Crazy Idea that required input
 

Hello design experts. I was toying with the idea of possibly building an RC hovercraft. I thought it might be fun, but i am really a "flyer" at heart. I like being in the air, and the hovercraft really is just a boat that can go on grass. ( not knocking it, as I still might build one for fun). So my imagination kicked in and I was curious as to why a hovercraft can't produce enough lift to fly higher than it does. I then decided that controling the thrust at different points underneath the craft would be one of the first big issues.....along with precise balance.

So here is my idea:
First, mount a .40 size engine with a 10 or 11 inch prop to the top of "box like" body. The engine will suck the air into the Cavity of the craft and theoretically compressing it. The air can then escape via Four vents or tubes at each corner of the fuse. I'm hoping that this escaping air would provide thrust. How much useful thrust is the question.
My next idea would be to add two more on the sides of the craft. These tubes would be able to point forwards or backwards independently, as well as control airflow coming out of them independently. This would ideally give me control over forward and backward thrust, roll, and yaw.
My idea to control pitch would be to use an adjustable weight that could slide back and forth to make the craft pitch forward or backwards.

I know all of this sounds goofy, but I think it would be totally cool if it worked. I'm skeptical though since i have not seen anything like it. That suggests to me that it is either impossible doing it this way or to complicated to make it work effectively.

Any thoughts on this idea would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!

RE: Crazy Idea that required input
 

There is a thread in regards to this type project in the boat section. I was lucky as a young man, in the early 70's I was assigned to a project the US Navy had going on this very subject. The ships we had were built with a soild side hull design and flexiable bow and stern seals. With the soild sides it helped prevent side slip while making turns. The SES (Surface Effect Ship) 100B was built by Bell Aerospace, powered by three 6500hp gas tubine engins fed thru 13 transmissions to variable pitch props, lift was provided by three 4500 hp gas trubines that put air under the boat. The total weigh of craft was around 100 tons, with overall length of 100 ft and width of 30 ft give or take a inch or two. In 1974 while operating in St Andrews Bay, Panama City, Fl the SES100B obtained a speed of 110 knts. What was sooo cool to see was when the ship was moving at or around 15 to 16 knots it was level, when it reached speeds of 18kts it did what was refered to as OVER THE HUMP, it would actually outrun its depression in the water, tail of ship would drop and it was gone like a rocket. The LCAT that is being used now by the Navy and Marines for landing was still on the drawing boards when I left the Navy. What your proposing is possible and very do able.

RE: Crazy Idea that required input
 

Could be wrong, but wasn't there an RC (or R-C-less) kit once placed on to the market a good 20 years ago? I sort of remembering it to be a flop (sales-wise).



Wm.

RE: Crazy Idea that required input
 

I seem to remember that, not a lot to it and it did bomb on sales. There is a cheap hovecraft I have seen at LHS but not very impressed with it.

RE: Crazy Idea that required input
 

The Russians are very much into Surface Effect Ships, and if you do a google search you'll see a bunch. I kind of wondered why we never got into them much. The LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushion) is a machine that both we & the Russian marines are using on a large scale.

OMC