Jane's Surface Skimmers. 1981

Time to advance the technology
Most predictions firmly agree that hovercraft sales, both commercial and military, will rise at an unprecedented rate throughout the present decade. A promising sign that the marketing forecasts may be squarely on target is that by early January 1981 advanced orders placed for Western hovercraft for delivery up to the mid-1980s had already reached the all-time record of ?100 million.

Even more encouraging is the long-term growth prospect, which should result in a substantial number of major orders for fast hoverferries, freighters and warships from the West and for a variety of specialist and multi-duty vehicles to help open up the hinterlands of the Third World countries. The new orders will provide the industry with much-needed funds and could well mark a vital turning point in the industry's fortunes; but there is no doubt that its future success will depend increasingly on the degree to which the companies and governments alike are prepared to advance the state of the technology.

As the acceptance of the hovercraft widens, so will the expectations of the potential clients tend to broaden. To meet their requirements in many cases significant improvements in a number of design areas will be expected. For too many years modification has been the traditional means of keeping existing hovercraft in the current sales list. Within the industry "make-do and modify" has become almost a way of life to avoid the cost of investing in entirely new designs.

In the early 1960s there was considerable enthusiasm for the potential of hovercraft which resulted in substantial sums being invested in research and development by both government and private industry. It was perhaps unfortunate that the world's first 2/3 seat man-carrying hovercraft, the SR.N1, was such an immediate success. In a blaze of publicity it crossed the Channel within weeks of first hovering. This rate of progress was extrapolated, but it was not fully appreciated that the SR.N1 was an experimental craft which merely confirmed that cross-Channel commercial operations might be viable.

Subsequently, the apparently slow rate of progress in bringing large seagoing hovercraft into fruition towards the end of the 1960s resulted in a reduction of expenditure, particularly on research. It has been estimated that over the life of the UK hovercraft industry on average only ?1 million per year has been spent on research. Had this figure been ten to fifteen times as great it is probable that by now startling advances in the technology would have been made which would have more than paid for themselves by greatly improved sales.

Significant advances could have been made in ride quality, controllability, noise reduction, spray reduction, first cost and operating costs. With the exception of the first item, improvements would have been achieved by tackling the problems methodically and matching the cost of achieving the improvements against the increase in the general acceptance of hovercraft in all roles. In the case of ride quality, however, a fundamentally different approach has been more appropriate. There may be a strong parallel in the three-dimensional active control system of the Jetfoil. In the late 1950s the father of hovercraft. Sir Christopher Cockerell, envisaged the use of automatic control systems to improve the ride when operating over rough surfaces. As an electronics engineer he was not too concerned with the difficulty of producing the appropriate "black boxes", but could foresee problems in fitting hovercraft with the physical devices for controlling the pitch, roll and vertical displacement. However, small-scale experimental installations have shown that there are several methods of control which could be used to improve the ride quality of hovercraft to a point where it offers positive improvements.

There is a minimum level of funding which, if applied to improving the qualities referred to, would make the craft more attractive to military and civil operators and to the public. This level of expenditure has not been achieved and in recent years this has resulted in static, or even falling, sales. There is considerable evidence that more advanced levels of ACV activity exist outside the United Kingdom and United States which should justify a drastic revision of the official attitude to the hovercraft's potential for defence operations and as a means of improving communications.

Industrial research and development has been called many things. In North America, for example, every R & D dollar spent is regarded as a worthy investment in the future of that particular industry or market sector. Within the agricultural community, R & D has been described as the "fertiliser in the field of opportunity". Most industrialists recognise that without adequate funding for research and development there is a constant danger that the customers' demands or expectations will exceed the capabilities of the product. When this occurs the customer is forced to look elsewhere and a supplier, possibly of several years' standing, loses both a customer and a major market advantage.

Содержание

FOREWORD

ACV MANUFACTURERS AND DESIGN GROUPS
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
China, People's Republic
Czechoslovakia
Finland
France
Germany, Federal Republic
Indonesia
Japan
Korea, Republic
New Zealand
Poland
Singapore
Spain
Trinidad
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
United Kingdom
United States of America

ACV OPERATORS
Abu Dhabi Australia Bahrain Belgium Brazil Canada
China, People's Republic Egypt Finland France Hong Kong Iran Iraq Israel
Italy Japan Jordan Netherlands
New Zealand Nigeria Pakistan
Philippines Portugal Saudi
Arabia
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics United Kingdom United States of America Venezuela Zaire

ACV TRAILERS AND HEAVY LIFT SYSTEMS
Australia
Canada
France
Japan
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
United Kingdom
United States of America

TRACKED SKIMMERS
Brazil
France
Germany, Federal Republic
Japan
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
United States of America

AIR CUSHION APPLICATORS, CONVEYORS AND PALLETS
Australia France
Germany, Federal Republic Trinidad
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics United Kingdom United States of America HYDROFOILS Bolivia Canada
China, People's Republic France Israel Italy

HYDROFOILS cont Japan Poland Romania Singapore Switzerland
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics United States of America

SAILING SKIMMERS
Japan
Poland
United Kingdom
United States of America

HYDROFOIL OPERATORS
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
China, People's Republic
Cuba
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany, Democratic Republic
Germany, Federal Republic
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea, Republic
Morocco
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Tanzania
Turkey
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
United Kingdom
United States of America
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yugoslavia
Zaire

FAST CATAMARANS
Norway ..United Kingdom

SEMI-SUBMERGED CATAMARANS
Japan
United States of America

POWER PLANTS AND PROPULSION SYSTEMS
Canada
France
Germany, Federal Republic
Italy
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
United Kingdom
United States of America

LICENSING AUTHORITIES
CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS
ACV AND HYDROFOIL CONSULTANTS
GLOSSARY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADDENDA
INDEX