Pelican) during ground maneuvers, crosswind landings, and crosswind takeoffs.[42] According to Boeing, the Pelican aircraft technology was starting to gain followers among the decision makers evaluating the mobility initiatives within the Army and the Air Force,[43][17] and the Navy also showed interest though it was directing its attention more toward hybrid ultra-large airships (HULAs).[45][46][1] The market could support over 1,000 of this type of aircraft by 2020, Boeing asserted, if the military used this aircraft and if air transport's share of the transoceanic cargo shipping market increased to two percent[1] from one percent (versus the current 99 percent for ocean shipping transport). Taking some market share from ocean shipping could occur, contended Boeing, because in comparison with traditional air cargo transports, the Pelican is less expensive and offers much more payload volume and weight.[49] Boeing stated that the Pelican's continued development could depend on a positive result in the U.S. Army's Advanced Mobility Concepts Study (AMCS),[29] which would describe the future mobility concepts and capabilities needed by the armed forces in years 2015 to 2020.[51] By the latter half of 2003, Boeing Phantom Works was showcasing the Pelican on its web site[52] and in technology expositions.[53] The U.S. Army published the AMCS report in December 2003, but the Pelican was not among the list of the eight most promising future mobility platforms for evaluation.[51] Despite this setback, Boeing in 2004 continued low-key educational and evangelical promotion of the aircraft.[55][49][4] At the 2004 Farnborough Air Show, Boeing announced that the Pelican had entered wind tunnel testing and that the aircraft's service ceiling was increased to {{cvt|25000|ft|m}}. Project stoppageIn a 2005 United States congressional report evaluating 11 proposed airlift and sealift platforms for military mobility, the Boeing Pelican was assessed as marginally feasible to enter service in 2016, ranking behind six platforms that were deemed feasible. The lower grade was due to the tremendous investment required to develop an operational product because of the scale of the aircraft and the use of high-risk technologies, which might prevent the aircraft from achieving technology readiness level (TRL) 5.[51] With this assessment, the report essentially reaffirmed Boeing's previous concerns about its ability to produce the aircraft for service by a 2015 timeframe.[22][1] Though Boeing filed a couple of patent applications in mid-2005 relating to cargo container handling[62] and automatic altitude measurement,[63] no other public announcements appear to have been made about the aircraft after the report was issued. By April 2006, a report on Boeing internal documents showed that its long-term aircraft focus was primarily about low-cost and environmentally efficient passenger planes of conventional size, and there was no mention of the Boeing Pelican.[66] Facing diminished odds of a large order from the U.S. armed forces, which collectively represented the aircraft's sole indispensable launch customer, Boeing quietly discontinued further development of the Pelican program.[67] DescriptionLike the pelican water bird for which it is named,[21] the concept aircraft can both skim over water and soar to heights above famous mountain peaks. However, the Pelican is not designed for contact with bodies of water, so although the aircraft cannot take off or land at sea, it can be designed to be lighter and more aerodynamic.[27] The aircraft is a land-based ground effect vehicle that operates from conventional runways despite having an enormous maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of {{convert|6|e6lb|e6kg ST MT|abbr=off}}.[36] During flight, the Pelican exits ground effect to climb a few thousand feet while the surface below the aircraft changes from ocean to solid ground, then enters descent to arrive at an airport like other airplanes.[2] This capability differentiates the aircraft from some previously built ground effect vehicles such as the Caspian Sea Monster, whose relatively narrow {{convert|120|ft|m|adj=mid|wingspan}} could not produce enough lift to fly the large vehicle out of ground effect.[72] Flight characteristicsIn its most efficient flight mode, the Pelican flies in ground effect at {{convert|20|to|50|ft|m|abbr=off}} above the water,[11] measured from the fixed structure (the underside of the fuselage), though the aircraft distance can be reduced to {{cvt|10|to|40|ft|m}} depending on its wingtip positioning.[55] It has a cruise speed of {{convert|240|knots|mph km/h|abbr=off|0}},[34] which lets it skim above 90 percent of the ocean about 90 percent of the time before high waves force it to fly out of ground effect.[43] Boeing's ocean wave studies during 2000 revealed that north-south aircraft routes and many east-west routes worked very well in ground effect, with flights at latitude between 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south being very efficient, while polar routes were more challenging.[11] The aircraft can also cruise over land at {{cvt|400|knots|mph km/h|0}} with an altitude of {{cvt|20000|ft|m}}.[55] At higher flight levels, the aircraft can attain nearly jet-like speeds in thinner air but consumes fuel faster than in ground effect mode,[79] though the aircraft still performs at a fuel efficiency similar to a Boeing 747-400F aircraft freighter.[29] The Pelican can fly to a height of {{cvt|25000|ft|m}}, so it can clear all of the world's highest mountain ranges except for the Himalayas. The aircraft takes off and lands at airfields differently from conventional airliners because of the Pelican's unusual landing gear configuration. A typical aircraft pitches its nose up right before final liftoff or touchdown, but the Pelican appears to have little or no rotation. Like the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress strategic bomber, the Pelican seems to levitate on or off the ground.