This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Hovercar was copied or moved into Hovercraft with this edit on 2022-05-03 19:10:00. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Good example of the usual US 'world' view (like "'World' Series")... a British invention: no mention in introduction; first national mention is of a US inventor of a modification to one aspect of design.
All ready for a Hollywood film, like the one in which the US did the work on the WWII Enigma machine. Priceless entertainment! Unfortunately, alo one of the main US sources of education. (Aside: something like 75% of us citizens have never been outside their own country).
"This service ceased in 2002 when the Channel tunnel took over the fast transit of cross-channel traffic."
Hold on there. The Chunnel is in direct COMPETITION with the port of Dover. It seems more likely that the hovercraft were retired because they were obsolete. They were replaced with SeaCats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee M (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The hovercraft was not retired through obsolescence: it was withdrawn thans to the collapse in cross-channel day trips resulting from changes in the "Duty Free" laws which hitherto facilitated the sale of cheap alcohol, cigarettes and perfume to the British at the French Channel ports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseOldBob (talk • contribs) 10:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
---[reply]
As one of the original editors of this page, now returned to see it all in mass confusion...
The chief problem here is that no differentiation is being made between "surface effect vehicle" (the set), and "hovercraft" (the sub-set). Clear that up and all the arguing would disappear. It seems clear that there was literally decades of messing around with various "hovercraft-like" surface effect vehicles in several countries before the first "hovercraft" per se. was "invented."
Sir Christopher was indeed the first person to invent a working hovercraft with all the bits that we would look for to identify any standard hovercraft today. This is derided by some as being "He came to the market first" (but others "invented" it previously). This would only be the case if separate individuals all invented the same thing at more or less the same time, but they did not.
Charles Fletcher did not create a working hovercraft as far as I have been able to find out. Even if he did, the annular ring of air and the skirt are the most identifying features of any hovercraft and as far as I am aware, he did not have those.
The article should be restructured to reflect the difference between years of research in many quarters on surface effect vehicles, and to differentiate Sir Christopher as the single inventor of the "Hovercraft" (the one with the skirt and the downward facing blower etc. that we all know).
Certainly, as others have pointed out here, if the Wright Brothers get credit for inventing the airplane, then Sir Christopher should get the hovercraft. Nothing the Wright brothers did was original to them, they merely pieced together ideas gained from a tour of the airplane clubs of europe the summer previously.
In Sir Christopher's case, his design used an annular ring of air assisted by a rubber skirt. That was his input as far as I am aware, and the exact detail that differentiates a hovercraft from other failed attempts. Anyone who can prove that those two things were included by others on their attempts, might have a case for prior invention but otherwise the win must go to Britain on this one.
The Cross Channel service was discontinued because of lack of availability of spares for the SR.N4 and the craft were by then well-used and almost worn out - BHC had by then ceased to exist and the current owners of what was BHC, Westland Helicopters, were no longer supporting the design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Adding information about Charles Fletcher's invention.
I'm preparing to add some information regarding Charles Fletcher, the American inventor of the hovercraft who designed a vehicle classified by the DoD during WWII in the U.S. well before his British counterpart who continues to get all the credit is said to have invented (or "re-invented") it. I also intend to mention the patent lawsuit against the Americans that uncovered Fletcher's original invention. Any discussion regarding the addition of this point? —ExplorerCDT23:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is simply a POV. It does not fit well the the factual basis of the Hovercraft section and stands out as sore POV by Fletchers friends. Get over it. The Hovercraft became commercially viable because of the work Sir Christopher did. Using his principle the British built the first commercial Hovercraft.
I'm not even related, or have ever met Fletcher. Sir Christopher was a johnny-come-lately, and invented his "hovercraft" 20 years later after Fletcher. My interest in it is solely with the legal case I cited, as I have an interest in intellectual property law especially those cases where military technology classifications have denied inventors patents or credit. The only connection, remote as it is, is that Fletcher lives about a half an hour from where I grew up. But considering it's all within the NYC metropolitan area, that doesn't mean much.—ExplorerCDT15:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Mr Fletcher was the first source of the hovercraft and did such a great job then why did Bell buy SR.N5's from the BHC in the UK for US Military use in Vietnam? If he had a viable design then why didn't he supply the US military with the craft they were looking for? Not only did Bell buy the SR.N5's from BHC they also bought the rights to produce them and made a modified version called the SK5. This is because the UK was the first source of a commercially viable hovercraft and that was a product of the work done by Sir Christopher no one else. The UK joint forces test center in Lee-on-the-Solent UK was testing the SR.N2, SR.N3 and SR.N5 long before the US had anything to show (the LCAC came and lot later). Hence this is why Bell bought the SR.N5 as the first viable, working hovercraft built by BHC and a product of the invention and development of the Hovercraft in the UK by Sir Christopher.
