曲终--奥匈帝国的表面效应艇（Versuchsgleitboot算这个 ...

这个应该算是侧壁式的吧？

为啥说是气垫船?升降风扇在哪儿？

雪妹妹，这曲子叫什么啊？挺好听的。

EVAF 发表于 2011-2-24 23:53

其实我也不确定这玩意到底算啥好。很多地方的中文翻译称它为水翼船，但是我也没有看到其水翼在什么地方。它也不是滑行艇，因为介绍里提到过空气减少水的摩擦。或者，这玩意算表面效应艇？

我倒，水上烧饼

suifeng0128 发表于 2011-2-24 23:56

东京爱情故事的结尾曲。
奥匈帝国时代最后的高科技海军舰艇，也算是曲终人散了……

回复 11# 雪千寻
似乎可以理解为利用艇体压缩空气抬升艇体
，那样的话艇底中部应该是中空的，或者干脆就是种滑行艇，艇底宽大，也的确有滑行艇的特征·······

EVAF 发表于 2011-2-25 00:10

应该不是滑行艇，因为似乎几个资料上都将Versuchsgleitboot称为世界上第一艘Hovercraft，而第二艘则是芬兰人在1931年发明的……话说，滑行艇型的CMB在一战中已经不少了吧……

回复 13# 雪千寻


    多谢。

Versuchs 实验性质的 Gleitboot 滑艇，平底船

4#图看起来太穿越了

这等船舶居然在一战时空……

在那个时代,可够超前的了!

EVAF 发表于 2011-2-24 23:53
看第一张图片上面的侧视剖视图，中间那个圆形的不就是离心风扇嘛。

fdbiology 发表于 2011-2-25 09:19
嗯，背景是一艘拉德斯基级战列舰

中华海帝 发表于 2011-2-25 09:24

其实，奥匈一向前卫的……怀特海德之所以会去想到发明自航式鱼雷，是因为他受到了奥匈海军军官卢皮斯上校的某些设计的影响……

呵呵，这艇真的很前卫，鱼雷朝后的，这攻击的时候挺麻烦的。

雪千寻 发表于 2011-2-25 00:02


    这放到现在，也应该算是比较前言的高性能复合船型了


看整条船的剖面，就是个大的机翼
如果算是水翼船的话，这玩意跟普通的水翼船的区别，就好像是B52跟B2的区别。

但是船体中间有个机器，很像离心式风机，猜测可能是用来产生高压气，通到船底，形成气膜，达到减阻的目的。

同时，他又有很强的滑行艇的特征

所以，应该算是水翼+滑行艇+气膜减阻三复合船型了

现在的复合船型，能做到两个复合就不错了，没想到100年前人家奥匈帝国就已经三复合了

哈哈哈哈哈哈

这样子很像一战时候的坦克的水上版

用得是什么发动机，内燃机吗？还是蒸汽轮机

这种东西的稳定性应该非常悲剧

有点脱离时代了

没看明白，鱼雷沿航迹反方向发射么？

回复 21# 将邪
从螺旋桨的位置看，那应该主发动机，而且那图完全没表现出船底的空腔（如果真有的话）。
要说气膜减阻---依照那个时代的发动机功率，怕是行不通，个人更倾向于其就是一艘滑行艇，不过艇型特殊。

比滑行艇是要进一步的，滑行艇只需要尽量从水面抬起湿面积就可以，这个东西是依靠空气实现表面效应的。这个年代的这种东东长得还有那么点船的样子，换到今天，都长得像飞机了……当然，就31.5节而言，不算太牛叉，不过相关设计师的计划貌似就只有32节，所以可以说是成功的。不过也有地方说这东西是15节的。

回复  将邪
从螺旋桨的位置看，那应该主发动机，而且那图完全没表现出船底的空腔（如果真有的话）。
要说 ...
EVAF 发表于 2011-2-25 14:43

比滑行艇是要进一步的，滑行艇只需要尽量从水面抬起湿面积就可以，这个东西是依靠空气实现表面效应的。这个年代的这种东东长得还有那么点船的样子，换到今天，都长得像飞机了……当然，就31.5节而言，不算太牛叉，不过相关设计师的计划貌似就只有32节，所以可以说是成功的。不过也有地方说这东西是15节的。

晚点我再找一下详细的资料。中文版的资料翻译我不太看得明白，因为有些翻译估计是在多义词里选取的，不一定恰当吧。

"Versuchsgleitboot" - The World's First Hovercraft
by Erwin Franz Ferdinand Bilzer (+) and Erwin F. Sieche, Vienna **