[20][1][84] FuselageA double-deck structure with a rectangular cross-section, the fuselage is {{cvt|122|m|ft|order=flip}} long[30][37] and is unpressurized except within the cockpit. It is capped in front by a large swing-nose door, which allows for loading and unloading cargo through both decks, and in back by conventional tailfin and tailplane stabilizers attached directly to the fuselage, instead of the heavier T-tail empennage that is typically used by other ground effect planes.[1] The main deck has a cabin area that is {{cvt|50|ft|m}} wide and {{cvt|200|ft|m}} long.[34] For military purposes, the upper deck is designed to carry troops or cargo containers,[31] while the main deck has a height of {{cvt|18.3|ft|ftin m|order=out}}[34] so that it can hold oversized vehicles such as tanks[31] or helicopters. WingsThe aircraft's wings are mounted to the fuselage in a high wing configuration, and they are unswept and mostly parallel to the ground in their inner sections. The wings droop downward in their outer sections to enhance ground effect, also having a slight backward sweep in the leading edge and forward sweep in the trailing edge. To let the aircraft change shape for different types of operations, the wings are hinged within the drooping sections, and the axis of rotation is parallel to the fuselage. The wings fold slightly for takeoffs and landings, and they fold about 90 degrees to reduce clearance amounts during taxiing and ground operations.[36] At the ends of the folding wing sections, wingtips droop below the rest of the aircraft by up to {{cvt|10|ft|m}} when the larger folding wing and the wingtip are in their normal positions.[55] To avoid ground or water contact, the wingtips are hinged for active rotation, as the rotational axis is perpendicular to the direction of flight but not necessarily parallel to the ground. If a wingtip accidentally touches the ground or water, it minimizes the contact by passively swiveling upward and backward,[16][55] with the clock position moving from six o'clock to three o'clock or nine o'clock, depending on which side of the wing is viewed. The wings have an area of more than {{convert|1|acre|sqft m2 ha|spell=in|abbr=off}} and a mean aerodynamic chord of {{cvt|97|ft|m|sigfig=3}}.[20] The wingspan is {{cvt|500|ft|m|0}}, although the wingspan can be reduced to as small as {{cvt|340|ft|m|0}} when the wing is folded.[34] There are no leading edge devices or anti-icing systems, but the trailing edge has flaps that span the entire wing.[20] The wings are designed with a large thickness-to-chord ratio to reduce aircraft weight[20] and to hold part of the overall payload, a feature that is unique in modern aircraft and only rarely had been implemented in previous-era aircraft, such as in the Junkers G.38. Power plantThe Pelican is powered by eight turboprop engines, which produce an output of {{convert|80000|hp|kW|adj=pre|shaft|abbr=off}} each.[4][55] The engines are about five times more powerful than the engines on turboprop or propfan-powered military transport aircraft such as the Airbus A400M (using Europrop TP400 engines) and the Antonov An-22 (Kuznetsov NK-12MA) and An-70 (Progress D-27). The new engines would probably be a hybrid derived from two General Electric (GE) engines: the LM6000 marine engine, an aeroderivative gas turbine based on the CF6-80C2 turbofan (used on the Boeing 767 and other widebody aircraft) that powers fast ferries, cargo ships, and stationary electrical generation plants, combined with a core based on the GE90 turbofan, which powers the Boeing 777 twin-engine widebody aircraft.[1][41] The Pelican's many engines mitigate a single-engine loss scenario, so just as the Boeing 777-300ER can lift its {{cvt|777000|lb|kg ST MT}} maximum takeoff weight with just one of its two engines working, seven operational engines out of the eight total can provide enough power for the 7.7-times greater MTOW of the Pelican. The power plant converts about 38 percent of the fuel's energy into thrust,[55] a comparable engine efficiency to those in modern widebody aircraft.[108] The engines are paired behind four sets of coaxial contra-rotating propellers that are positioned at the leading edge of the inner sections of the wings.[7] A set of contra-rotating propellers has eight blades (four blades on the front propeller and four blades on the back propeller)[41] that are {{convert|50|ft|in ft m|order=out}} in diameter,[7] which dwarfs the GE90 turbofan, is at least about two and a half times the size of the propellers on the aforementioned turboprop and propfan engines, and is noticeably bigger than the largest marine ship propellers,[112] although it is less than half as wide as the main rotors on the largest helicopters. While a single engine drives each set of contra-rotating propellers on some common propfan aircraft such as the An-22 and the Tupolev Tu-95 (respectively the heaviest and fastest turboprop-powered aircraft in the world), the Pelican requires the two propellers within a contra-rotating propeller set to be matched with twin engines. This arrangement is due to the amount of power needed to lift the large aircraft off the ground and to ascend to and cruise at high altitude, but one of the engines in each engine pairing can be turned off while cruising in ground effect,[1] as the paired engines are connected by a geared combiner gearbox so that one or both of the engines can turn the propellers.[41] PayloadThe Pelican has a maximum payload weight of {{convert|2800000|lb|ST MT|abbr=off|sigfig=3}},[34] which allows an army to transport 70 heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks (HEMTTs) or 52 M270 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRSs). It can carry 17 M-1 Abrams tanks in five rows of three abreast and one row of two abreast.