As a result of the DOD classification, fletcher couldn't even admit he designed such a craft in 1944, and as a result couldn't patent it or economically benefit from it. It was a U.S. Government state secret. And, as with a lot of things after WW2, the paperwork fell between the cracks. —ExplorerCDT17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read some case law before you ask stupid questions like that. If you really knew your stuff about hovercrafts, you'd probably have self-answered those questions by now. —ExplorerCDT20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected you are a biased 'not invented here' Fletcher fan. That explains why this section on Hovercraft is so inaccurate. Thanks for letting me and everyone else know. By the way plural of Hovercraft is Hovercraft...no 's'. That was an after the fact re-invention of Sir Chritophers word in American dictionaries. The word is British and OED is the correct source of the word in its correct for for both one and many craft.
No, not any more biased than you are about insisting on Cockerell as the sole inventor (which he is not). I just like seeing a guy get his due credit, saving an occasional great thought or person from the dustbin of history and correcting inaccuracy when i see it (like claims of Cockerell being the inventor of the hovercraft for one). On an aside, I don't care about Britishism/Americanisms. If you're going to start nitpicking tangentally about colloquial linguistics, then it's only evidence that you don't have a case when it comes to the true matter at hand. —ExplorerCDT17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was the patent case? I presume that British Hovercraft Company tried to enforce a patent that they thought they had so could get licence money from anyone else building hovercrafts but Fletcher proved his prior art. Equally Fletcher didn't cross the English Channel on his creation and his contribution to the modern hovercraft is actually minor. GraemeLeggett14:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme, that is precisely what it was. However, his contribution to the modern hovercraft helped the navy develop landing craft in the last months of WW2, which isn't exactly minor. —ExplorerCDT17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact so minor no one's ever heard of the poor chap. I have researched the history of this subject and also met Sir Christopher and many of his associates. I would be a little more accepting he made any conrtibution but there are no craft on show anywhere that he designed or made. The Hovercraft I have found in a US Museum: One in storage at the Smithsonian (a Dr. Bertelsen design), One SK5 at the Army transport museum in Virginia. In service in the US there are a few Griffons (UK craft), Slingsby (UK craft) Hoverworks craft under construction (UK designed craft). The Canadian coast guard used SR.N5's and are in the process of switching to Griffons. But there is not a single sight of one 'Fletcher'design. Where can everyone go to see one? With you extensive knowledege of law you must know where the evidence is?
Actually, Fletcher's first prototype of his design is on display in New Jersey, given to a technology museum about 5-6 years back or so. It's in the Aviation Hall of Fame & Museum of New Jersey. Even a quick google search would have shown you that. If I recall correctly he was insistent that the prototype remain in New Jersey for display. Besides, if you've researched this subject, you should have come across the case law. It was big news both in US and UK papers. Cockerell was later lambasted in the press over the decision, because it firmly established Fletcher's role going back to 1944 and made Cockerell look excessively haughty in singing his own praises before the decision. So much for your "research." Maybe you should spend the $6, next time you get to New Jersey and go see it, I have not. Back to the books, your research is faulty. —ExplorerCDT16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Post Script: Fletcher is to Cockerell as Antonio Meucci is to Alexander Graham Bell. Only Meucci didn't have his telephone invention classified by the DOD. It's time to give the man his due, that's my only desire. I have no interest in the Fletcher, I've never talked to him, but in my research it's just another case of a guy getting shit on by the system, and someone else claiming the credit for something not entirely his. I'd like to see the guy get some credit for accomplishments he is responsible for. If it weren't for the USDOD, Fletcher would have made billions off it. The Courts recognized that in the 1980s. Instead, he went off and designed rockets, printing presses, and a few other things, and made a fortune that way. I don't doubt Cockerell's invention. Likewise, Cockerell deserves as much attention as Fletcher does. In fact, you'll notice I haven't messed with discussion of Cockerell and his contributions in the article. It is just that I think Fletcher deserves more credit than history has thus far afforded him, and often history needs to be corrected. As with Meucci. —ExplorerCDT16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In 1993 the LACV-30 Hovercraft program was closed out and moth-balled on the James River near Fort Eustis. Some were sent to Alaska to work on the Tundra. I understand those have since been destroyed. I worked on them during the Mid Eighties. These craft were built by Bell Textron and became the Army's biggest embarrasment. The most expensive beer can ever bought. The main downfall of these craft were that Bell designed them with aluminum fuel lines with Stainless fittings. The galvanic corrosion that took place soon rotted the entire fuel system and with one craft torn down We started working on a new fuel system. I designed an aviation style fuel sytem with flex hose and solved the corrosion problem. We were given the go ahead to rebuild the first one to prove our point. After the rebuild, the contract was given to Bell Textron to complete the rebuild on the remaining 23 craft. The bid was too much and the Army gave in to scrubbing the program. Just a bit of trivia to those that seem to know so much about hovercraft. --Diver723:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the US PACV's were all SR-N5s built at Cowes by Saunders-Roe and imported into the US. Bell then re-engined them with GE T58 engines (The original Bristol-Siddeley Gnome was a licence-built T58) and changed UK electronics, radar, fittings, nuts, bolts, etc., for US ones. Bell bought a licence to produce the SR-N5 but never actually built any, all the ones used in Vietnam were built in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.71 (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
I'm thinking about writting an article about personal hovercrafts. There are kit-built ones used for leisure, there are race hovercrafts.. and hovercraft races... there are companies which sell personal hovercrafts which are in size bit more than an average boat... I think many ppl would be interested to know that for a reasonable price they can have a hovercraft for themselves :) What do you think? Should it be a separate article or part of this one? --Robert11:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and go for it! At best, we get an awesome new article about a relevant subject. At medium, it gets merged back into Hovercraft, and at worst it ends up being deleted back to the stone age. There are different articles for Trucks and Cars, right? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and write the article! The two big sources of plans for homebuilt hovercraft in the US are Universal Hovercraft and Sevtec. Both have models that range from single-person to 25' craft. UH craft are typically faster and a little less comfortable, while the Sevtec crafts are built for cockpit space but wouldn't win too many races. I'm building a 16' Sevtec so I am a little biased, but I feel its more of a utilitarian craft. A 20' Sevtec craft with an 80hp engine made a voyage on open water from Puget Sound to Juneau, AK.
