"Only in America", one might say. Bloody brilliant and interesting idea, though. 
http://www.hydrolance.net/HL-Boeing727-Ferry%20conversion.htm
http://www.hydrolance.net/HL-Boeing727-Ferry%20conversion.htm
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Flightless Float Plane
- Thread starter wiltzei
- Start date
cheezyflier
Charter Member
definitely interesting, if it's viable.
i think this, while not quite the same thing, is a very interesting alternative to what we have now
[YOUTUBE]TYFEFekPzDM[/YOUTUBE]
i think this, while not quite the same thing, is a very interesting alternative to what we have now
[YOUTUBE]TYFEFekPzDM[/YOUTUBE]
What a load o' crap.
This picture sums up the proposal nicely;
View attachment 5524
Fat Albert skimming accross the ocean while F35's fly in formation overhead.
Sure thing.
I can't wait to see how they modify a jet engine to run on varying degrees of air/water mixtures.
And as for travelling 120 knots;
This picture sums up the proposal nicely;
View attachment 5524
Fat Albert skimming accross the ocean while F35's fly in formation overhead.
Sure thing.
I can't wait to see how they modify a jet engine to run on varying degrees of air/water mixtures.
And as for travelling 120 knots;
T
tigisfat
Guest
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
The most dangerous phase for a high speed boat is when it becomes airborne.
The most dangerous phase for an aircraft is when it is leaving the ground or touching the ground.
Notice the earrily similar situation for both vessels!
What he is designing is a former aircraft who's role now is to fly permanently in that dangerous transition between boating and flying.
It could work very well if the sea is calm.
It could become extremely deadly if the sea turns rough.
The issue about the jet engines is spot on. Engines can be designed for marine use such as what is done on hovercrafts. And that point brings me full circle. He's really trying to reinvent the light bulb here. A hovercraft has perfected the art of skimming the water's surface on a cushion of air. It works very well and adds vital stability and bouyancy in rough seas.
In terms of him wanting to achieve 120 knots speed, if I recall correctly, that's not much faster than a current general LCAC or the hovercraft already used in Britain for ferrying cars and passengers across the channel.
Ken
The most dangerous phase for an aircraft is when it is leaving the ground or touching the ground.
Notice the earrily similar situation for both vessels!
What he is designing is a former aircraft who's role now is to fly permanently in that dangerous transition between boating and flying.
It could work very well if the sea is calm.
It could become extremely deadly if the sea turns rough.
The issue about the jet engines is spot on. Engines can be designed for marine use such as what is done on hovercrafts. And that point brings me full circle. He's really trying to reinvent the light bulb here. A hovercraft has perfected the art of skimming the water's surface on a cushion of air. It works very well and adds vital stability and bouyancy in rough seas.
In terms of him wanting to achieve 120 knots speed, if I recall correctly, that's not much faster than a current general LCAC or the hovercraft already used in Britain for ferrying cars and passengers across the channel.
Ken
Cheezy,
That is one hot aero hover! (or what ever you would call it).
I wonder how high these things can hop?
On the first plane, first post on this thread, I think its a bit 'odd'. I cant see putting a jet airliner on top of a ocean liner hull. The amount of fuel you would burn to just do a safe speed would be moderate.
Bill
the idea of jet airliners on water is not unlike the idea of the Caspian Sea Monster project. Ekranoplanes are a facinating concept.
View attachment 5563
View attachment 5563
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
True, but the Ekranoplane was purposely built and therefore designed more as a seaplane than as a jet airliner. Ultimately, despite being purpose built, it was mothballed.
Ken
centuryseries
SOH-CM-2023
It wasn't mothballed because it didn't work, it would more than likely have been mothballed due to it completing the testing of the concept that then became the Orlyonok and Lun assault vehicles, plus the Spasatel rescue vehicle all built around the same concept of under the radar fast assault.
The subsequent combat vehicles were retired at the end of the Cold War, the Spasatel apparently is still under slow construction.
The advatages of WIG craft other than surprise in a combat situation are reduced fuel burn during cruise in a similar way airliners have winglets by there proximity with the ground, however fuel burn for takeoff must be pretty high!!
120 knots would be easy using hydroplanes that lift the craft out of the water cutting drag, however the faster you go the quicker the reactions of the crew would need to be. You almost need some kind of fly by wire system to keep the ship being destroyed.
The subsequent combat vehicles were retired at the end of the Cold War, the Spasatel apparently is still under slow construction.
The advatages of WIG craft other than surprise in a combat situation are reduced fuel burn during cruise in a similar way airliners have winglets by there proximity with the ground, however fuel burn for takeoff must be pretty high!!
120 knots would be easy using hydroplanes that lift the craft out of the water cutting drag, however the faster you go the quicker the reactions of the crew would need to be. You almost need some kind of fly by wire system to keep the ship being destroyed.
cheezyflier
Charter Member
the power required to maintain it's "near flight" is far less than what is required to get it there. they claim operating cost of 14 cents/nautical mile per passenger. they also said that once airborne, the craft can maintain 2 or 3 meters above wave height. it seems very doable to me.
Yep..
There are perhaps 20 or 30 different types of these ground effect planes in Switzerland and I think Germany. They were pretty big over there a few years ago. They can circumnavigate those big mountain lakes really fast.
srgalahad
Charter Member 2022
so what's new??
:The US Navy is debating whether or not to cancel developmental and test funding for the Floatplane, an amphibious version of the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules transport.Continued defence budget constraints have jeopardised the project's future. The Office of Naval Research, which controls the funding for this and other navy developmental projects, is considering terminating the project's FY98 budget allocation.The Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) is protesting against this possibility, contending that the Floatplane would be a "low-cost"kit modification to existing E, H and J model C-130s.The retrofittable system would allow the C-130 to take off in water as shallow as 1.5m, permitting operations from 70 per cent of the earth's surface, according to Larry Donaldson, Lockheed Martin's director of advanced technology applications.
Jane's Defence Weekly, Aug 27, 1997 http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes...HIBIOUS-C-130-MAY-NEVER-LEAVE-TEST-PHASE.html
and turbine/jets operating on water.. it'll never work...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOrj2cSDO-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pl1aMVnZyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QowTqmxYZ1Q
:The US Navy is debating whether or not to cancel developmental and test funding for the Floatplane, an amphibious version of the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules transport.Continued defence budget constraints have jeopardised the project's future. The Office of Naval Research, which controls the funding for this and other navy developmental projects, is considering terminating the project's FY98 budget allocation.The Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) is protesting against this possibility, contending that the Floatplane would be a "low-cost"kit modification to existing E, H and J model C-130s.The retrofittable system would allow the C-130 to take off in water as shallow as 1.5m, permitting operations from 70 per cent of the earth's surface, according to Larry Donaldson, Lockheed Martin's director of advanced technology applications.
Jane's Defence Weekly, Aug 27, 1997 http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes...HIBIOUS-C-130-MAY-NEVER-LEAVE-TEST-PHASE.html
and turbine/jets operating on water.. it'll never work...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOrj2cSDO-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pl1aMVnZyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QowTqmxYZ1Q