Seaplane Resurgence? [Archive]

Rob Arndt[_2_]

September 30th 07, 01:51 AM

On Sep 29, 5:40?pm, "Mark Test" > wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 5:02?pm, wrote:
> > > In addition to the C-130 Seaplane project:
>
> > >http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
>
> > > It looks like other seaplane ideas are being studied as well:
>
> > >http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
>
> > >http://cisd.dt.navy.mil/div/cisd/files/1092848197_seaplanes%20wo%20an...
>
> > > Japan and the (Former) USSR never really gave up on seaplanes, but
> > > will they now make a comeback in the US?
>
> > No- we have plenty of a/c carriers which Japan and the FSU/Russia
> > lack...
>
> Seaplanes perform strike missions? (That's what CVN's do)
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, AFAIK, that IS what the plan has been for years with new seaplane
projects apart from pure transports- arm them with Harpoons and
torpedos and other ordnance.

Also, military seaplanes can perform recon, sea rescue (on a carrier
performed by a helo), ASW, etc... all of which carrier-based aviation
does better.

The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes as well and
carried a range of missiles.

Rob

Eeyore[_2_]

September 30th 07, 02:04 AM

Rob Arndt wrote:

> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes

Not at all similar.

The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.

Graham

Ray O'Hara[_2_]

September 30th 07, 02:22 AM

"Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 29, 5:40?pm, "Mark Test" > wrote:
> > "Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
> >
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 29, 5:02?pm, wrote:
> > > > In addition to the C-130 Seaplane project:
> >
> > >
>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
> >
> > > > It looks like other seaplane ideas are being studied as well:
> >
> > >
>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
> >
> > >
>http://cisd.dt.navy.mil/div/cisd/files/1092848197_seaplanes%20wo%20an...
> >
> > > > Japan and the (Former) USSR never really gave up on seaplanes, but
> > > > will they now make a comeback in the US?
> >
> > > No- we have plenty of a/c carriers which Japan and the FSU/Russia
> > > lack...
> >
> > Seaplanes perform strike missions? (That's what CVN's do)
> >
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide
quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, AFAIK, that IS what the plan has been for years with new seaplane
> projects apart from pure transports- arm them with Harpoons and
> torpedos and other ordnance.
>
> Also, military seaplanes can perform recon, sea rescue (on a carrier
> performed by a helo), ASW, etc... all of which carrier-based aviation
> does better.
>
> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes as well and
> carried a range of missiles.

they must be quite the adventure in a heavy sea.

Rob Arndt[_2_]

September 30th 07, 02:42 AM

On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
>
> Not at all similar.
>
> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>
> Graham

A technicality at best.

Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
type of seaplane.

You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.

Rob

Dan[_2_]

September 30th 07, 02:52 AM

Rob Arndt wrote:
> On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
> wrote:
>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
>> Not at all similar.
>>
>> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>>
>> Graham
>
> A technicality at best.
>
> Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
> type of seaplane.
>
> You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
>
> Rob
>
Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike Kanze

September 30th 07, 03:01 AM

>but will they now make a comeback in the US?

Short answer: No, IMHO.

Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.

Just not a winner for the U.S.

--
Mike Kanze

"The greatest threat to our democracy is not from evil or incompetent leaders, but from an electorate with the attention span of a gerbil on crack."

- James Tulip, San Francisco Chronicle (7/25/2007)

> wrote in message oups.com...
In addition to the C-130 Seaplane project:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a64bb9167-48b1-4857-9ddd-a01eb5e659b1

It looks like other seaplane ideas are being studied as well:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5f407461-0ef4-4cf5-b4c7-b3cdb2aeb8fd

http://cisd.dt.navy.mil/div/cisd/files/1092848197_seaplanes%20wo%20animations%20(sname-09dec2003).pdf

Japan and the (Former) USSR never really gave up on seaplanes, but
will they now make a comeback in the US?

Rob Arndt[_2_]

September 30th 07, 03:31 AM

On Sep 29, 6:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
> > wrote:
> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
> >> Not at all similar.
>
> >> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>
> >> Graham
>
> > A technicality at best.
>
> > Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
> > type of seaplane.
>
> > You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
>
> > Rob
>
> Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
> to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
> WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So how would you define an Ekronoplan? Seacraft? It is piloted and
flies. I believe ti has a/c controls as well...

Here is a dated article from New Scientist and their description, used
as an example:

Spacecraft may one day take off from the backs of seaplanes travelling
at half the speed of sound. That's the future of space travel if
Russian and Japanese scientists get their way, according to the
journal New Scientist.

Here's their plan. A spaceplane is placed on the back of a 1500-tonne,
rocket-propelled seaplane, or what Russians call an "ekranoplan". The
seaplane skims the water on a high-pressure cushion of air. When the
ekranoplan reaches speeds of more than 600 km/h, the spaceplane's
rockets fire and the two crafts separate. The spaceplane continues to
fly until it reaches its escape velocity of around 966 km/h.