It appears that a partiotic American has tweaked the article to suggest that someone called Beardsley invented the hovercraft, and that Cockerell only added the finishing touches to Beardsley's research.
Sorry, this is not true. Beardsley's patent number 3195665 is dated July 1965, but a fully functioning hovercraft was in use in Britain in 1959.
If you want to claim that an American invented the hovercraft and Cockerall only did the finishing touches to bring the thing to fruition, then under that criterion you could equally well say that the British invented powered-manned-flight and not the Wright brothers, who only did minor tinkering to finish it.
The re-writing of history in favour of the US and to the detriment of the UK is widespread on Wikipedia and is one of the things that makes Wikipedia worthless as a serious reference. Just about every widely acknowledged UK invention has a competing claim from a 'recently discovered' US claimant. A lot of Wikipedia's source 'information' comes from web sites and unfortunately many are constructed by 'fanboy's and are not subject to any sort of peer review, so their accuracy is not of the highest order. The UK actually has a record of invention and innovation that is literally, second to none. That they have failed to capitalise on this on many occasions, especially since the end of World War II, is more the fault of their politicians and industrialists, than anything else.
As a matter of interest, the US Government refused to sign any form of patent treaty with the UK until as late as 1906 so many of their claimed 'inventions' were often pirated by having someone waiting at the docks for the ships from Liverpool with the latest UK patents, and then filing them in the US as their own. Thomas Edison was allegedly notorious for doing this, although I suspect you won't find it mentioned in his Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.171 (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! - no doubt invented and built by the advanced design facilities of the 'Petrograd Mangle Factory Number 1', or somewhere similar. The Soviet Union's propaganda bureaux were always trying to claim they invented things first. Something to do with inferiority complexes. They were notorious for it. The Russians aren't noted for inventing things. Composing classical music and writing long, depressing novels, that's what the Russians are famous-for. Not inventing stuff. During the Cold War the Soviets copied without permission or paying royalties anything they could get their hands on from the west. Just look at the Klimov RD-500, Klimov VK-1 and Tupolev Tu-4 articles.
I'm quite prepared to believe their contribution to the Ground effect vehicle development though. Not much use to the British or many other countries, as they have 'proper' seas, with weather and high seas that would make your hair curl.
... and as for the Americans, well, they just change the name and manufacture it in the States and say they invented it. Well, mostly. At least they had the decency to actually PAY to licence-build Rolls-Royce jet engines, even if the British did actually waive the patent fees, so that the US had a free hand to build them.
It's no good saying that 'so-and-so invented this-or-that', the invention has to be actually BUILT and it has to actually WORK. Theoretical stuff doesn't count. And you also have to PUBLICISE it, so that other people can check that it works, and possibly find a use for it. I could say that my 'super-duper anti-gravity belt' is the best invention ever - but don't ask me to demonstrate it working. 'coz it don't. I made it all up, see?
There's nothing wrong in not inventing things, many countries have almost no record of invention, but trying to re-write history in favour of someone who had no noticeable affect on the development of an invention, i.e., he/she had no influence on what working hardware actually came out of an idea, is not good factual writing. They may have had useful ideas that led other people to incorporate them into their work, building upon others previous work, (this happens a lot in inventing, many things are actually combinations of many people's work, often making use of separate devices patented by someone else) but it is the person/organisation that makes the thing WORK that 'invented' it. I could say that the British Interplanetary Society (BIS) invented the Lunar Module, because they published a design just after the Second World War for a lunar lander that has many similarities to the subsequent Apollo design. But it was never built, so they (the BIS) didn't invent it - see?
So mentioning any other people who made significant contributions to the development of the hovercraft is perfectly OK, But saying that they invented it is not OK unless someone can provide satisfactory evidence that they built a hovercraft and that it worked, and that they did this first. Christopher Cockerell did this and what's more, flew one across that English Channel on the 25th July 1959 - I know because it was filmed and shown on television. Here's a (poor) picture of it arriving at Dover after it's flight [2] and here's a picture of it at sea; [3]
What I'm saying is that it's no good people adding 'new' information if it comes from web sites that have had no form of peer review or fact-checking whatsoever. I could create a web site and make all sorts of bogus claims (many people do - mostly from Nigeria I believe) and there's no one around to stop me. I can say anything, so unless the other chap had someone unbiased (governments don't count as 'unbiased' - see what I mentioned above about the Soviet Union. Other governments are the same if they think they can make money out of it) there to verify his claim to have invented the hovercraft and then publicise it, perhaps with a publicly-available patent, then he didn't - Cockerell did.