The practical development of the idea of reducing the hydrodynamic resistance of a vessel by blowing air under the hull dates back to the first years of the century.
Lieutenant-Commander ("Linienschiffsleutnant") Dagobert M黮ler von Thomamuehl, of the Austro-Hungarian Navy first made intensive studies of this problem when he was commander of the torpedo-boat 60 T (ex-Schwalbe). His idea was to reduce both resistance and displacement by lifting the hull out of the water on a cushion of pressurised air. He made model-towing tests, on his own initiative, using the torpedo-boat he commanded, and his knowledge of the science of testing scaled-down models was so great that all his figures and diagrams show an astonishing engineering brillance.
On 26 March 1915 he submitted to the Austrian Technical Committee (Marinetechnisches Komitee, MTK) a paper entitled 'Study of the construction of a high-speed gliding boat'. The accompanying drawing showed a rectangular boat with hull dimensions of 16.3 x 6.6 x 0.75m (53.3 x 20.9 x 1.8ft) and a displacement of 12.25 tonnes (12.05 tons). This was a true hovercraft employing two (or three, depending on the engines available) Austrodaimler aircraft engines of 120hp each for surface propulsion, and one 65hp Austrodaimler engine, driving an aircompressor giving 450m^3 of air per minute (15.734 cu ft per min) for hovering. The vessel was designed for a speed of 32kts an endurance of 550nm and an armament of 4x450mm torpedoes in outboard containers.
When looking at this first design, one notes some very important features of hovercraft design. The fan was situated in the forward section of the rectangular hull and produced an air cushion over the full length of the bottom, allowing the boat to rise nearly 10in. Skirts at both sides prevented the air from escaping but there were no skirts at stem and stern. For the machinery M黮ler faced a problem in the only suitable engines with the required high power/weigth ratio were aircraft engines. Since 1909 the 謘tereichische Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft at Wiener Neustadt had produced the Austrodaimler engines, designed by Ferdinand Porsche - later become famous as the constructor of the Volkswagen. These very reliable engines had now been developed to a point where they had reached 300hp and M黮ler, therefore, proposed to borrow obsolete 120hp engines from the Pola Naval Air Station (Seeflugstation Pola).

The MTK Appraisal
The MTK judged M黮lers tests as follows: "...the injection of air under the hull has a very positive influence on the resistance and, therefore, on the necessary amount of (propulsive) power which rises (initially) to maximum but decreases at higher speeds ... The measured towing forces show that the resistance of the proposed hull form is so great that this vessel could only make 12kts ... Stability is insufficient to enable operations even in light sea states... Tests should be carried out to ascertain if it would be better to situate the propellors deeper under the bottom or free from the stern".
The MTK ordered the construction of an experimental hovercraft, now called Versuchsgleitboot, to modified design, with dimensions of 13.0 x 4.0 x 0.36m (42.64 x 13.12 x 1.18ft), and a displacement of 7.8 tonnes (7.6 tons) and propelled by four 120hp 6cyl. Austrodaimlers to drive the propellers and one 56hp Austrodaimler for hovering. Comparison with the pre-project design shows some important differences:
A more streamlined hull profile.
Only the after section of the hull was to be lifted by the air cushion; the forward section would simply glide on the water surface.
A more powerful surface propulsion plant
Torpedoes situated inboard, placed in open chutes for sternward ejection.

Hull
The MTK design had a rectangular hull of spindle-shaped profile, with the bottom divided, by a vertical step, into gliding and hover sections. To ensure eddyless air-injection a swallowtail-shaped duct was situated at this vertical step. The hull was built completely of wood but the torpedo chutes were lined with sheet metal. A forward rudder was positioned under the driver's cockpit and an after rudder near the stern, both on the centreline. As all standard formulas for the calculation of rudders and propellers (eg Hope's Formula, first published in Engineering in 1915) were not applicable, various rudder shapes and propellers from different suppliers (each differing in radius and inclination) were tested.
Machinery
Each pair of 120hp surface propulsion engines drove through a common gearbox to a single propeller shaft. Thery were placed in tandem and all exhaust gases wre injected into the hover section, under the hull, to assist the 65hp hover engine
Armament
A single 8mm Schwarzlose machine gun Mk (19)07/12 was mounted on the hull forward. The torpedo armament consisted originally of two 45cm weapons, each in an open chute arranged for launching over the stern by means of compressed air. Later a depth-charge thrower, for three small 6kg (13.23lb) bombs, was placed on the stern slope. Unfortunately, I have been able to locate neither plans nor photographs of this device.
Construction
The Versuchsgleitboot was built at Pola Navy Yard to the following schedule: 17. 6. 1915: Start of preparatory work
1. 7. 1915: Keel laid
16. 9. 1915: All fittings on board
2. 9. 1915: Launched
3. 9. 1915: First trials