[11] The Pelican can also move ten CH-47D Chinook helicopters, which only use about ten percent of the payload weight capacity and are confined to the main deck[11] due to their vehicle size. While human transportation would typically be in the form of military troops, the aircraft can be used to transport 3,000 passengers as a commercial airliner,[2] though the aircraft is able to ferry the equivalent of 8,000 passengers (including carry-on items, luggage, seats, stowage bins, and other cabin furnishings)[4] if factors other than payload weight are ignored (such as cabin area). As a cargo freighter, the Pelican is designed to handle the standard intermodal shipping containers used in shipping, rail, and trucking instead of the smaller unit load devices (containers and pallets) that dominate the air cargo industry. The aircraft is designed to handle two layers of containers on its main deck. The containers are arranged longitudinally within the fuselage in eight rows of five containers, followed by two rows of three containers, for a total of 46 containers in a layer.[62] The upper deck only holds one container layer, but it allows access to the cargo area of the wings, each of which can hold 20 containers[1] aligned parallel to the fuselage in two rows of ten abreast.[20] Within a cumulative cargo area of {{cvt|29900|ft2|m2 acre ha}},[34] the entire aircraft can transport 178 containers,[37] or the equivalent of a single-stacked, containerized freight train stretching over {{convert|2/3|mi|km|spell=in|adj=pre|of a}} long. At the maximum payload weight, a Pelican aircraft holding the maximum number of containers will have an average gross weight of {{cvt|251685|oz|lb kg ST MT|sigfig=3|order=out}} per container. RangeAt the maximum payload, the aircraft can travel {{convert|5500|km|nmi mi km|abbr=off|order=out}} in ground effect,[37] which is about the distance between New York City and London. Carrying a smaller payload of {{cvt|1500000|lb|ST MT}}, or slightly over half of the maximum payload, it can travel {{cvt|10000|nmi|mi km|sigfig=3}} in ground effect,[36] roughly the distance between Hong Kong and Buenos Aires, taking about {{convert|2500|min|hour day|order=out|abbr=off}} in travel time. This distance is greater than the world's longest airline flights, and it is just short of the {{cvt|10800|nmi|mi km|sigfig=3|adj=mid|great-circle distance}} between two antipodes, which theoretically represents nonstop range to anywhere on earth (ignoring geopolitical barriers, headwinds, and other factors). The aircraft can alternatively carry that payload at high altitude with a decreased range of about {{cvt|6500|nmi|mi km|sigfig=3}},[36] or approximately the distance between New York City and Shanghai.[129] Ground accommodationUnlike the typical tricycle undercarriage of most airliners, the undercarriage arrangement for the Pelican distributes the aircraft's weight on ground over two rows of 19 inline landing gears, which are mounted on each side directly under the length of the fuselage. Each landing gear row contains dual-wheel retractable landing gears distributed over about {{cvt|180|ft|m}} in length,[41] with an average center-to-center distance of {{cvt|10|ft|m in mm|0}} between each inline landing gear. As the landing gear rows are spaced about {{cvt|45|ft|m}} apart from each other,[41] the Pelican's wheel span may meet the code letter F standard of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Aerodrome Reference Code, which is used for airport planning purposes. While only the nose landing gear can be steered on most airliners, each landing gear on the Pelican is steerable, so the aircraft can more easily perform crosswind landings and complete turns at a smaller radius when it is on the ground. The combined 76 aircraft tires on the Pelican[1] far exceeds the 32 wheels of the current largest cargo aircraft, the Antonov An-225. The average load per wheel is {{cvt|1263158|oz|lb kg ST MT|order=out|sigfig=3}}, or meaningfully larger than the typical maximum design load of {{cvt|30|MT|lb kg ST MT|order=out}} for large, long-range aircraft.[135] Pavement loading from the Pelican may be comparatively low, though.[1] Boeing claims that the aircraft's ground flotation characteristic, a measure tied to the ground's ability to keep a vehicle from sinking, at maximum takeoff weight is superior to that of the much-smaller McDonnell-Douglas DC-10,[11] which imposes the most demanding flotation requirements among aircraft of its era.[138] However, regular Pelican operation at airports with high water tables underground may result a type of seismic wave that leads to cracks in airport terminal buildings and eventually causes greater damage within months,[7] argues an analyst who previously designed the Aerocon "wingship," which was an even heavier, sea-based ground effect aircraft that was also studied by DARPA but never built.[140][141] A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft, the Pelican requires a takeoff runway length of {{cvt|8000|ft|m}} at MTOW,[11] which is shorter than the listed distance required for the much-lighter Boeing 747-400F.[144] For Pelican landings, a satisfactory airfield meets the desired runway length and width of {{cvt|5500|and|100|ft|m|0}}, respectively, and has a load classification number (LCN) of at least 30 if paved or 23 if unpaved. The aircraft may also be able to use a marginal airfield, which has a minimum runway length of {{cvt|4000|ft|m|0}}, width of {{cvt|80|ft|m|0}}, and an LCN (if known) of 30 paved or 23 unpaved.[11] A runway with an LCN of 30 can thus withstand the Pelican at lower weights, but it should not host some versions of the Boeing 737 narrowbody aircraft (including the popular 737-800) nor most versions of the 777,[146] regardless of whether the runway is long and wide enough to handle those other planes. Boeing maintains that many military airfields are able to host aircraft that have the Pelican's large wingspan,[1] adding that in the conflict regions of Southwest Asia from the Fertile Crescent and the Arabian peninsula eastward to Pakistan, at least 323 airfields meet the satisfactory landing criteria, with additional airfields that can meet the marginal criteria or be restored to satisfactory or marginal.