Incidently, lest someone think I am being somewhat nationalistic in all this, as regarding actually building something I would hasten to add that I would not myself consider Arthur C. Clarke (a fellow Briton) to have 'invented' the communications satellite, which he is often credited with having done. He 'devised' it but didn't 'invent' it, as he, AFAIK, wasn't the driving force behind the satellites that were subsequently put into orbit. He merely had the idea for one first, no mean achievement in itself.
I recently discovered that the Bora Hovercraft was substantially heavier than the Zubr (1050 tons vs. ~550 tons + 150 tons cargo), so I corrected the article accordingly. Just for those who are wondering why the image captions changed... --Oceanhahn18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Bora is a side wall Hovercraft and as such, some of the side structure is in the water. This should be made clear in the article as a true Hovercraft has all hard structure clear of the water when on cushion.
Thanks for adding that. I knew it was different in that way, but didnt know what name to give it. I presume you also edited the Bora page itself, so, kudos! --Oceanhahn22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Picture of Cockerell's channel crossing hovercraft?
It would be nice to have a picture of the first hovercraft. I remember seeing archive film of this, so I'm sure photos exist somewhere.
As far as I recall it was disc shaped with a central funnel-like fan and a cabin in front of the fan.
I do not know how to add photos myself.
Some pictures of the SR-N1 here: [4] but the copyright problems may be an issue. Someone may be able to use one under 'fair use' citing a 'historical event' for the rationale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.111.181 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the anonymous editor who last edited from 71.42.59.58:
You should read the page WP:REF, which discuss how to cite sources in a Wikipedia article. The "References" section of the article is to reference sources used in the creation of material in the article. It's not "Further reading", or "Related material" - that's why there's a big list of external links. If you used those books to contribute material to the article, then by all means include them as references (pointing out which material is sourced from them would be helpful in this case). But without that, sticking them at the top of the list just looks like advertising. Orpheus02:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, that until air cushion vehicle redirects here, we should not consider developments prior to 1956 "unimportant". Hence, I splitted "history" section into two subsections: "early air cushion developments" and "air cushion on hovercraft principle".Cmapm20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just watched an early 1970's episode of Let's Make a Deal on GSN. One of the prizes was an Air Cycle 720 made by Air Cushion Vehicles of Troy, New York valued at $1,495. It could go up to 40 MPH. What happened to this company? Looks like a fun vehicle!
Image:Hovercraft 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Image:Hovercraft 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Working with Cockerill, Bliss invented the segmented skirt which was the vital evolution from early versions of the hovercraft. It would be useful if anyone could find out more about this. Also Bliss went on to develop the test track at Cambridge, again more information would be really helpful as this was a fascinating and controversial major experiment. Excalibur (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if anyone knows where the following comes from:
"The skirt was an independent invention made by a Royal Navy officer, Latimer-Needham, who sold his idea to Westland (parent company of Saunders-Roe), and who worked with Sir Christopher to develop the idea further."
That may be true at least in part - this was a complex project and lots of engineers contributed. Nevertheless it would be useful to allocate due credit for each invention - the list of patents is formidable: according to:
[6] - and I'm relying on the google cache as the main site appears to be offline:
Sir Christopher Sydney Cockerell
C.B.E., R.D.I., F.R.S.
4th June 1910 - 1st June 1999
Hovercraft patents
(Some titles have been shortened.)
Dec. 1955 854211 Basic air curtain case.
May 1957 893715 Air cushion platform.
May 1957 894644 Landing air cushion for aircraft.
May 1957 895341 Air cushioned aircraft carriers.
Jun. 1958 944501 Side wall vehicle-curtain end seal.
The real innovation in hovercraft development occurred in 1957, and was revealed to the public in 1960. It was the invention of the "Double-Walled Flexible Skirt" by Mr. Norman B. McCreary in Little Rock, Arkansas,USA (Patent No. 3,532,179) and was published in the Arkansas Gazette Newspaper on Jan. 25, 1960 and in Science and Mechanics Magazine in June, 1960. This was the Conception and Technological Development that enabled hovercraft to travel over uneven terrain or waves of the sea. It later became known as the "Bag Skirt" as it inflated around the edge of the hovercraft. It would raise and lower the hovercraft off the ground by inflation and deflation of the Double-Walled Flexible Skirt. Later fingers were added to the bottom of the skirt to compensate for wear and reduce drag. After this concept was made public in 1960, all hovercraft utalized a "Double-Walled Flexible Skirt" system for practical hovercraft operations, (see time line Naval Engineering Journal, Febuary 1985, page 261). 6262 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwmccreary (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at Patent 3532179 at Freepatentsonline and the skirt system described is more akin to the French Jupe system than a bag skirt. The Jupe system was a series of slightly conical skirts beneath the hull much as McCreary describes in his patent and the tension force is tangential to the outer fixing point. The Jupe system didn't have the inner wall of material since McCreary's system would hace filled with water if the craft became hull borne.
