It’s a ground effect hydrofoil sea plane inter island electric ferry concept, so it’s near its limit in the video.
Ground effect refers to a flight characteristic noticed at low altitudes where the air below the wing compresses between the wing and ground, creating enormous lift with smaller wings or winglets. This makes them much more efficient, especially at lower speeds or with heavy loads.
The largest I know of is the Ecronoplan- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan)

Here’s a bit more info
https://www.hawaiiseaglider.org/

Many “birds” make use of this flight characteristic to save battery power during long term surveillance flights, especially just offshore.

My understanding was they are highly engineered gravel beds that get progressively softer. You don't want it to give maximum resistance at first or it would be like hitting a wall. Of course, that's just the design....how they get built is another thing entirely.

He made it way farther than I expected. I thought he would go <1/3 of the way...maybe it was a heavy load keeping momentum up.

To be fair, aerial shots used to be done in planes and helicopters. With all the exhaust or downdraft and much MUCH louder noise.

Now a giant wasp spooks them for a couple minutes. The drone used here is one of the small ones. Probably no more than 6-8 inches across. The big 6 and 8 fan monstrosities are being used for heavy loads more and more. More commercial/industrial than video.

Fuck yes strip mining and lifting heavy loads. More hardcore than GGG.

Your video, Super-Strong Tiny Robots Pull Heavy Loads, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Wouldn't it make more sense to be realistic about the possibility of the Taliban firing missiles? Does that happen enough that every takeoff has to perform what sounds like a risky maneuver?

Pulling up that fast with a heavy load seems a high risk approach.

I suppose, that indirectly, the Taliban can claim some credit for this.

I hope it was set for heavy load.

>> ^grinter:

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
>> ^grinter:
Shopping carts with swiveling rear wheels are F@$^king stupid!

They're much easier to control in the store, but harder to control in the parking lot, and vice versa for ones that swivel just at the front. I miss the all 4 swivelling trolleys they have in Australia.

I'm seriously not trying to get into an argument about shopping cart design. And I respect your attachment to Aussie swivelcarts. Still, I have to disagree on the point that they are easier to control in the store. When you have a cart with four swivel casters filled with a heavy load, and you get it up to speed, those wheels provide no assistance when you try to redirect the cart's momentum around a corner. It's a danger to shins and container goods.
It's like you are hurtling out of control in the ship from the game Asteroids rather than swooping around in an X-Wing.


You just need practice. After a while, you'll be jumping on the back wheels and drifting sideways down the aisles like a pro

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^grinter:
Shopping carts with swiveling rear wheels are F@$^king stupid!

They're much easier to control in the store, but harder to control in the parking lot, and vice versa for ones that swivel just at the front. I miss the all 4 swivelling trolleys they have in Australia.


I'm seriously not trying to get into an argument about shopping cart design. And I respect your attachment to Aussie swivelcarts. Still, I have to disagree on the point that they are easier to control in the store. When you have a cart with four swivel casters filled with a heavy load, and you get it up to speed, those wheels provide no assistance when you try to redirect the cart's momentum around a corner. It's a danger to shins and container goods.
It's like you are hurtling out of control in the ship from the game Asteroids rather than swooping around in an X-Wing.

I think it's pronounced unobtainium.>> ^probie:

That's the first time I've ever seen a rig used as a "booster" or helper. What the hell are they hauling? UFO parts made of ununoctium?

>> ^Chaucer:

>> ^notarobot:
What the hell is it?

The new breakfast table for your mom.
No, it's actually a breakfast for YOUR mom.

>> ^notarobot:

What the hell is it?


The new breakfast table for your mom.

>> ^smooman:

i may be going out on a limb here but I'm fairly certain their primary consumer base are contractors overseas, in which case, an ak 47 you'll see 9 times out of 10. Technically you're right about the difference in muzzle velocity but it doesn't really matter when you're marketing your product to people who are being shot at by ak's 99% of the time. and from my experience with "bulletproof" materials, if it can stop an ak, it will still be effective against any other 7.62 weapon system
i would like to see how it holds up against a dshk tho. those are common enough .50 cal weapons particularly in afghanistan and parts of africa and they're scary as hell
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
AK 47 is a relatively weak rifle to test it with. Compared to a 7.62 NATO which is far more common in the United States it has a maximum 1260 ft-lbf of energy at the muzzle to the NATO 7.62's 2500-3000. And 7.62 NATO is not a heavy load either. A .50 cal BMG (as someone suggested) has 11,000 - 13,000, ten times the 7.62 Russian's energy.



Yep, there's something to be said for probability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM7HDRhViHQ

i may be going out on a limb here but I'm fairly certain their primary consumer base are contractors overseas, in which case, an ak 47 you'll see 9 times out of 10. Technically you're right about the difference in muzzle velocity but it doesn't really matter when you're marketing your product to people who are being shot at by ak's 99% of the time. and from my experience with "bulletproof" materials, if it can stop an ak, it will still be effective against any other 7.62 weapon system

i would like to see how it holds up against a dshk tho. those are common enough .50 cal weapons particularly in afghanistan and parts of africa and they're scary as hell

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

AK 47 is a relatively weak rifle to test it with. Compared to a 7.62 NATO which is far more common in the United States it has a maximum 1260 ft-lbf of energy at the muzzle to the NATO 7.62's 2500-3000. And 7.62 NATO is not a heavy load either. A .50 cal BMG (as someone suggested) has 11,000 - 13,000, ten times the 7.62 Russian's energy.