Researchers believe this technology could be at par with the
traditional vertical take-off system such as the space shuttle.

Alexander Nebylov, director of the International Institute for
Advanced Aerospace Technology in St. Petersburg, says the high initial
launch speed gives this system an advantage over a conventional take-
off.

To land, Nebylov says the spaceplane will dock with a moving
ekranoplan when it returns to Earth.

Nebylov points out that the craft can be launched from any point in
the ocean - and that's important in achieving orbit. Scientists prefer
to launch as near as they can to the equator since the Earth's extra
rotational velocity in that area helps a spacecraft get into orbit.

Nebylov and Nobuyuki Tomita of the Musashi Institute of Technology in
Tokyo plan to conduct initial sea trials next year with a scaled-down
ekranoplan weighing 400-tonnes.

Rob

Dan[_2_]

September 30th 07, 03:36 AM

Rob Arndt wrote:
> On Sep 29, 6:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>>>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
>>>> Not at all similar.
>>>> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>>>> Graham
>>> A technicality at best.
>>> Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
>>> type of seaplane.
>>> You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
>>> Rob
>> Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
>> to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
>> WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So how would you define an Ekronoplan? Seacraft? It is piloted and
> flies. I believe ti has a/c controls as well...
>

How about a separate category of WIG, xenia? Using your "logic" a
hovercraft is a helicopter.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Richard Casady

September 30th 07, 05:35 AM

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:31:04 -0700, Rob Arndt >
wrote:

>The spaceplane continues to
>fly until it reaches its escape velocity of around 966 km/h.
..Flying machines don't have an escape velocity. Planets or
stars have one, but not aircraft. We are talking about escaping
_something_, but what? what does the number relate to? For the earth
escape velocity is 7 miles per second, or a bit more than 40 000
km/h.

Casady

Rob Arndt[_2_]

September 30th 07, 06:16 AM

On Sep 29, 7:36?pm, Dan > wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 6:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >>> On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >>>>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
> >>>> Not at all similar.
> >>>> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
> >>>> Graham
> >>> A technicality at best.
> >>> Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
> >>> type of seaplane.
> >>> You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
> >>> Rob
> >> Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
> >> to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
> >> WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So how would you define an Ekronoplan? Seacraft? It is piloted and
> > flies. I believe ti has a/c controls as well...
>
> How about a separate category of WIG, xenia? Using your "logic" a
> hovercraft is a helicopter.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Most people consider the failed Avrocar (which was a propaganda tool
to deceive the public and Soviets) an "aircraft" even w/o the "flying
saucer" or "disc aircraft" stigma... and yet it was never meant to fly
very far off the ground as it was supposed to be a flying jeep armed
with a bazooka or recoilless gun on the rear deck. It was a GETOL
(Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft. Hint: joint US Army/Avro
project.

But everyone considers it an aircraft and in every aviation book it is
in, it is referenced as an aircraft :)

Rob

John Keeney

September 30th 07, 07:57 AM

On Sep 30, 1:16 am, Rob Arndt > wrote:
> Most people consider the failed Avrocar (which was a propaganda tool
> to deceive the public and Soviets) an "aircraft" even w/o the "flying

Then most people are ignorant.

> saucer" or "disc aircraft" stigma... and yet it was never meant to fly
> very far off the ground as it was supposed to be a flying jeep armed
> with a bazooka or recoilless gun on the rear deck. It was a GETOL

Best I recall it was originally expected to be fully a flying craft.

> (Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft. Hint: joint US Army/Avro
> project.
>
> But everyone considers it an aircraft and in every aviation book it is
> in, it is referenced as an aircraft :)

In aircraft books simply because it was a FAILED aircraft.
That it succeded in being a hovercraft (even if a bad one) is
a seperate issue.

[email protected]

September 30th 07, 08:18 AM

On 30 sept, 05:01, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> >but will they now make a comeback in the US?
>
> Short answer: No, IMHO.
>
> Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
> a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
> b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
> c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
> d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
> e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
> This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.
>
> Just not a winner for the U.S.

The article was about military use. For some (quite) recent
scenarios....

Falklands 1982: Say, British have twenty Shin Meiwa US-1 style, but
Martin Mars sized flying boats, in their inventory, capable of aerial
refuelling. Supply and troop transport problems are entirely
different.

Africa - almost what ever conflict. At many times larger availability
of lakes and rivers than runways.

Seaplanes are really out of fashion in the military circles because
they are out of fashion. A major reason may be that USAF never
operated seaplanes in large quantities, and probably has not been that
interested in airlift mission anyway.

Mvh,
Jon K

John Keeney

September 30th 07, 08:19 AM

On Sep 29, 10:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>
> Short answer: No, IMHO.
>
> Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
> a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.