Can you provide any further information about the design that shows it acting like a bag skirt?
See Patent 3532179, col.5, line 1-4, "The orbital,flexible,channel-shaped, sheet curtain may be V shaped, U shaped, or of other channel shaped construction depending upon the height of the curtain, the strength of the flexible material, and other factors, as desired." Fig. 27A has air holes in the inner wall, which also act to eliminate water build up in the skirt.Razorback 1 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those claims are referring to the tailoring of the cross section and it is feasible to produce those sorts of profiles. But the tension force which controls the shape of a bag skirt is normal to the line of the outer fixing point and the profile of the skirt is dictated by the pressure ratio between the bag pressure and the plenum. McCrearys system is only ever shown as circular and described as orbital - again both features that were used in the French Jupe system. There is little consideration given to the pressure variation between the skirt "cavity" and the plenun which is a critical feature of a bag skirt and allows the bag skirt to form it's shape even on a isolated section. McCreary's system probably wouldn't work on isolated section - it needs the tangential tension to maintain it's shape.
Also the holes in Fig 27A are described at line 58, Col 2, P27 as follows:
Under certain conditions, the inner wall 508 may be provided with openings 550 which are shown in FIG. 27A. These openings are sufficiently small, so they maintain a slightly greater pressure in the space 500 than in space 502. The difference in pressures may be regulated by the size of the openings 550. They are chosen, so that they produce a slight restriction of flow to insure the slightly higher pressure in 500 than in 502. However, under other conditions, these opening 550 may be omitted.
Clearly they were not intended as a skirt drain method.
I think the claim could be made that McCreary invented the Jupe system but as decribed but this patent certainly doesn't cover bag skirts.--Yimby (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patent interference between McCreary and General Motors involved molded skirts as now are used in Airbearings, bag skirts
now sold by Hovair Systems. McCreary beat GM in interference court and the French dropped out because they knew they were not first. McCreary invented THE FIRST inflatable skirt of ANY KIND. Shape is covered in the patent. So is pressure. So is air flow. "Best mode",as seen by the inventer, does not LIMIT the inventer's first design, once the concept of inflatible skirts is disclosed. Shape, height, pressure, thickness, all come under "other factors as desired". Hovair Systems was a spin-off of GM under license, from McCreary's US Patent No. 3,532,179. Therefore bag skiers are a McCreary invention.Razorback 1 (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text in page claims that the patent covers the "Double Walled Flexible Skirt" yet the word 'skirt' is not used anywhere in the patent. THe development of skirt systems was indeed a significant step in hovercraft development but as noted in the section "History" below and "Denys Bliss and Latimer-Needham" above many people conceived flexible seals and skirts. I can't find any evidence to suggest that McCrearys patent had any major influence. Latimer-Needham's patent was granted in 1959 (see 1965 Flight magazine [[7]]) and is generally considered the key patent for workable skirt systems. I don't believe Latimer-Needham had much involvement with Saunders Roe et al. after he sold his patent rights to them. However McCrearys patent is not insignificant and has been recognised in body of work of the development of hovercraft.
[[8]].
McCreary's patent does include a 'inflatable' skirt but I doubt that that was the intent. Almost any of the earlier propsotions for flexible seals wouls inflate. The function of the internal 'wall' is to effectively prevent the lower edge of the outer wall from snagging on objects and creationg the seal rather than to contribute to the shape of the skirt. (P20 Col 8 Line 31 " The slant of the inner wall 68 permits the stone 72 or high object to pass outwardly from the curtain 54 as well as inwardly, as the craft passes over the stone.") and to cause the skit to stand up. In a bag skirt the inner wall retains the loop of outer wall. The patent notes that the system can be used without the inner wall (thus becoming a jupe type skirt). A true bag skirt can't exist without an inner wall.
The 'best mode' assertions is just opinion of vague statements. Given the large number of illustrations in the patent no real features are depicted other than a Jupe type skirt in a multicell arrangement (jupe skirts have very poor pitch/roll stability and need to be used in multiple arrangements). If the system was indeed a bag skirt, I'd expect to see an example of a single cell machine. The skirt system developed a for the Hovair air bearing has a striking similarity to that as described by McCreary. However I can't find any evidence that McCready challenged anyone for using bag skirts that he 'invented'.
The section "Skirt Development" is largely original research. This and the similar material that appeared in the History could be added to a new page about other inventions and developments that had little influence on the development of modern hovercraft. Yimby (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK the RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) operates a hovercraft as its rescue vehicle on Morecambe Bay. Morecambe Bay lies between Lancashire and Cumbria, and reduces to vast areas of mudflats and quicksands at low tide - a hovercraft is therefore ideal for rescues that might include people stuck on sandbanks who might perish before the water became deep enough for a conventional lifeboat to reach them. NorthernSpinney (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone like to write an article on this manufacturer of hovercraft? These things are a bit outside my areas of knowledge and I don't feel I'd be able to write a high enough quality article. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of them. If you have some reliable online sources, post them here, and I'll look at them, and see if the company qualifies as notable. I'm not a great from-scratch writer, but I can try at get something started anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: 137.4 km/h (85.87 mph), 34.06 secs measured kilometre
Can anyone verify this? It's clearly wrong since 34.06s/km = 104.696 km/h. 137.4 km/h = 26.201s, so not an obvious typo.