Test Results
As might be expected, since this was an experimental vessel some minor problems were encountered but they are not discussed here as they do not directly concern the success or failure of the basic concept. These difficulties were with such items as the ignition, the gearbox and son on. Tests with the originally planned 45cm torpedoes showed poor results, so it was decided to switch to the more reliable 35cm torpedoes. (The technical and tactical problems of firing a torpedo from a high-speed vessel are discussed in the next section).

More interesting are the results of the world's first hovering trials (Table 1). When hovering, without forward movement, the area abaft the bottom step was completely filled wih air, the hull rising out of the water by 15cm, giving an apparent displacement reduction of 6.3 to 3 tonnes. The air flowing out sternwards also produced a 3kts forward speed. The tests showed that the greatest improvement of  speed lay between 16 and 24kts, the true speed increase being about 4-5kts. At higher speeds the improvement provided by hovering decreased to between 2.4  and 2.7kts. Owing to the hull form, the boat came out of the water at speeds above 20kts, even when hovering was not employed. As we will see later, the MTK had to decide if the additional speed of about 2kts was worth the extra weight involved in the provision of a fifth engine, a fan and the additional fuel. When judging the maximum speed, it must be kept in mind that the fastest potential opponent of the Versuchsgleitboot were the Italian Motoscafi anti sommergibili (MAS, or motor anti submarine boat) capable of only 24kts, or, in the case of a torpedo-carrying hovercraft attacking a convoy. Allied escorts were capable of 28-30kts. However, in the case of the Italian MAS, it is clear that what was really needed was a fast, armoured, motor gun boat and not a hovercraft.

At first sight a small high-speed boat appears to be an ideal torpedo-carrying vessel, but on closer examination we find that the release of the torpedo becomes a problem when the speed of the launching vessel approaches that of the torpedo itself (the contemporary Austrian 45cm torpedo was capable of 38-40kts). In principle there are four different methods of launching torpedoes, regardless of the equipment used (torpedo tubes, launching frames, chutes and other devices):
Over the bow. Here the vessel has to slow down to let the torpedo run on ahead.
Over the stern. Here the vessel has to do a half-turn at the height of its attack, showing her full broadside to the target. Unless she slows down, this turn has, necessarily, to be of large tactical diameter. In addition, the Austrian tests showed that a fast-running boat leaves a wake of disturbed water which was liable to upset the accurate run of a standard torpedo.
Over the side, parallel to the hull. This could be achieved by dropping the weapon from clamps (as in the Italian MAS) or outboard containers (as in M黮lers pre-projected design). Using this method, attack was possible at both high and low speeds.
Launch in forward direction, form fixed or trainable inboard torpedo tubes. Not suitable for a small 40ft vessel.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1: Trial Results

Date Displacement Propeller Without air With air Speed increase
(tonnes) Type Diameter Rpm Speed Rpm Speed (kts)
18.10.15 6.3 Zeise 630mm 780 20.40 - - -
29.11.15 6.5 Zeise 630mm 680 24.00 - - -
29.11.15 6.5 Zeise 630mm 1150 30.90 - - -
7.12.15 6.3 Zeise 630mm 1150 30.90 1200 32.60 2.70
7.12.15 7.5 Zeise 630mm 980 24.50 1200 29.70 5.20
7.1.16 6.5 Bauer 580mm 900 20.90 1000 30.00 3.10
16.1.16 6.5 MTK 820mm 690 22.80 - - -
21.1.16 6.4 MTK 820mm 710 22.80 960 26.90 4.10
23.1.16 6.4 MTK 820mm 915 25.90 1020 28.80 2.90
25.1.16 6.4 MTK 750mm 950 27.20 1035 29.60 2.40
28.1.16 6.4 MTK 750mm 1000 16.10 1175 27.70 1.60
29.1.16 6.3 MTK 750mm 1040 27.30 1150 30.50 3.20
31.1.16 6.3 MTK 690mm 1070 27.70 - - -
1.2.16 6.3 MTK 690mm 1100 28.80 1190 32.40 3.60
2.2.16 6.3 MTK 690mm 1060 29.20 1170 30.90 1.70
4.2.16 6.4 MTK 690mm 980 27.90 1060 30.10 2.20
6.2.16 6.4 MTK 660mm 1000 27.90 1100 31.15 3.25
7.2.16 6.3 MTK 660mm 1050 29.00 1120 30.40 1.40
9.2.16 6.4 MTK 660mm 1100 28.85 1200 31.00 2.15
10.2.16 6.4 MTK 660mm 1210 29.90 1310 32.30 2.40
15.2.16 6.4 MTK 690mm 1300 31.90 - - -

