InternationalConference on Fast Sea Transportation

FAST2005, June 2005, St.Petersburg, Russia

SELF-PROPULSION MODEL TEST OF A WING-IN-SURFACE-

EFFECT-SHIP WITH CANARD CONFIGURATION, PART2

Hiromichi Akimoto, Syozo Kubo, Motoki Tanaka and Manami Sakumasu

Dept. Applied Mathematics & Physics, Faculty of Engineering, Tottori University,
Minami 4-101, Koyama, Tottori 680-8552, Japan

ABSTRACT

Wing In Surface Effect Ship(WISES) is a high speed sea transport which utilizes the high efficiency of
aerodynamic wing(s) in the proximity to the water surface. Most of WISES(or ekranoplan, WIG ships) have
large horizontal stabilizers on their tail for the stability in the surface effect. However, the horizontal tail
configuration shows some defect in takeoff. The present authors are studying a canard type WISES for its
potential in takeoff from rough seas. This paper presents a brief description of the canard WISES concept and its
self-propulsion model test by 1.8m and 3.6m length models.

INTRODUCTION

Wing In Surface Effect Ship (WISES) has been

developed mainly in Russia, Germany, China, Korea
and Japan. It can be also called as ekranoplan, WIG
ship or Ground Effect Machine (GEM). WISES
utilizes the enhanced lift/drag ratio of aerodynamic
wings that can be seen in the proximity to the water
surface. The effect is known as the surface effect or
ground effect.
With the surface effect, a WISES can cruise in the
speed range of 100-500 km/h. In the range and with
the cruising distance below 1000 km, the ship is
expected to be more efficient than any airplanes and
conventional ships. Although WISES is a hopeful
candidate of high-speed marine transport in the next
generation, there is very few example of its practical
service. We must search for the way for the
commercialization of WISES.
Practical use of a WISES is in open seas. In the sea
areas around Japan, the normal wave height is about
1.5m and high surf warnings are officially announced Fig.1: Schematics of the canard type WISES.
at the wave height of 3.0m. Therefore, a WISES for a
practical service should have the seaworthiness over
3.0 m wave height. From the point of view, all WISE force from the limited forward velocity at the moment.
ships ever exist have insufficient or very limit However, flaps are not effective in the surface effect
performance. because of the limited distance between the trailing
The problem we must consider is how to take-off edge of the aerodynamic wing and the water surface.
from (and alighting on) a rough sea surface of 3m Besides, it is difficult for a conventional WISES to
wave height, without deteriorating the total economy take a large rotation angle. Its long tail that supports
of the ship. The takeoff speed of a WISES, which is the large horizontal stabilizer prevents the ship from
nearly equal to the alighting speed, should be small taking a large rotation angle without touching the
for reducing power and construction weight those are water surface.
required in the takeoff-run on waves. A known solution to the problem is Power
At takeoff, airplanes extend high-lift devices and Augmented Ram (PAR) mechanism that impinges the
rotate (take pitch-up position) to generate high lift
1
high-speed wake from the propulsor into the space radio control of the small model is not easy for its
between the main wing and the water surface to very small time factor, and the model does not have
achieve higher lift. With a well-designed PAR system, enough capacity both in weight and volume for
a WISES can hover in a low altitude without forward measurement/record equipments. Therefore, most of
velocity [1]. However on rough seas, the impinged air the data obtained were qualitative ones.
leaks easily from the gaps between the wing and the
wavy water surface. Therefore, PAR is not effective
on rough seas where high lift mechanisms are really
needed.
To solve the problem, the present authors are
proposing a new concept of WISES that has a canard
(forward wing) instead of a horizontal tail, and has
propellers on the canard [2].