Not only that, but 137.4 km/h (@1.609344 km/mile) = 85.376 mph. Also, no sources are cited.
--PuzzleScot (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article opens with an anomolous understanding of what is patentable. Thus Although he filed a number of patents involving air-lubricated hulls in 1957, no practical applications were found is wrong.
You cannot patent a principle or a bright idea, only the application of a principle or idea is covered by a patent. Sir Christopher Cockerell's original patent spelt out precisely how he had applied principles he had discovered in order to built the first Hovercraft. He would have had to disclose all details of each practical application in order to get the provisional patent he sought. In fact this first application disclosed the use of a 'skirt' and includes a sketch so there can be no doubt that flexible skirts were part of Cockerell's Hovercraft concept. I mention this because many seem to think that this idea came later. In fact there were no Hovercraft before Dec 1955 as Christopher Cockerell and his wife Margaret coined the word while living at their boatyard in Somerleyton in Suffolk.
In paragraph 7 it says 'However, Colonel Melville W. Beardsley (1913-1998), an American inventor and aeronautical engineer, received $80,000 from Cockerell for his rights to American patents.' What evidence is there for this statement, is there a date? I can find no evidence that Sir Christopher Cockerell ever bought patents from Col Beardsley, he was personally barred from doing anything of the kind following his agreement with NRDC/HDL. I have to conclude it did not happen, it seems very wrong to make such an assertion without a date and a reference. Can anyone help please?
I have now read the whole Hovercraft entry, there are many errors throughout and I feel it should be removed pending substantive review.
This article depicts Hovercraft as THE air cushioned craft altogether. There is a history like the first functioning Austrian air cushion craft (developped by Dagobert Müller von Thomamühl during WWI in the Adriatic Sea) or the Sovyiet developments L1 to L5 (designed by W. I. Lewkow) which were deployed in WW II.
On the other hand maybe this wikipedia should have a general article on air cushioned crafts and then continue with "Hovercraft" as the present main branch. --Kipala (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the idea of a general history article that covers other Surface effect vehicle development. That article can include all the interesting development work that occured everywhere. That would allow this article to focus on the post 1950's developments which most casual readers would be more interested in.
There is also a case for having a diambig or classifiying article to make sure everyone is on the same page eg.
SEV
GEV
WIG
Ramwing
ACV
Amphibious (Hovercraft)
Non-amphibious
Tracked
I also suggest that Hovercraft are those vehicles that developed as a result of Cockerell and Sauders-Roe and that earlier developments are call ACVs. As we have seen in the previous versions of this article I think the two are different.Yimby (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the now generic term hovercraft was actually a trade name of Cockerill's (later BHC's and Westland's) so any other manufacturer's design could not be legally called that in advertising, so you will generally find the term air-cushion vehicle used for these others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The history section contains extensive details and even extended quotations from the work of Russian scientists/engineers, but appears to dismiss or even belittle the work of non-Russians. In particular, dismissing Cockrell, most famous for his work on the hovercraft, with the single sentence "However, today, in western culture, hovercraft is often considered as the brainchild of Sir Christopher Cockerell" shows clear bias, and is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.184.185 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem as before - ACV history mixed into Hovercraft history. The previous history section of this article got removed because it reduced to a battle of american interests claiming invention (of hovercraft) there rather than UK.
Again I suggest a classification/definition article to get all these vehicles into their proper perspective then a general history of ACV's where everyone can add their two cents. 'Hovercraft' history can then be constrained to follow the work of Cockerell. Yimby (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article claim Levkov's vehicles as GEV. It is not correct, because GEV principle has no lift engines and fans as main regime. Maybe as start device, not all the time. Levkov's vehicle use lift engines and fans. Ofcause, it is not usual sheme, it is something between GEV, hovercraft and tunnel-hull catamaran, but it is not GEV. And russian sources describe start of Levkov works as early as 1930, a couple years after publication of Tsiolkovsky book, which lay ground of his work, not finnish vehicle. AFAIK, this finnish vehicle was the first attempt to build true GEV, not hovercraft.Ходок (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would also be handy is a propulsion comparison; ie between an airplane, hovercraft, airboat and a boat. My guess is that ie airboats are much more efficient (ie they skim the watersurface better).
91.182.175.107 (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive that Section 2.1 should be deleted. It is original research.
This section makes five broad statements:
1 That McCreary is credited with inventing the bag skirt.
""American inventor Norman B. McCreary of Little Rock, Arkansas, is credited with inventing and patenting the "Double-Walled Flexible Skirt".... Later known as the "Bag Skirt",..."