[11] The aircraft's length and wingspan, however, make the Pelican too big for the "80-meter box," the informal name of the maximum size specified in the ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code. The Pelican requires at the least a ramp or elevator to load and unload cargo. A more ideal setup is to build dedicated ground infrastructure[11] at airports for transloading, such as cranes, railcars, and apron jacks, which approaches the sophistication of container terminal facilities used at the docks of major marine ports.[62] Specifications{{aircraft specifications|jet or prop?=prop |plane or copter?=plane |capacity=3,000 passengers[2] |length main= {{convert|122|m|ft|disp=out}} |length alt= 122 m[30][37] |height main= {{convert|18.3|ft|ftin|disp=out}} (fuselage main deck interior)[34] |height alt= {{convert|18.3|ft|m|disp=out}} |span main= 340 ft folded; 500 ft unfolded;[34] effective wingspan of 850 ft in ground effect[20] |span alt= {{convert|340|ft|m|sigfig=3|disp=out}}; {{convert|500|ft|m|sigfig=3|disp=out}}; {{convert|850|ft|m|sigfig=3|disp=out}} |area main=more than {{convert|1|acre|ft2|sigfig=4|disp=out}}[29] |area alt={{convert|1|acre|m2|sigfig=4|disp=out}} |payload main= {{convert|2800000|lb|lb|disp=out}}[34] |payload alt= {{convert|2800000|lb|ST kg MT|sigfig=3|disp=out}} |useful load 1253 imperial tons |engine (prop)=LM6000-GE90 hybrid[7][41] |type of prop=turboprops |number of props=eight |power main=80,000 shp[4][55] |power alt={{convert|80000|hp|kW|sigfig=3|disp=out}} | propeller or rotor? = propellers[7] | propellers = four-bladed |number of propellers per engine = one[7] |propeller diameter main=50 ft[7] |propeller diameter alt={{convert|50|ft|m in cm|sigfig=3|disp=out}} |wing area alt=> 4,000 m2 |cruise speed main= {{convert|240|kn|mph km/h ft/s m/s|sigfig=3}} in ground effect; {{convert|400|kn|mph km/h ft/s m/s|sigfig=3}} at 20,000 feet[55] | empty weight main = 2,160,000 lb[20] | empty weight alt = {{cvt|2160000|lb|kg ST MT|disp=out}} | max takeoff weight main = 6,000,000 lb[36][20] | max takeoff weight alt = {{convert|3000|ST|kg MT|sigfig=2|disp=x|; }} | aspect ratio = 5.4 (effective AR of 15.8 in ground effect)[1]
| lift to drag = 21 (36 in ground effect;[1] 45 in ground effect with winglets in unswept position)[55] | more general = Cabin dimensions, main deck (height x width x length): {{cvt|18.3|x|50|x|200|ft|m}}[34]
| ceiling main=25,000 ft | ceiling alt={{convert|25000|ft|m|disp=out}} | range main=
| range alt={{cvt|5500|km|mi km|disp=out}}[37] | range more=
| armament =
}} See also{{aircontent|see also= |related= |similar aircraft=
|lists= }} References1. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 {{cite magazine |last1=Norris |first1=Guy |title=Flying ships: Pelican crossing. We look at Boeing's unusual concept for a giant wing-in-ground-effect aircraft, the Pelican project from Phantom Works. |url=https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pelican-crossing-168313/ |publisher=Illiffe Transport Publications |accessdate=1 July 2018 |work=Flight International |department=Features |page=42 |date=July 1, 2003 |location=Los Angeles, California |issue=4889 |publication-date=July 1–7, 2003 |oclc=95785735 |issn=0015-3710 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180730162219/http://flightglobal.com/news/articles/pelican-crossing-168313/ |archive-date=July 30, 2018 |dead-url=no}} [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]2. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {{cite magazine |last1=Warwick |first1=Graham |title=Freedom to fly: As civil aviation has grown, so has its variety and complexity. But how much more room will it be allowed for expansion by the restrictions of airspace and the current infrastructure? |url=https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/freedom-to-fly-162684/ |accessdate=25 July 2018 |work=Flight International |date=March 11, 2003 |issue=4873 |publication-date=March 11–17, 2003 |location=Washington, D.C. |pages=48–50 |issn=0015-3710 |oclc=204341089 |dead-url=no |archive-date=October 22, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181022172331/http://flightglobal.com/news/articles/freedom-to-fly-162684/}} 3. ^1 2 {{cite news |last1=Morris |first1=Jefferson |title=Pelican concept gaining favor with military planners, Boeing says |url=http://aviationweek.com/awin/pelican-concept-gaining-favor-military-planners-boeing-says |subscription=yes |accessdate=9 August 2018 |work=Aerospace Daily |volume=205 |issue=9 |page=5 |publisher=Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN) |date=January 14, 2003 |issn=0193-4546}} 4. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 {{cite magazine |last1=Dornheim |first1=Michael |title=Air transport: Boeing sketches 500-ft. transport. Would cruise in ground effect but could fly above 20,000 ft. |publication-place=Los Angeles |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030225105621/http://www.aviationnow.com/content/ncof/ncf_n87.htm |archive-date=February 25, 2003 |url=http://www.aviationnow.com/content/ncof/ncf_n87.htm |pages=43–44 |accessdate=31 July 2018 |issn=0005-2175 |work=Aviation Week & Space Technology |volume=157 |issue=16 |date=October 14, 2002 |oclc=96336265 |publisher=The McGraw-Hill Companies}} 5. ^1 2 3 {{cite magazine |title=Boeing and Cranfield team on BWB: UK organisation takes over NASA's role in development of flying wing as manufacturer also unwraps Pelican concept. |author= |url=https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/2002/2002%20-%202308.PDF |accessdate=22 August 2018 |work=Flight International |issue=July 30–August 5, 2002 |page=24 |issn=0015-3710 |dead-url=no |archive-date=January 4, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190104084529/http://flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-and-cranfield-team-on-bwb-152395/}} 6. ^1 2 3 {{cite news |last1=Norris |first1=Guy |title=Boeing studies giant wing-in-ground craft |url=https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-studies-giant-wing-in-ground-craft-152435/ |accessdate=20 August 2018 |work=Flight Daily News |date=July 23, 2002 |dead-url=no |archive-date=October 22, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181022172326/http://flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-studies-giant-wing-in-ground-craft-152435/}} 7. ^1 {{cite news |last1=Gates |first1=Dominic |title=Clean engines, wings that fold: Boeing dreams of futuristic jets |url=http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2002973147_boeingconcepts05.html |accessdate=8 November 2018 |work=Seattle Times |issue=Friday, May 5, 2006 |date=May 18, 2006 |language=English |dead-url=no |archive-date=November 8, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181108144509/http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2002973147_boeingconcepts05.html}} 8. ^1 {{cite news |last1=Skeen |first1=Jim |title=Phantom Works shows what's on its drawing board. |url=https://www.thefreelibrary.com/PHANTOM+WORKS+SHOWS+WHAT%27S+ON+ITS+DRAWING+BOARD.-a0110244894 |accessdate=11 August 2018 |work=The Daily News of Los Angeles |issn=0279-8026 |issue=Sunday, November 16, 2003 |department=Business |page=B1 |date=November 16, 2003 |dead-url=no |archive-date=August 12, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180812021932/http://thefreelibrary.com/PHANTOM+WORKS+SHOWS+WHAT%27S+ON+ITS+DRAWING+BOARD.-a0110244894}} 9. ^1 {{cite news |last1=Wilson |first1=David |title=Phantom flyers to conjure up spectres of the future |url=https://www.scmp.com/article/425885/phantom-flyers-conjure-spectres-future |accessdate=11 August 2018 |work=South China Morning Post |department=Technopedia |page=5 |issue=Tuesday, 26 August 2003 |issn=1021-6731 |date=August 26, 2003}} 10. ^1 {{cite news |last1=Kaczor |first1=Bill |title=Navy may use blimps, seaplanes |url=https://www.heraldtribune.com/article/LK/20030510/News/605209845/SH/ |accessdate=28 October 2018 |work=Sarasota Herald-Tribune |agency=Associated Press |date=May 10, 2003 |location=Pensacola, Florida |language=English |dead-url=no |archive-date=October 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181028225824/http://heraldtribune.com/article/LK/20030510/News/605209845/SH/}} 11. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {{cite news |last1=Kaye |first1=Ken |title=Plane of future sits on design board. |url=https://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-11-15/business/0211141264_1_pelican-cargo-plane-landing |accessdate=24 July 2018 |work=South Florida Sun-Sentinel |agency=Knight-Ridder/Tribune |date=November 15, 2002 |issue=November 15, 2002 | page=1D |issn=0744-8139 |dead-url=no |archive-date=January 4, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190104090312/http://sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2002-11-15-0211141264-story.html}} 12. ^1 2 3 {{cite news |last1=Gillie |first1=John |title=Army seeks big bird; Boeing hatches Pelican - Military: Cargo aircraft would be remarkable for gigantic size as well as flying style. |work=The News Tribune (Tacoma, Washington) |edition=South Sound |department=Business |publication-date=Oct 31, 2002 |page=D01 |issn=1073-5860 |url=http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/2002/110802/cargo_plane.html |dead-url=yes |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030514045804/http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/2002/110802/cargo_plane.html |archive-date=May 14, 2003 |via=Aerotech News and Review Journal of Aerospace and Defense Industry News |access-date=11 September 2018}} 13. ^1 2 3 {{cite news |last1=Robbins |first1=Gary |title=Boeing's big idea |url=https://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021018-army.htm |accessdate=January 2, 2019 |publisher=Orange County Register (California) |date=October 18, 2002 |issue=Friday, October 18, 2002 |at=Cover |location=Huntington Beach, California |language=English |dead-url=no |via=GlobalSecurity.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030102075210/http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021018-army.htm |archive-date=January 2, 2003}} 14. ^1 {{cite news |title=Other large planes would pale in comparison |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021006090129/http://www.heraldnet.com:80/Stories/02/10/6/15886550.cfm |archive-date=October 6, 2002 |url=http://www.heraldnet.com:80/Stories/02/10/6/15886550.cfm |dead-url=yes |accessdate=5 August 2018 |work=The Herald of Everett, Wash. |issue=Sunday, October 6, 2002 |page=A1 |date=October 6, 2002}} 15. ^1 2 3 4 {{cite news |last1=Corliss |first1=Bryan |title=Big dreams at Boeing: In theory, plane could carry 1,400 tons of cargo |publication-place=Long Beach, California |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021006101613/http://www.heraldnet.com:80/Stories/02/10/6/15870819.cfm |archive-date=October 6, 2002 |url=http://www.heraldnet.com:80/Stories/02/10/6/15870819.cfm |dead-url=yes |accessdate=27 July 2018 |work=The Herald of Everett, Wash. |issue=Sunday, October 6, 2002 |date=October 6, 2002}} 16. ^1 {{cite news |last1=Genna |first1=Chris |title=Boeing Country: Boeing plane designed to skim waves |url=http://www.eastsidejournal.com:80/sited/story/html/105606 |accessdate=13 September 2018 |work=Eastside Journal |date=September 19, 2002 |department=Business |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20021203234049/http://www.eastsidejournal.com:80/sited/story/html/105606 |archivedate=December 3, 2002 |location=Bellevue, Washington |language=English |quote=But the Soviet ekranoplans had stubby wings -- the KM spanned 120 feet -- that didn't provide enough lift to fly, except in ground effect. They were true sea skimmers. In fact, they couldn't operate if the waves got higher than 12 feet.