1. CANARD TYPE WISES

Fig.1 shows schematic sketches of the canard type

WISES. It has a forward mounted horizontal
stabilizer (canard) and two propellers on it. The
elevator on the canard controls the pitching moment
of the ship and the deflection angle of the propeller
wake. Vertical fins with air rudders are in the wake
flow of the propellers. The merits of the concept are
summarized as follows. Fig. 2: CAD drawing of the self-propulsion model ,
Kaien(storm petrel)-2
1. High angle of attack position at takeoff/alighting
exerts high lift force. It is possible because,
without the horizontal tail, the rear structure is
shorter than that of a conventional WISES.
2. High-speed wake from the propellers prevents
the canard and the main wing from stalling even
in a high lift condition. Fig. 3: S-wing NACA3409-s (NACA3409 with
3. The canard wing generates positive lift at the modified camber line on its tail).
moment of takeoff/alighting. On the contrary,
horizontal tails in the conventional concept
generate negative lift at the moment.
4. The elevator and rudders are effective even in a Table 1: Specifications of the self propulsion model
slow forward speed because they are in the "kaien-2"
propeller wake and always supplied accelerated
air stream. It enhances the safety in a possible Weight 12.2-13.4kg
stall and low-speed navigation. Length 3.6m
5. Propulsion systems are always in a spray free
region (they precede the leading edge of the Width 2.4m
water line.) It leads to the low maintenance cost Main wing 2.4 x 1.8m, NACA3409-s
and good durability of the system.
Canard wing 1.25 x 0.25m, NACA0012
The present concept is very simple and independent
3-blades propeller (0.37m) x2,
from PAR in takeoff/alighting performance.
Unfortunately though, the concept is not for small Propulsion Electric brushless motor x2, Max.
boats because power plants are relatively heavy for thrust=4kgf
these boats. The concept is better suited for large Semi-monocock of wooden frames
WISESs that can be equipped with turbo prop Structures and stylofoam skins, partially
engines of high power/weight ratio. reinforced by CFRP sheets.

2. SELF-PROPULSION MODEL

Akimoto et al. tested a 1.8m-length self-propulsive

model of the canard type WISES [3,4]. However,

2
 To obtain quantitative data, the authors built a
middle-sized model named Kaien (storm petrel)-2
that is twice as large as the predecessor. Fig.2 and
Table.1 show the CAD drawing and specifications of
the model, respectively. The wing section of the main
wing is S-shaped wing (S-wing) instead of Clark-Y
that was tested in the small model. The S-wing is
made from NACA3409 by adding a modified camber
on its tail (Fig. 3). In the surface effect, the wing has
smaller non-linearity of the moment to the altitude
and the attack angle. The S-wing was tested using the
small-sized model and showed better stability. Fig. 4
shows the small size model and the present middle
Fig. 4: Self propulsion models, Kaien-1(left) and
size model.
For the simplicity of the control, the model has no Kaien-2(right).
ailerons for the control of rolling moment. The pilot
of the model can remotely operate the rudder,
elevator angle and the thrust of two propellers. The
model has a small hydro-rudder for the control in a
very low-speed. The actuator of the hydro-rudder is
electrically linked with those of two air-rudders on
vertical fins.
Measurement equipments are shown in Table 2.
GPS, flight data recorder and the video from an
onboard camera and two lakeside cameras provide
data in the experiment. The model has a dummy
cabin to carry measurement devices. Fig. 5 shows the
front view of the cabin and the onboard camera
behind a transparent windshield.

Fig. 5: Front view of the dummy cabin (an onboard

wireless video camera is behind a transeparent wind
shield.)

Table 2: Measurement/record equipments

Elvator and rudder angle. Propeller
Flight Data revolution, air speed, electric
Recorder [5] current and voltage, bow and stern
acceleration
GPS Position tracking, ground speed
Stern and bow altitude from the
Supersonic
water surface, trim angle. (bow
distance meter
sensor is in trial)

Cameras Onboard wireless CCD camera.

Handy video cameras(one on the

accompanying boat and two on
lakeside.)

3
 Fig. 6: Cruising in straight course.
(a)

(a)
(b)

Fig. 8: Cockpit views transmitted from the model

ship, in (a) planing and (b) takeoff with up trim.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1. FLIGHT IN STRAIGHT COURSE

Experiments are performed within a radius of 200 m

(b)
(c)
Fig. 7: Sample data record in a flight in straight
course. (a) air- and ground-speed, (b) elevator angle
and (c) electric power supply and propeller
revolutions. Spikes in the elevator record are due to
electric noise.
on a small lake. After some trials and adjustments,
the middle-sized model successfully flew in steady
straight course. Fig.6 is a scene in a test and Fig.7 (a)
and (b) show the time history examples of air speed,
ground speed and elevator angle. They show that the
model gained speed by planing from t=0 to t=12 sec.
And at t=12 sec, the operator changed the elevator
angle to full down to rotate the model. Then the
model flew from t=15 to 30 sec.
The pitch (trim) angle of the model at cruising was
from 4 to 5 degrees in the obtained video record. The
pitch angle at take off was from 2.5 to 3.5 degrees.
Therefore, the high angle of attack at take off was not
realized yet. It seems that we should start rotation at
slower planing speed. This needs some practice for
the pilot.
Takeoff speed was 6 m/sec and cruising speed was
9.5 m/sec. The estimated lift coefficient is 0.5 and the
Reynolds number based on the main wing chord and
the cruising speed is 1.2x106. Characteristic time in
the record of elevator angle is about 3 sec. It means
that a manual steering can easily follow the ship

4
motion and control its pitch and altitude, and that the
model is weakly stable. A simple automatic control
will be able to stabilize the ship. Fig. 8 is a sample
view from the onboard camera. Its video record
showed the change of pitch angle and smooth
cruising while the model is flying.
Fig. 7(c) shows the time history of the electric
power supply and propeller revolutions. They are
600W (4100rpm) at takeoff and 450W (3700rpm) in a
cruise. The estimated thrust on a cruise is 2kgf based
on a static propulsion test on the ground.
The lift/drag ratio on a cruise is about 6. It was
worse than our expectation. It could be due to the
present large pitch angle on a cruise, that is not our
design point. The pitch angle will be adjusted to even
trim to obtain the most efficient cruise condition. The
drag of the hull and the cabin on the upper surface of
the main wing is also deteriorating efficiency. By a Fig. 9: Tracking data in a circular flight.
comparison to wind tunnel results, it was found that
the lift/drag ratio is 30% lower than that of a single
wing in the same condition. Some optimization will
be possible for the future model and real ship.

3.2. CIRCULAR FLIGHT

In the straight course flight, the remote operator is
on an accompanying boat for a closer look on the
model. However, for the model is much faster than
the boat, it is difficult to achieve a long flight within
the view of the operator. Therefore, we tried to make
a steady circular flight to obtain longer data.
Fig. 9 shows an example of locus in a circular flight.
From the takeoff at t=10sec to alighting at t=61sec,
the model showed a steady circular turn of 180
degrees in 51 seconds. In the flight, there was calm (a)
wind of 1.0 m/sec. The radius of the locus was about
150m and the total length of the flight is 500m.
Fig. 10 is the view from lakeside and from the
onboard camera. The video records showed that the
mean angle of bank (roll) was 5 degrees. Although
the model has no ailerons for the control of roll angle,
it took a natural bank angle in response to the rudder
control, and whirled around smoothly. In a real scale
WISES, ailerons might be used for the better
controllability, however, which do not require a full-
time operation.
Fig. 11 shows the time history of the elevator and
rudder angles. In t=4--8, elevator was up (nose down)
to minimize the drag in the planing run. And it was
down (nose up) in t=8--12 to take a high angle of
attack. After takeoff, the elevator angle was about 5 (b)
degrees with some fluctuations to keep a steady
cruise in the ambient disturbance. The characteristic Fig. 10: Circular flight, (a) from the lakeside
time scale of the elevator operation record was from 2 camera and (b) from the onboard camera.
to 3 seconds. These controls show the adjustment to
the wind that changes direction relative to the model
in the circular flight.

5

(a)
(b)
Fig. 11: Data record in the circular flight, (a) elevator
angle and (c) rudder angle.
Fig. 12: Test of high angle of attack flight.
Fig. 13: Flight over the high wave.
6
3.3. The maximum lift coefficient
The maximum lift coefficient and the lowest flight
speed should be experienced in the moment of takeoff.
However, the optimized takeoff condition is not easy
to realize in the radio-controlled model. This is
because the available information for the operator is
only the view from the distance.
To find out the maximum lift coefficient and the
stalling speed, we slowly increased the pitch angle
from the steady cruising until the model stalled. In
Fig. 12, the model took pitch-up position of 15
degrees and its forward speed was 5m/sec. The
condition lasted 7 seconds. The estimated lift
coefficient in the condition is 1.9.
The result shows that the model does not show
abrupt stall in the experienced angle of attack due to
the slipstream from the forward mounted propellers
and the low aspect ratio of the main wing. The
maximum lift coefficient of 1.9 is about four times
larger than that of cruising condition. It means that
the take off speed can be slowed to 4.3 m/sec (one
half of the present cruising speed) with more
appropriate takeoff operation. In the wind tunnel
measurement, the lift coefficient of a single wing is
only 1.13 when the trailing edge altitude is 0.06 chord
and the angle of attack 15 degrees. The additional lift
in the self-propulsion model also stems from the
high-speed slipstream around the canard and main
wings.
3.4. FLIGHT OVER THE HIGH WAVE
The allowable wind speed for the present model to
takeoff is below 4.0 m/s. The very low wind limit is
due to the light structure of the model and it does not
hold true for the real scale ship. Beyond the wind
limit, the model might soar up and make a roll with
the frequent gust. Therefore, the test of seaworthiness
of the model is not easy because rough waves are
usually accompanied by strong winds. At present, we
can only show a sample from our limited experiments.
Fig. 13 shows the flight on waves. The wave height
is 0.2m that is 57% of the depth from the wing to the
bottom of the step, or 11% of the main wing chord.
The model has ability to takeoff in the condition. The
period of encounter to waves is about 0.66 sec. We
observed in the video of the onboard camera that the
vibration of the view caused by the waves ceases
while the model was flying.
 Fig. 14: Canard type WISES for 140 passengers.