2 That McCreary's invention was the technological breakthrough for hovercraft.
"Later known as the "Bag Skirt", it inflated around the edge of the hovercraft, and was a major technological development enabling hovercraft to more effectively travel over uneven terrain or waves."
3 That McCreary's skirts were the progenitor of modern skirt systems.
"Later, fingers were added to the bottom of the skirt to compensate for wear and reduce drag."
4 That all hovercraft began using bag skirts after after 1960.
"After this concept was made public in 1960, all hovercraft began utilizing a "Double-Walled Flexible Skirt" system for practical hovercraft operations..."
5 That UK skirt development followed on from Mcreary's invention.
"...and additional development of the skirt would continue in the U.K under the supervision of British engineer Cecil Latimer-needham."
The citiations supporting these statements are:
8.^ US Patent 3,532,179: Aerodynamic lifting device and method of lifting , Filed June 1, 1965, granted October 6, 1970
9.^ Wille, Wayne (June 1960). "Analyzing Air Car Designs". Science and Mechanics: pp. 73–77
I have searched the web for any other references to Mccreary and his design and have found nothing. Any references simply lead back to the wikipedia article.
The real innovation in hovercraft development occured in 1957, and was revealed to the public in 1960. It was the invention of the "Double-Walled Flexible Skirt" by Mr. Norman B. McCreary in Little Rock, Arkansas, USA, (Patent No.3,532,179) and was published in the Arkansas Gazette Newspaper on Jan. 25, 1960 and in Science and Mechanics Magazine in June, 1960. This was the Conception and Technological Development that enabled hovercraft to travel over uneven terrain or waves of the sea. It later became known as the "bag skirt" as it inflated around the edge of the hovercraft. It would raise and lower the hovercraft off the ground by inflation and deflation of the "Double-Walled Flexible Skirt". Later fingers were added to the bottom of the skirt to compensate for wear and reduce drag. After this concept was made public in 1960, all hovercraft utalized a "Double-Walled Flexible Skirt" system for practical hovercraft operations, (see time line Naval Engineering Journal, Febuary 1985, page 261).
The text has been altered to tone down the extravagant claim The real innovation in hovercraft development occured in 1957... User Jwmccreary changed their name to Razorback1 when I first discussed these claims in january 2008. User Jwmccreary has deleted their account since then.
1 There is no mention of "double walled flexible skirt" in the patent or any other reference. No other source "credits" McCreary with the invention of any skirt. The 2nd reference Analyzing Air Car Designs reports that "Some researchers add skirts to the base." McCreary
is mentioned but "...he is not giving away details on the exact performance of his car...since in many cases patent rights...are involved".
Secondly, the skirt described in the patent is not a bag skirt. It is a jupe type and is described in several places in the patent as being
single "walled".
2 There is no question that the deveopment of the hovercraft would have stagnated without the addition of a practical flexible skirt. This particular statement implies it was McCrearys skirt (the bag skirt) was the major development for hovercraft. Yet there have been no
references in any literature about McCreary's work until this wikipedia article.
3 The bag finger skirt evolved from the skirt system developed on the SRN1 which was a simply a jetted trunk to extend the peripheral
jet. The "bag" section evolved as a method of making the very non-complying trunk extension more flexilbe (See Elsley and Devereux for
bag/finger skirt development timeline). So the evolution was one of adding a bag to the finger rather than fingers to a bag.
4. Given the limited resources available, the first photo I can find of a practical bag-like skirt is a photo of the first SRN5 in the
Flight International archives on 27 August 1964 (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%203195.html) and a cutaway
drawing of the CC-4 inthe same issue showing a bag/finger skirt. There are some photos in 1967 in the same archive of homebuilt craft using bag skirts, and others using loop/segment skirts.
There is nothing to suggest that there was some major uptake of bag skirt technology after McCreary's publications in 1960.
5. Latimer-Needham, Blyss and Cockerell have patents on skirts prior to 1960. Since there was no sudden switch to bag skirts in British development in the early sixties, to imply that latimer-needham carried on the work done by McCreary is unjustifiable.
I suggest as I did in June 20098 that this is all original research, added by a relation of McCreary to claim an unjustified place in history. McCreary filed a patent - it was essentially for a multicell jupe skirt machine. There are no records of a working machine. His work and patent seems to have had next to no influence on subsequent hovercraft development. If his work merits some mention then it would be better in corporated into the history section.
If McCreary had indeed patented the skirt first then Latimer-Needham's et al's patents would not have been awarded by the UK Patent Office. They wouldn't/won't assign a patent to someone for something that has already been patented elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have any real position on the issue, it does seem somewhat inconsistent that the current introductory paragraph of this article specifically states that hovercraft are not considered aircraft, yet the article still features an aircraft series box. Can someone with more knowledge on the topic please resolve this inconsistency? DoC352 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the KM Ekranoplan (aka Caspian Sea Monster) and the Lun class Ekranoplan are different designs. Two obvious differences are the 'V' shaped 'T-tail' of the KM (Lun's is flat) and the three dual missile launchers on the Lun (absent on KM).
As I am only a novice Wikipedian, I have changed the name in the link (Post-War Progress section) to match the linked page (Lun class). A more experienced editor might like to change the link AND the text to point to the KM page, as the KM is arguably more famous, being the first large Soviet WIG sighted by the west.
