Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Henry Ford idea; for a boat?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default Henry Ford idea; for a boat?

    This is an amazing piece of equipment, if you like engineering-type stuff. It caused me to wonder about spinning sponsons for a boat. Surely somebody has been there/done that already. Anyone know of who/where/when? A wild hair popped into my head about making the sponsons out of HD hypalon, and the fins out of rubbing strake material. Check out http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...topicseen.html and let me know if you've ever seen this applied to an amphibious craft. Thanks. j

  2. #2
    Member ret25yo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Unit 13
    Posts
    1,471

    Default

    haha this thing gets put up every winter..lol I'm not sure on the boat mods you could due to it but, worth a try.

    If you cant stand behind the troops in Iraq.. Feel free to stand in front of them.

  3. #3
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Yes, it has been used on amphibious craft. A few years back there was a team (Russian?) that was trying to drive some these types of craft across the Arctic. IIRC, they didn't make it.

    It's not a very efficient means of transferring energy to a liquid. It works ok on snow and ice, but the system is an engineering nightmare for durability. And it doesn't work very well at all on bare earth, so it is very limited as to the surfaces you can operate on.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default thanks

    joat: thanks. i figured i was not the first person intrigued by the novelty of this contraption. on to project 57, then. j

  5. #5
    Member AKPacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Here's a video of the Russian version mentioned, looks like a bumpy ride:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afJ18eJeNgU
    Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.

  6. #6
    Member Darreld Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arco, Idaho
    Posts
    782

    Default I remember...

    back in the '60's, we'd watch the evening news while supper was being prepared. One night a week, they'd show some 'gee-whiz' new contraption that some contractor or other had talked the DoD into trying in the 'Nam.
    One night, they had such a contraption, only it was more the size of a deuce and a half, as I recall, could put a squad or cargo in the 'bed' of the thing.

    From Waterways Experiment Station (Louisana) History
    http://gsl.erdc.usace.army.mil/gl-history/
    chapter 8

    Non-Traditional Vehicles
    Mobility requirements in Southeast Asia often involved marshy areas of very low trafficability in addition to riverine environments. Army planners therefore sought vehicles that could operate effectively in such non-traditional realms. Development of vehicles that could function in both waterborne and low trafficability soils environments could be particularly beneficial. Because conventional wheeled vehicles had little chance of meeting such criteria, designers primarily civilian produced several non-wheeled vehicles, all revolutionary in concept, in attempts to meet military demands.

    WES evaluations of non-traditional vehicles began in 1963 with tests of Jiger and Fisher vehicles near Parry Sound, Ontario, Canada. Both were small, amphibious units produced by private manufacturers, primarily for use by hunters, fishermen, and other outdoorsmen who required transportation across water and unstable terrain. In addition to WES, the Organic and Associated Terrains Research Unit of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, and the U.S. Army Land Locomotion Research Laboratory participated in observations. WES reports concluded that the Jiger in particular had potential for military use. The 240-pound vehicle, which ran on six powered wheels or on tracks superimposed on the wheels, carried a 300-pound payload over the poorest terrain conditions, notably muskeg. Previous tests had proved its worth in a tropical environment in Panama and also in snow. The Army consequently, based on WES recommendations, purchased several of the machines for tests in conjunction with Rula's MERS activities in Thailand.16

    WES also conducted performance tests of prototype XM759 amphibious logistical carriers for the Marine Corps from 1967 to 1970. The 1.5-ton vehicle travelled on thirty-four low-pressure pneumatic tires that revolved on either side of the vehicle via a pneumatic track, thus combining advantages of both wheeled and tracked vehicles. Investigations concentrated on swampy areas near Richmond and Petersburg, Virginia, and on sites near Vicksburg where conditions were similar to those of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Amphibious tests at the Station involved driving the vehicle across the WES lake and up muddy slopes upon exiting the water. Results suggested that major modifications were necessary before the vehicle could be adopted as a military standard.17

    Other vehicles evaluated by the Mobility and Environmental Division were much less conventional. In 1964 WES tested the Marsh Screw Amphibian, the product of a revolutionary design by Chrysler Corporation. Rather than wheels or tracks, the Marsh Screw relied for locomotion on two large Archimedean screw-type devices that extended the length of the vehicle on each side. Powered by an automobile engine, the counterrotating screws propelled the vehicle through water and marsh terrain adequately, but failed miserably on soil surfaces, especially sand. The average maximum speed attained on test lanes was a meager 1.6 miles per hour.18

    Disappointing results in the Marsh Screw tests did not end ambitions for screw-type mobility systems. In 1969 Chrysler produced a much larger vehicle, the Riverine Utility Craft (RUC) for the Navy. The RUC traveled on two aluminum rotors, 39 inches in diameter and powered by twin Chrysler 440-cubic-inch automobile engines. A WES test program requested by the Navy imitated the earlier Marsh Screw investigations, employing sites in south Louisiana similar to Southeast Asian environments. Maximum speed attained on water reached an impressive 15.7 knots, while speeds on marshy terrain improved to nearly 25 knots. However, speeds on firm soils proved disappointing, reaching only 3.6 knots. In later tests in rice paddies, RUCs tended to hang up on earthen dikes. Despite efforts to the contrary, non-wheeled vehicles failed to compete seriously with their more conventional wheeled and tracked counterparts.19
    periment Station history
    Attached Images Attached Images

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •