Airborne Giant with 150 metre wingspan

Airborne Giant with 150 metre ...
View 2 Images

A concept aircraft under development at Boeing's Phantom Works R&D unit, the massive Pelican would have a wingspan of more than 150 m, carry up to 1400 tons of cargo - that's equivalent to 17 M-1 main battle tanks - would need 76 tires to cater for the weight and be almost twice as big as the largest aircraft currently in existence, the Russian Antonov An-225. The potential applications for such a huge vehicle capable of high-speed, long-range flights goes well beyond military cargo and troop deployment. The Pelican could be used as an airborne platform for re-usable space-vehicles and could also enter the commercial worldwide freight market currently dominated by shipping.

The aircraft would be designed to fly altitudes of only 20 feet above the sea in order to take advantage of the aerodynamic phenomenon called "ground effect" that reduces drag and greatly increases range and efficiency. The Pelican of the feathered variety employs this same technique.

The current giant of the skies - the An-225 plane was launched in 1988 as part of the Soviet Union's Buran space shuttle program. Only two of the aircraft were built and to give an indication of the scope of the Pelican concept, the 88.4 meter wingspan An-225 could carry a 250 ton payload - nearly five times less than is envisaged for the Pelican.

John M
Ha Ha!!! They r copying the Russian Ekranoplane which American intelligence never knew existed. In fact I wonder the Russians have not promoted this machine for short medium haul work. Great machine for sheltered waters. I would not like to cross the Atlantic in one. Kiwi
Facebook User
Looks like the Spurce Goose is Back.
Facebook User
Well An-225 is Ukrainian aircraft, was built in Soviet Ukraine and now I see it here in Kiev quite often. Its assigned airfield is Gostomel- few miles from Kiev.
Post lying. The Russians can not claim to be making the biggest lvtaka. AN - 225 manufactured in Ukraine.
Ha Ha!!! We know all about the ekranoplane, including the fact that they only worked in calm seas, like the Caspian, and crashed when then ran into rough water. This will never fly, no pun intended
Great concept for extremely limited purposes, as noted by other comments. No doubt the most money to be made from this is from Government Defense budgets. There doesn't seem to be any limit to the number of rat-holes we can pour Government money (read tax dollars) down. I don't think there are many conflicts which will necessitate us transporting large numbers of heavy vehicles or the equivalent in other military stores across large, relatively CALM bodies of water such as the Black Sea, Caspian Sea, the US Great Lakes, etc. that can't be accommodated by other existing, conventional means. Even the Mediterranean is too rough for these vehicles (they hardly qualify as aircraft if their top altitude is only 20 feet!). The "Spruce Goose" was only built and flown (once!) because it was paid for out of an enormous World War II budget. It went over budget by something like 300% and was shown to be useless in a combat role. Do we REALLY need to make this mistake again? I certainly hope not!
Ground effect greatly decreases range. To fly for range and speed, fly high in thin air.
Fair-weather flyer, at best. One 25ft wave & it's all over.
Naum Shuv
OK, ground effect plane is suitable for calm waters only. But what about ability to fly higher for short distances? This ability could make these monsters more useful, although it would decrease the range due to poor fuel economy. And with no doubt this kind of aircraft must be far more complex and expensive
Naum Shuv
to williaminoz In fact, ground effect greatly encreases range.