The Final Judgement
On the 20 October 1916 the board of the MTK met for a final judgement on M黮ler's idea, the boat and the results. For this naval constructor Dipl Ing Max Szombathy prepared a paper entitled Schiffbauliche Bemerkungen which ist quoted below as it is much clearer and more professional the final 'official' document.
"The  basic idea proved practical and, from this point of view, the experimental vessel was successful. Military use of the boat is not recommended due to the following disadvantages:
The boat is not seaworthy. The broad snub bow would require speed reduction in heavy seas and might lead to hull stress.
The boat ist open, so rain and sea spray might disturb both electric ignition and the carburettors.
The boat has no bulkheads and a single leak could cause the total loss of the vessel.
The engines are not silenced which could lead to premature detection in night attacks.
The engines have no self-starters and it is a rather involved process to start them by crank. However, if the engines are kept in neutral when the vessel is stopped, to avoid the need for re-starting, they become over-oiled.
Torpedo launching over the stern ist unsatisfactory, as the boats turning radius at high speed is to great.
The torpedo suffers from wide deviation when ejected at high speed due to propeller turbulence. It cannot stabilise itself and jumps out of the water or dives to great depth.
The throwing of depth-charges is satisfactory but the minimum burst distance should be checked."


Synopsis
"The vessel has been built to run basic trials. For military use a number of modifications would be necessary. This would mean a complete rebuilding which would not however alter the boat's bad seaworthiness. In addition the crew should undergo special training. At present and in the existing form the boat cannot be recommended for military use."

Based on this document, and the subsequent discussion thereof, the board judged that:
The boat was insufficient in terms of shipbuilding technolgy, was not seaworthy, and was difficult to handle.
The boat was unarmoured, open and without bulkheads.
The noise of the unsilenced engines would warn an enemy of its approach.
The speed, in full load condition was to slow(!).
The torpedo ejection over the stern was inefficient and the turning circle at high speed was so great that it would cost vital time in operational use.
The boat accelerated and stopped badly.
The boat could not carry out exact depth-charging, as visibility over the stern was not good enough at high speed.
The action radius was to small (120nm).
The boat was no substitute for a seaworthy, armoured, motorboat. '... But vessels of this or a similar type may be of value for the Navy if they can achieve a reliable speed of 40kts, at a sufficient action radius, and can carry a 1200kg (2645.54lb) warload ... '


Some of the comments of the board are rather surprising or, at least, in contradiction with earlier comments. For example, earlier reports spoke of good handling capabilities and commented that istwas not necessary to install reversing gear as the manoeuverability was sufficient. Considering the details of enemy high-speed craft, the argument about insufficient speed seems not to have been throughly discussed. Nevertheless, the basic intrinsic value of the hovercraft has not changed during the last 53 years. A modern hovercraft is, like ist remote predecessor, a vulnerable weapon carrier, suitable only for special missions, and needs very special maintenance and care.

The story if the Versuchsgleitboot ends prosaically: the engines were sent back to the Aviation Arsenal in Vienna and the hull was probably cannibalised during the following years. The last remnants of the world's first hovercraft may well have ended as firewood in the stoves of Pola.

**) Published at Warship No 17, 1981

回复 32# 雪千寻
可螺旋桨还浸水，表面效应就无法真正实现，尤其是艇艉，同样是传统线型，几乎全是湿表面，表面效应就无从谈起，将船体完全抬离水面而螺旋桨从船体斜插入水的并非没有，如火星之类的水翼艇，但依照奥匈这种船型是不现实的，因为这东西不能提供一个完整的空气流通通道，发动机更无法提供引射，同时，这船不像“短剑”号那样拥有复杂的艇底结构来封闭压缩空气形成气垫，要说气垫船也过于勉强。

EVAF 发表于 2011-2-25 15:32

毕竟是表面效应艇中的第一艘啊，那年头飞机也没有发明多少年，所以也就是概念艇啊，不可能像后来的那些长得和飞机一样的货一样那么彻底……据说31年芬兰人那个第二艘也没有在奥匈的这个基础上跨出多少进步来……