WISES might have ailerons to improve its ride

4. BASIC DESIGN OF A REAL SHIP quality on waves and in turning.

Based on the result of model tests, we made a rough

design of a real ship. Table 3 shows the specs of a
WISES for 140 passengers (WISES-140), in
comparison to Kawasaki Jetfoil 929-117 [6]. The two
ships use gas turbine engines of the same grade. Table 3: Estimated data of a real-sized canard type
Jetfoil has two water jets driven by free turbines. The WISES for 140 passengers, in comparison to
WISES has two turbo prop engines. Kawasaki Jetfoil.
The transportation capacity of the present WISES is
1.5 times larger than that of Jetfoil because the former Kawasaki JetFoil WISES-140
has the threefold speed and half number of seats. The
model 929-117
high-speed of the WISES also contributes to its long
range with smaller fuel capacity. Although some Displacement 110t 56t
optimizations are possible, the present specifications Length 27.4m 29.5m
are only simple scale-ups of the self-propulsion Breadth 9.5m 19.6m
model.
Propulsion 2795kW x 2 3046kW x 2
Fig. 14 shows the outline of WISES-140. The
power train of the WISES is much simpler than that Water jet Turbo prop
of Jetfoil because it is packed in the turbo prop units Power plant Allison 501-KF Allison 501-D22A
on the canard. The units can be easily Max speed 45kt 160kt
loaded/unloaded for full maintenance, for cleaning Operational
with fresh water or interchanging with spare units. speed 42kt 140kt
For the maximum thickness of the main wing is
1.3m, its interior space can be used for baggage, fuel Passengers 230-286 140
tanks and a part of cargo space. The thickness is Fuel capacity 15140 litres 5000 litres
much larger than that of a conventional airplane of Range 240 mile 350 mile
the same weight. It leads to the lower construction
cost of the wing.
Automatic control of the elevator is desirable to
lighten the stress of pilots on a long navigation. The
control of the WISES will not be difficult because it
is weakly stable in flight altitude, while Jetfoil is not
self-stable without its auto control system. The

7
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The authors tested middle size (3.6m length) radio
controlled model that is twice as large as the small
model in the previous report.
The present model has a capacity of measurement
equipments such as flight data recorders, GPS and the
onboard camera. The model showed steady straight
and circular flight, and a low-speed flight with a large
pitch up angle. The slow flight data indicates the
good takeoff/alighting performance of the concept by
the effective utilization of the propeller slipstream.
The simple manual control of the elevator and
rudder attained steady flight. The characteristic time
scale of these controls was from 2 to 3 seconds. It
implies that the control of a real scale ship is an easy
task. Ailerons are not required even in the circular
flight with natural angle of bank. Seaworthiness of
the concept is still under investigation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was partially supported by the Ministry
of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan,
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A), 14205145,
2004.
REFERENCES
1. Liang Yun, The development of air cushion
technology from static air cushion (ACV) to
dynamic air cushion technology (AWIG), 2003, Proc.
High Performance Marine Vehicles (HPMV) 2003, 1,
pp. E11 1-26.
2. H. Akimoto, S. Kubo and T. Taketsume, A new
concept of Wing-In-Surface-Effect-Ship, 2003, Proc.
High Performance Marine Vehicles (HPMV) 2003, 1,
pp. E9 1-7.
3. H. Akimoto, T. Taketsume, K. Iida and S. Kubo,
2003, Self-propulsion model tests of a Wing-In-
Surface-Effect-Ship with canard configuration, Proc.
FAST2003, Vol. III, pp. 45-50.
4. H. Akimoto, S. Kubo and M. Tanaka, 2004,
Investigation of the canard type Wing-In-Surface-
Effect-Ship, Proc. 2nd Asia-Pacific Workshop on
Marine Hydrodynamics, pp. 209-214, Busan, Korea.
5. Web site of Eagle Tree Systems, LLC,
http://www.eagletreesystems.com.
6. S. J. Phillips (editor), Janes High-speed marine
transportation 2004-2005, 2004, Janes Information
Group Limited.