There's not been a seaplane built that couldn't land and depart
comfortably from the Ohio River at Louisville Ky. A large number of
TVA lakes (Cumberland, Dale Hollow...) and other lakes about the
country (Mead, Great Salt Lake...) like wise have sufficent surface
area. A big problem in these locations would be existing boat traffic.

> b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
> c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
> d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
> e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
> This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.
>
> Just not a winner for the U.S.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, I just think your grasp of the
water situation in the heartland is off.

If the seaplane -as a large cargo transport- had a future it would
likely be competing as a smaller-faster cargo ship and the coastal
ports would be a natural location for them. Being able to hop in to
Detroit & Chicago would be a real plus. Even the occasional stop in
some where like Louisville could well happen (I'm thinking of some
metal presses made in Germany, shipped to New Orleans, brought by
river barge to Louisville then trucked with dozens of police escorts
up the Interstate to the plant.)

Eeyore[_2_]

September 30th 07, 02:51 PM

Rob Arndt wrote:

> Here is a dated article from New Scientist and their description, used
> as an example:
>
> Spacecraft may one day take off from the backs of seaplanes travelling
> at half the speed of sound. That's the future of space travel if
> Russian and Japanese scientists get their way, according to the
> journal New Scientist.

Just goes to show how little real science makes it's way into New Scientist
these days.

How many 'free energy' articles did they have in that issue ?

Graham

Jack Linthicum

September 30th 07, 03:03 PM

On Sep 29, 9:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
> > wrote:
> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
> >> Not at all similar.
>
> >> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>
> >> Graham
>
> > A technicality at best.
>
> > Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
> > type of seaplane.
>
> > You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
>
> > Rob
>
> Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
> to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
> WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Here's a display of what it says is the latest on the Ekranoplans.
Since I was the guy who named them I consider the idea to be mine. I
would guess somewhere in the Russian realm or working a deli in
Brooklyn is someone who could explain why the Sovs chose the Caspian
for basing this bugger. No way out, no use except thrill rides,
pictures and exciting Western intelligence people.

John Dallman

September 30th 07, 03:21 PM

In article om>,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:

> Here's a display of what it says is the latest on the Ekranoplans.
> Since I was the guy who named them I consider the idea to be mine. I
> would guess somewhere in the Russian realm or working a deli in
> Brooklyn is someone who could explain why the Sovs chose the Caspian
> for basing this bugger. No way out, no use except thrill rides,
> pictures and exciting Western intelligence people.

Simple: someone had the idea, and said, reasonably enough, "Let's do the
development somewhere the sea - and land - are nice and flat."

Ekranoplans can fly over land if it's sufficiently flat and bereft of
buildings. The central Asian steppes are one of very few places that are
sufficiently large, flat and undeveloped that it makes any kind of
sense. The Soviet Union might even have had a practical use for such
vehicles at various points in its history. They're just no damn use
anywhere the sea gets seriously rough.

For an entertaining alternate-history SF story with Ekranoplans as a
significant plot element, see Charlie Stross' _Missile Gap_.

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

Brian Sharrock

September 30th 07, 04:00 PM

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 29, 9:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>> > On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
>> > wrote:
>> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
>> >>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
>> >> Not at all similar.
>>
>> >> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>>
>> >> Graham
>>
>> > A technicality at best.
>>
>> > Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
>> > type of seaplane.
>>
>> > You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
>>
>> > Rob
>>
>> Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
>> to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
>> WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Here's a display of what it says is the latest on the Ekranoplans.
> Since I was the guy who named them I consider the idea to be mine. I
> would guess somewhere in the Russian realm or working a deli in
> Brooklyn is someone who could explain why the Sovs chose the Caspian
> for basing this bugger. No way out, no use except thrill rides,
> pictures and exciting Western intelligence people.
>

Probably for a similar reason that in the UK a flooded quarry in Somerset
was the site for testing Sonar kit. No way out ... or in ! Isn't that the
raison d'etre for Area 51? :)

--

Brian

Jack Linthicum

September 30th 07, 04:09 PM

On Sep 30, 11:00 am, "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 9:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >> > On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >> >>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
> >> >> Not at all similar.
>
> >> >> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>
> >> >> Graham
>
> >> > A technicality at best.
>
> >> > Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
> >> > type of seaplane.
>
> >> > You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
>
> >> > Rob
>
> >> Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
> >> to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
> >> WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > Here's a display of what it says is the latest on the Ekranoplans.
> > Since I was the guy who named them I consider the idea to be mine. I
> > would guess somewhere in the Russian realm or working a deli in
> > Brooklyn is someone who could explain why the Sovs chose the Caspian
> > for basing this bugger. No way out, no use except thrill rides,
> > pictures and exciting Western intelligence people.
>
> Probably for a similar reason that in the UK a flooded quarry in Somerset
> was the site for testing Sonar kit. No way out ... or in ! Isn't that the
> raison d'etre for Area 51? :)
>
> --
>
> Brian

No more Area 51, seems to have picked up and moved elsewhere. Somewhat
logical as the new research is in pilotless aircraft. I have heard
that the Dugway Proving grounds in Utah got some of the action and the
former launch sites for the ABM tests in Utah-Colorado to White Sands
some more.