That said, the KM page does not currently have a picture and the interesting anecdote about missile launchers would no longer be relevant.
There was a chage to the intro from high pressure to "low pressure, high volume" in May 2013. This seems pretty impossible to me. This was by 64.184.102.150 . I'm going to change it back.76.218.104.120 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed by someone, perhaps you, to "Although above ambient pressure, this is low-pressure, high volume air", which makes more sense. Great.76.218.104.120 (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I'm sorry, though I'm not the person who changed it to that, and I'm not an expert on aircraft. But 'lift' is not as misleading as 'low pressure', when used without the qualification "higher than ambient pressure."... By the way, in the popularization ""Profiles of the Future"", Arthur C. Clarke, who was very enthusiastic about hovercraft, stated that what made hovercraft hover was the same force that made helicopters fly, except much more effective in the case of hovercraft since they were closer to the ground. This was a popularization, so it may have been incorrect technical language. But Clarke was a science writer, so making things clear and not making misleading statements was probably something he was good at. If you're sure lift is wrong, I think it would be helpful if you removed it.76.218.104.120 (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because you hadn't written the article on him until this morning.
He was one of many inventors who worked on air cushion vehicles in this period. He probably deserves his place in the list, but he was far from unique. Also he didn't build any hovercraft, a trademark at that time, as he didn't have the Cockerell invention of the annular flow momentum curtain or a flexible skirt. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. In this talkpage there is one mention about one of his designs which is stored at the Smithsonian museum. 2. While it is true that many others worked on air-cushion vehicle, he was the first one to build a pratical one. 3. Moreover, he improved his design in the 60s with the invention of the "Gimbal Fan" system which made it much more easier to control the direction and and speed of the craft. Prior to the Gambal Fan, it was almost impossible to control air-cushion vehicles and therefore they were impractical. 4. It even led to the development of amphibious vehicles. 5. He is widely considered the father of the modern hovercraft (think Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot vs Benz Patent-Motorwagen).
AIUI, his gimbal fan is near enough unworkable and certainly had no long term influence on hovercraft design. Hovercraft and most ACVs (not some of the water borne) don't have any dynamic lift component that increases with forward speed, which is the relationship that the gimbal fan relies upon.
He was the first man to pilot an AVC; that was in 1958, 8 months earlier than Cockerell. He even filed for patents around the same time as him. He was the first one to develop an AVC with a peripheral jet.--Virtualerian (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WHF - according to the list on their website - gave him their Excellence Award in 2002 for "For: A remarkable life of perseverance and ingenuity culminating in major contributions to hovercraft and air cushion vehicle technology" [14]An image from the news section of the WHC 2000 website has it as "Inventor of the Air Cushion Vehicle "
But I note that the WHF gave Cockerill the first Excellence Award in 2000 "For: A remarkable life of perseverance, ingenuity and brilliance. Inventor of the Hovercraft". So there seems to be a difference betwixt one and another. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hovercraft" was a specific trade name for Cockrell's technology. It's usage was licensed. This is not inconsistent, but recognition for two separate, specific facts. Kamnet (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hovercraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Can somebody provide more detail or a link to another article that explains how a hovercraft hovers or how an air cushion works? For example, I suspect that if one pumps high-pressure air into an inverted, empty tin can that the can will not hover. Rather, it will tilt to one side to allow the air to escape, with part of its rim resting on the ground. Why doesn't a hovercraft do that? Does hovering depend on a large width-to-height ratio? Would a garbage can lid hover? Why? When a hovering mass starts to tilt, what feedback mechanism levels it again? IOLJeff (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Hovercraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Hovercraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It looks remarkably similar to the SR.N6. Possibly it was built under license from Saunders Roe.
Note that the article has an image of what looks like a later generation hovercraft on the way to Ōita Airport.
By the way, I once took a hovercraft from Hong Hong into China circa 1995. Interesting thrill but my ears were ringing for hours afterwards. Stepho talk13:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the link to Google translate. I never thought about using that. But it really helped. I know now more about the vehicle which I rode to return from Takamatsu.
The article says that this vehicle was built by Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding and that the service began on November 8, 1972 with a 52-seat MV-PP 5 type 1 vehicle, leased by JNR, but that this was replaced on April 23, 1980 by a 66 seat version, built on command from JNR, was named Tobiuo (Japanese for Flying Fish). It was retired on April 9, 1988, the day before the railway line over the Great Seto Bridge was opened for service. They tried in vain to find a buyer for the vehicle. It was dismantled in 1991 in the Mitsui yard in Tamano, Okayama. --L.Willms (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 4 external links on Hovercraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
from the article:
"Over time, this design evolved into individual extensions over the bottom of the slots in the skirt, known as "fingers"
Is there a source for this? 72.73.30.202 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
1970's personal Hovercraft
1970's personal Hovercraft
![[2]](http://www.dover-kent.co.uk/transport/images/pic_hovercraft_srn1.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.ssplprints.com/lowres/43/main/19/97882.jpg){kind=link}