}} 17. ^1 {{cite news |last1=Goodrich |first1=Robert |title=Scott explores better ways to move troops, equipment; there is an urgency to find new methods to 'get out of Dodge fast' |work=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |issue=July 22, 2002 Monday Five Star Lift Edition |department=Metro |page=B2 |language=English |via=NewsBank |url=https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/0F4F0BE7A7AE3900 |subscription=yes |issn=1930-9600 |accessdate=4 September 2018 |quote=Even so, some look practical, he said. For example, Boeing is moving rapidly to develop its 'Pelican,' a cargo jet that would glide across the ocean, riding a wave-top air cushion like a gigantic albatross.}} 18. ^1 {{cite news |last1=Shechmeister |first1=Matthew |title=The Soviet superplane program that rattled Area 51 |url=https://www.wired.com/2011/06/ekranoplan/ |at=Slide 10 |accessdate=2 August 2018 |journal=Wired |date=June 10, 2011 |quote=Boeing briefly entertained the idea of building an enormous military cargo plane along the lines of the great Soviet ekranoplans. The aircraft, dubbed the Pelican, got as far as a cheesy 3-D rendering, and, according to a representative, Boeing has no plans to pursue the project further. |dead-url=no |archive-date=August 2, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180802223725/http://wired.com/2011/06/ekranoplan/}} 19. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 {{cite magazine |last1=Sweetman |first1=Bill |title=Monster at 20 ft. Look up, but not way up: Boeing's massive cargo carrier would fly very, very low indeed. Here's how. |pages=68–72 |volume=262 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180929020041/http://popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2003-01/monster-20-ft |accessdate=January 4, 2019 |work=Popular Science |issue=2 |date=February 2003 |publication-date=January 22, 2003 |issn=0161-7370 |oclc=96033212 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iDdUVbjhXTsC&lpg=PP1&lr&rview=1&pg=PA68#v=twopage&q&f=false |archive-date=September 29, 2018 |dead-url=no}} 20. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 {{cite magazine |last1=Vizard |first1=Frank |title=Future combat, part 2 |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/future-combat-part-2/ |accessdate=19 June 2018 |work=Scientific American |issn=0036-8733 |date=January 20, 2003 |dead-url=no |archive-date=June 20, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180620024650/http://scientificamerican.com/article/future-combat-part-2/}} 21. ^1 {{cite magazine |last1=McNichol |first1=Tom |title=Duck! It's a low-flying gigaplane: Where the Spruce Goose failed, the Pelican tries again |url=https://www.wired.com/2003/01/duck-its-a-low-flying-gigaplane/ |accessdate=8 August 2018 |work=Wired |department=Start Magazine |issue=January 2003 |oclc=202173497 |issn=1059-1028 |publisher=Condé Nast |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222103727/http://wired.com/2003/01/duck-its-a-low-flying-gigaplane/ |dead-url=no |archive-date=December 22, 2016}} 22. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {{cite magazine |last1=Cherrington |first1=Mark |title=Feature: Flight unseen |url=https://www.amherst.edu/amherst-story/magazine/issues/2004_spring/unseen |accessdate=27 July 2018 |work=Amherst Magazine |issue=Spring 2004 |publisher=Amherst College |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180926203305/http://amherst.edu/amherst-story/magazine/issues/2004_spring/unseen |dead-url=no |archive-date=September 26, 2018}} 23. ^1 {{cite magazine |title=Iraqi conflict brings increased interest in military airships: Speed, huge payloads are attractive but experts remain wary of uncertain costs |url=https://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jul_03_01.php |accessdate=28 October 2018 |work=Sea Power Magazine |issue=July 2003 |publisher=Navy League of the United States |language=English |dead-url=yes |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180610085444/http://navyleague.org/sea_power/jul_03_01.php |archive-date=June 10, 2018}} 24. ^1 2 {{cite magazine |last1=Rawdon |first1=Blaine |title=Pelican answers |department=Letters to the editor |url=http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/november/i_letters.html |accessdate=27 July 2018 |work=Boeing Frontiers |volume=01 |issue=07 |publisher=The Boeing Company |publication-date=November 2002 |archive-date=February 3, 2003 |dead-url=no |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030203082452/http://boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/november/i_letters.html}} 25. ^1 {{cite magazine |last1=Cole |first1=William |title=The Pelican: A big bird for the long haul |department=Phantom Works |url=http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_pw.html |accessdate=13 July 2018 |work=Boeing Frontiers |volume=01 |issue=05 |publisher=The Boeing Company |publication-date=September 2002 |archive-date=December 2, 2002 |dead-url=no |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021202171422/http://boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_pw.html}} 26. ^1 2 {{cite patent| country = US| number = 7095364| status = patent| title = Altitude measurement system and associated methods| pubdate = 2005-08-04| gdate = 2006-08-22| invent1 = Rawdon, Blaine K.| invent2 = Hoisington, Zachary C.| assign1 = The Boeing Company}} 27. ^1 2 3 4 5 {{cite patent| country = US| number = 7534082| status = patent| title = Cargo container handling system and associated method| pubdate = 2005-07-27| gdate = 2009-05-19| invent1 = Rawdon, Blaine K.| invent2 = Hoisington, Zachary C.| assign1 = The Boeing Company}} 28. ^1 2 {{cite patent| country = US| number = 6547181| status = patent| title = Ground effect wing having a variable sweep winglet | pubdate = 2002-05-29| gdate = 2003-04-15| invent1 = Hoisington, Zachary C.| invent2 = Rawdon, Blaine K.| assign1 = The Boeing Company}} 29. ^1 {{cite patent| country = US| number = 6722610| status = patent| title = Method, system, and computer program product for controlling maneuverable wheels on a vehicle| pubdate = 2002-11-25| gdate = 2004-04-20| invent1 = Rawdon, Blaine K.| invent2 = Hoisington, Zachary C.| assign1 = The Boeing Company}} 30. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 {{cite patent| country = US| number = 6848650| status = patent| title = Ground effect airplane| pubdate = 2001-10-29| gdate = 2005-02-01| invent1 = Hoisington, Zachary C.| invent2 = Rawdon, Blaine K.| assign1 = The Boeing Company}} 31. ^1 {{cite book |author1=National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine |title=Commercial aircraft propulsion and energy systems research: Reducing global carbon emissions |date=2016 |publisher=The National Academies Press |location=Washington, DC |isbn=978-0-309-44099-8 |chapter-url=https://www.nap.edu/read/23490/chapter/6#37 |accessdate=30 October 2018 |language=English |chapter=3: Aircraft gas turbine engines |lay-url=https://doi.org/10.17226/23490 |at=Figure 3.2: Commercial aircraft gas turbine engine efficiency trend. BPR, bypass ratio. |dead-url=no |archive-date=October 31, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181031091142/http://nap.edu/read/23490/chapter/6}} 32. ^1 2 3 {{cite report |last1=Klaus |first1=Jon |title=Strategic mobility innovation: Options and oversight issues |date=April 29, 2005 |publisher=Congressional Research Service/The Library of Congress |pages=5–6, 30–31, 33–34 |url=http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a436188.pdf |lay-url=http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA436188 |accessdate=30 August 2018 |format=PDF |oclc=62112517 |dead-url=no |archive-url=https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA436188 |archive-date=May 27, 2018}} 33. ^1 2 {{cite report |title=United States Army 2002 transformation roadmap |date=June 28, 2002 |publisher=United States Army |page=B-4 |edition=2002 |chapter-url=https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=446199 |lay-url=https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=446199 |via=Homeland Security Digital Library |accessdate=30 August 2018 |language=English |chapter-format=PDF |chapter=Annex B: Projecting and sustaining US forces in distant anti-access or area-denial environments and defeating anti-access and area-denial threats |quote=There are also unique emerging technologies that will enhance assured access capabilities. Initiatives such as Shallow Draft High Speed Sealift (SDHSS), large ground effect aircraft (Pelican), and Ultra-Large Airlift (ULA) provide immense capability to improve strategic responsiveness. |dead-url=no |archive-date=August 31, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180831072016/http://hsdl.org/?view&did=446199}} 34. ^1 {{cite techreport |last1=Chai |first1=Sonny T. |last2=Mason |first2=William H. |title=Landing gear integration in aircraft conceptual design |date=September 1, 1996 |publisher=NASA |location=Blacksburg, Virginia |edition=revised March 1, 1997 |series=NASA CR-205551 |volume=MAD 96-09-01 |page=102 |chapter-url=http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/M96SC10.pdf |accessdate=25 October 2018 |archiveurl=https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19970031272/page/n121 |archivedate=October 14, 2016 |dead-url=no |language=English |chapter-format=PDF |oclc=39005288 |lay-url=http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/M96SC.html |hdl=2060/19970031272 |chapter=Chapter 10: Parametric studies |quote=The flotation characteristics are given in Table 10.3 along with actual data for the McDonnell Douglas DC10, which are highest among existing aircraft.}} 35. ^1 2 {{cite web |last1=Rawdon |first1=Blaine |title=Military and commercial cargo mission needs: Presentation to Massachusetts Institute of Technology subject 16.886: Air transportation system architecting |url=https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-886-air-transportation-systems-architecting-spring-2004/lecture-notes/07mitmiltry_ndco.pdf |date=February 26, 2004 |website=Massachusetts Institute of Technology |publisher=Boeing Phantom Works |accessdate=9 August 2018 |archive-date=October 10, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151010083519/http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-886-air-transportation-systems-architecting-spring-2004/lecture-notes/07mitmiltry_ndco.pdf |dead-url=no}} 36. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 {{cite conference |author1=Rawdon, Blaine K |author2=Hoisington, Zachary C |editor1-last=Prandolini |editor1-first=Laurie |title=Proceedings of Pacific 2004 international maritime conference |date=2004 |publisher=Pacific 2004 International Maritime Conference Managers |subscription=yes |location=Sydney, Australia |isbn=978-1877040184 |oclc=4808891259 |pages=228–236 |chapter-url=https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=215726262250470;res=IELENG |accessdate=12 August 2018 |language=English |chapter=Characteristics of an ultra-large, land-based wing-in-ground effect aircraft}} 37. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {{cite conference |last1=Barkowski |first1=Ron |chapter=Future concepts for air cargo delivery |title=AIAA/ICAS international air and space symposium and exposition: The next 100 years, international air and space symposium (evolution of flight) |date=July 17, 2003 |doi=10.2514/6.2003-2629 |isbn=978-1-62410-165-6 |oclc=901017574 |language=English |location=Dayton, Ohio |pages=9–10}} 38. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 {{cite conference |last1=Skorupa |first1=John |chapter=Military airlift - catching the next wave |title=AIAA/ICAS international air and space symposium and exposition: The next 100 years, international air and space symposium (evolution of flight) |date=July 16, 2003 |doi=10.2514/6.2003-2747 |isbn=978-1-62410-165-6 |oclc=901017574 |location=Dayton, Ohio |language=English |pages=7, 20–29}} 39. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 {{cite conference |author1=Blaine Rawdon |author2=Zachary Hoisington |title=41st aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit |date=January 7, 2003 |publisher=American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. |location=Reno, Nevada |isbn=978-1-62410-099-4 |doi=10.2514/6.2003-555 |oclc=82768959 |language=English |series=Aerospace sciences meetings |chapter=Air vehicle design for mass-market cargo transport}} 40. ^1 {{cite AV media |author1=The Joint Forces Channel |title=B 52 bombers mass takeoff |date=September 17, 2016 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCfJmuk-des |accessdate=December 1, 2018 |medium=video}} 41. ^1 {{cite book |last1=Scholz |first1=Dieter |title=Aircraft design: Lecture notes |chapter-url=http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/Aircraft_Design_in_a_Nutshell.pdf |publisher=Hamburg Open Online University (HOOU) |accessdate=2 November 2018 |location=Hamburg, Germany |pages=19–20 |chapter=Summary: Aircraft design in a nutshell |language=English |chapter-format=PDF |lay-url=http://HOOU.ProfScholz.de |dead-url=no |archive-date=December 16, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181216075102/http://fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/Aircraft_Design_in_a_Nutshell.pdf}} 42. ^1 {{cite map |title=London-New York, New York-Shanghai, Hong Kong-Buenos Aires |url=http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-JFK,JFK-PVG,HKG-EZE&DU=nm |website=Great Circle Mapper |accessdate=27 August 2018 |dead-url=no |archive-date=August 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180827081119/http://gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-JFK,JFK-PVG,HKG-EZE&DU=nm}} 43. ^1 {{cite web |last1=Singla |first1=Smita |title=8 biggest ship propellers in the World |url=https://www.marineinsight.com/tech/8-biggest-ship-propellers-in-the-world/ |date=December 30, 2011 |website=Marine Insight |accessdate=6 August 2018 |dead-url=no |archive-date=September 3, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130903060612/http://marineinsight.com/tech/8-biggest-ship-propellers-in-the-world/}} 44. ^1 {{cite web |title=British load classification group/load classification number (LCG/LCN) pavement strength reporting system |url=http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/faqs/lcglcn.pdf |publisher=Boeing Airport Compatibility |accessdate=5 November 2018 |language=English |format=PDF |at=Table 1. Allowable gross weights for each airplane at the LCG/LCN value |date=February 10, 2014 |dead-url=no |archive-date=December 15, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171215181311/http://boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/faqs/lcglcn.pdf}} 45. ^1 {{cite web |last1=Scott |first1=Jeff |title=Ground effect and WIG vehicles |url=http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml |website=Aerospaceweb.org |accessdate=10 August 2018 |date=June 29, 2003 |dead-url=no |archive-date=January 2, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190102182258/http://aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml}} 46. ^1 {{cite web |title= 747-400/-400ER freighters |publisher=Boeing |work= Startup |date= May 2010 |url= http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/freighters/747-400f.pdf |pages=31–35 |format=PDF |accessdate=30 August 2018 |dead-url=no |archive-date=August 19, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180819095521/http://boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/freighters/747-400f.pdf}} 47. ^1 {{cite speech |last1=Shinseki |first1=Eric |title=The army vision: Soldiers on point for the nation … persuasive in peace, invincible in war |url=http://www.tradoc.army.mil:80/transformation/data%20pages/csa_vision.htm |website=Transformation Directorate |publisher=United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) |accessdate=25 September 2018 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20000902050424/http://www.tradoc.army.mil:80/transformation/data%20pages/csa_vision.htm |archive-date=September 2, 2000 |location=Washington, D.C. |language=English |date=October 12, 1999 |quote=Deployable: We will develop the capability to put combat force anywhere in the world in 96 hours after liftoff — in brigade combat teams for both stability and support operations and for warfighting. We will build that capability into a momentum that generates a warfighting division on the ground in 120 hours and five divisions in 30 days.}} 48. ^1 {{cite magazine |last1=Dane |first1=Abe |title=Wingships: Massive wing-in-ground-effect flyers combine jetliner speeds with steamship economy. |work=Popular Mechanics |publication-date=May 1992 |pages=35–38, 123 |department=Cover story |volume=169 |issue=5 |issn=0032-4558 |language=English |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EZJzG4ZVq3AC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA35#v=twopage&q&f=false}} 49. ^1 {{cite news |last1=Frederick |first1=Donald |title=Giant Soviet airship could evolve into cruise ship or winged hospital: Aviation: The 540-ton Caspian Sea Monster would be reborn as a 5,000-ton 'wingship' if one American has his way. The original, built in '60s, crashed in '70s. |url=http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-19/news/mn-36948_1_caspian-sea-monster |accessdate=30 August 2018 |work=Los Angeles Times |issn=0742-4817 |agency=National Geographic News Service |date=September 19, 1993 |language=English |dead-url=no |archive-date=March 22, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150322103941/http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-19/news/mn-36948_1_caspian-sea-monster}} }} External links
8 : Abandoned civil aircraft projects of the United States|Abandoned military projects of the United States|Aircraft with contra-rotating propellers|Boeing aircraft|Eight-engined tractor aircraft|Ekranoplans|High-wing aircraft|United States cargo aircraft |
|||||||||||||||
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。