I recently visited the Evergreen Air Museum in McMinnville, Or. The
big feature is the Hughes Hercules, which I had seen in Long Beach,
but my big moment was the D-21. Drone "boy companion" to the
Blackbird, I worked with the guy who did the contract finalization for
it and the SR-71. The thing was so secret in 1967 or so that we
couldn't label folders with the Codeword for the project and it was
one of the few things that was not supposed to sit on a desk top when
not being read.

Ken S. Tucker

September 30th 07, 04:16 PM

On Sep 29, 7:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> >but will they now make a comeback in the US?
>
> Short answer: No, IMHO.
>
> Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
> a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
> b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
> c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
> d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
> e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
> This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.
>
> Just not a winner for the U.S.
> Mike Kanze

One of my fav's is the Martin Sea Master,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-6_Seamaster

Martin tried hard, even to go commercial,
but practical issues intervened.

Better off with a "submersible aircraft carrier".
Ken

Brian Sharrock

September 30th 07, 04:30 PM

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 30, 11:00 am, "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 29, 9:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
>> >> >>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
>> >> >> Not at all similar.
>>
>> >> >> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>>
>> >> >> Graham
>>
>> >> > A technicality at best.
>>
>> >> > Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a
>> >> > DIFFERENT
>> >> > type of seaplane.
>>
>> >> > You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
>>
>> >> > Rob
>>
>> >> Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't
>> >> have
>> >> to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
>> >> WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.
>>
>> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> > Here's a display of what it says is the latest on the Ekranoplans.
>> > Since I was the guy who named them I consider the idea to be mine. I
>> > would guess somewhere in the Russian realm or working a deli in
>> > Brooklyn is someone who could explain why the Sovs chose the Caspian
>> > for basing this bugger. No way out, no use except thrill rides,
>> > pictures and exciting Western intelligence people.
>>
>> Probably for a similar reason that in the UK a flooded quarry in Somerset
>> was the site for testing Sonar kit. No way out ... or in ! Isn't that
>> the
>> raison d'etre for Area 51? :)
>>
>> --
>>
>> Brian
>
> No more Area 51, seems to have picked up and moved elsewhere. Somewhat
> logical as the new research is in pilotless aircraft. I have heard
> that the Dugway Proving grounds in Utah got some of the action and the
> former launch sites for the ABM tests in Utah-Colorado to White Sands
> some more.
>
> I recently visited the Evergreen Air Museum in McMinnville, Or. The
> big feature is the Hughes Hercules, which I had seen in Long Beach,
> but my big moment was the D-21. Drone "boy companion" to the
> Blackbird, I worked with the guy who did the contract finalization for
> it and the SR-71. The thing was so secret in 1967 or so that we
> couldn't label folders with the Codeword for the project and it was
> one of the few things that was not supposed to sit on a desk top when
> not being read.
>

Yeah; nostalgia ain't what it used to be. ...
I hefted my electronic spear on the Northern Ramparts - which was so
'Secret' we weren't allowed to mention it and any photographs of the place
had to be scrutinised by the Sy Officer so that we hadn't inadvertently
revealed anything ..... decades later, I'm watching a Rugby game on TV and
blow me down the journo is speaking of the RAF station team that's
participating AND shows off inside the Ops' Room!

During a later posting the Eng Off was being interviewed by BFBS (British
Forces' Broadcasting Service) and everybody thought it was a 'good take',
he'd been 'careful' and not revealed anything. When the interview was
broadcast ,days later, amongst the Q&A could be heard a very faint
background bleap ........ bleap ...... bleap.
Sy branch were down on us like a ton(ne) of bricks; if one examined the
audio on a 'scope; the power, prf , beamwidth and rotation rate might be
deduced. ..... . {Wonder what happened to him .... ?}

--

Brian

Rob Arndt[_2_]

September 30th 07, 07:42 PM

On Sep 30, 8:09?am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Sep 30, 11:00 am, "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > > On Sep 29, 9:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
> > >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > >> > On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > >> >>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
> > >> >> Not at all similar.
>
> > >> >> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>
> > >> >> Graham
>
> > >> > A technicality at best.
>
> > >> > Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
> > >> > type of seaplane.
>
> > >> > You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
>
> > >> > Rob
>
> > >> Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
> > >> to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
> > >> WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.
>
> > >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > > