Simon Gibson February 2, 2017 02:18 AM This is a re-using of the extensive work the Russian's did with their Ekranoplan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow-Iffjhy2o). Chizzy February 2, 2017 03:10 AM russia releases designs for this type of ground effect aircraft every 20 years or so. its an idea that never seems to get off the ground. jayel February 2, 2017 06:47 AM This is a reworked 1960's Lippisch design from Germany. The correct term for "GEV" is WIG - (Wing in Ground effect) defined by the UN IMO (International Maritime Organisation) which has design and operational regulations established for WIG craft. tapasmonkey February 2, 2017 06:55 AM So... a plane whose main obstacle is electricity pylons Jose Gros February 2, 2017 08:54 AM Nice project!. It reminds me both the Burnelli's lifting fuselages and the Alexander Lippisch ground effect machines, he had some followers, but none with such a huge dimension. Good luck, + Gesund Mzungu_Mkubwa February 2, 2017 11:12 AM The (apparently) immense width will severely limit its operating theater, but I'm betting shipping companies might welcome such an alternative to get those knock-off iPhones and exploding hoverboards over to market more quickly! PaulEckerson February 2, 2017 11:55 AM Curious if it is amphibious. Any failure while crossing the Atlantic or Pacific would be a caostrophic if it isn't. VincentWolf February 2, 2017 12:01 PM Mankind seriously needs to invent a real world flubber. Grunchy February 2, 2017 01:05 PM I wonder what's the point of that tailplane? Usually an airplane is designed to stall naturally in a nose-down direction so it can quickly build speed & get out of stall, which means the tailplane usually is designed to provide negative lift. But if you're flying in ground effect you shouldn't need that capability, because before the airplane can stall it has already landed. Also I wonder how these do flying over rough seas with swells greater than 12m, I presume in such conditions they would have to fly above the ground effect zone at reduced efficiency, if they could even do it at all. Imagine if it ever had to set down, it would be dashed to pieces! Oh well no different than any other airplane, none of them do well in the sea. At 38,000 ft you would have time to radio for help & maybe even make a glide plan, whereas at 12m you wouldn't have that luxury. ConcordLift February 2, 2017 01:29 PM Fast, close to the ground = risk of death, bad idea. Much better idea, higher in ground effect, seen by thousands of professional without any flaw. The lowest cost per ton mile. See ConcordLift for AIAA paper, presentation, animation - also being changed to show short field ability. There are some issues in that. They are addressed, solved, in a paper in preparation. Actually the thin air of high altitude also has cost benefits. ConcordLift can be built for low and slow or for high and faster.