Riding On Air WIDE INTEREST IN “FLYING SAUCERS”

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28920, 13 June 1959, Page 12

Riding On Air WIDE INTEREST IN “FLYING SAUCERS”

[By the Scientific Correspondent of the “Financial Time®-)

[Reprinted by Arrangement]

London, June s—The recent development by the United States Curtiss-Wright Corporation of a vehicle they call an air-car, which rides on a cushion of low-pressure air and can travel overland without the aid of wheels, and also over water, means that five separate vehicles of this kind have now been developed. Some of the comparable vehicles are meant, it is true, to travel only over land or only over water; but they all have one basic factor in common: they are supported by jets of air flowing out from the bottom of the vehicle, and are propelled forwards, backwards, or sideways by means of air jets. So far it is estimated that the United States companies alone have spent more than 2 million dollars on their project, and that United Kingdom expenditure has run into several tens of thousands of pounds. Basically, the principle involved is the same as that used in the “flying bedstead’’ aircraft. except that the CurtissWright air-car, like the SaundersRoe Hovercraft and the Ford and General Motors’ air-cars, uses a less powerful engine and only rises a foot, or less, from the ground. k One Engine Serves * The same engine which is used to keep the vehicle off the ground is also used to propel the vehicle in whatever direction the driver wishes to go. The air is drawn into a large centrally placed intake and is then compressed to form both a central air cushion, or* which the vehicle rests, and a series of special moveable jets which control the direction and speed of travel. The Curtiss-Wright machine, which can carry one to four passengers and can travel forwards, backwards, sideways, or revolve in a circle, is unusual in that it is already being offered for sale in limited quantities. The vehicle will not, however be sold at present to the general public, but to a restricted range of customers so that they can investigate its possible uses. Sales to the general public may, it is hoped follow in about three years. This particular vehicle has a conventional piston type engine which compresses the air drawn in through its roof or top, ‘and which can range in power from 50 up to 200 horsepower according to whether the air-car is designed to carry one or four people. This is a relatively small horsepower which is less than that developed by some current American motor cars.

The Saunders-Roe Hovercraft, which is meant for travelling over water, has a somewhat larger engine, but still a relatively small one. It is an Alvis Leonides 450 horse-power engine harnessed directly to a fan of special design. This supplies the air jets which keep the craft floating above the surface of the sea and propel it forwards, backwards, or sideways. Tests on a trial Saunders-Roe

[Hovercraft, the SRN 1, are i ready being carried out and j» I will be demonstrated publirlJ for the first time next week This machine, which has been [developed in collaboration with I the National Research Develop ; ment Corporation and Airscrew Company and Jicwood, will be 30 feet long and 24 feet wide The craft was invented by Mr C. S. Cockerill. Larger models will be built at a later date. The Ford “Glideair’’ car was shown for the first time at the Chicago motor show in January this year. This vehicle is designed to ride only an inch or so above the surface of the road. It is in a very early stage of development Swiss Interest General Motors reported the development of a similar vehicle some years ago. Nothing has been heard, however, about this company’s progress in this field for a long time. The fifth vehicle of this type is being developed in Switzerland, but has not yet reached a stage of practical demonstration, or even the display of a full-scale unit.

Why is there so much interest in this type of development in different countries? One ansWer undoubtedly lies in the argument put forward by the Ford Motor Company that once the vehicle has been raised from the ground it will require less power to move it along the road than would be required to propel a conventional car. This is because the friction of the wheels on the surface of the road is eliminated. For this reason operating costs of such a vehicle should be lower than that for a conventional vehicle. Some designers, like Saunders- . Roe, argue that this greater cheapness of operation should become even more important when the principle is applied to a seagoing or river-going craft, since here water resistance and friction problems are far greater in conventional craft and account for a far larger proportion of the operating costs than is the case with a motor-car riding on a specially prepared road v Another important argument put forward in favour of such craft or vehicles, is that they can fill a gap in the speed range which at present remains unfilled. Such a vessel travelling over the water could, for example, it is claimed,* travel at speeds from 30 to* 350 knots. Filling the Gap There is at present no boat or ship in existence which can travel over the sea within these ranges of speed; Such boats could, therefore, it is claimed, fill the gap between the ordinary marina craft and aircraft. Much the same argument applies on land. Aircars should, it is claimed, be able to operate economically and safely, at speeds between those achieved by the present-day motor-car and the light aircraft Obviously there a?e many* problems which still remain to ba solved; for example, the control of the behaviour of a vessel of this type when it is travelling over rough water— which seems likely to involve gyroscopically controlled automatic control units—and the problem of accurately controlling the balance of the central “air cushion” jet 'and that of the movement control jets. The actual control of the movement of the individual jet nozzles—of which there may be 20 or more, according to the design—also presents a number of special problems. Supporters of the concept say, however, that such difficulties are not insuperable. Certainly it would seem that there is a clear argument for further development research in this field. Indeed it is claimed that an air-car should cost no more once it is in mass production than a conventional present-day car, while Saunders-Roe claims that Hovercraft should eventually—in say 5 to 10 years—become competitively priced boats.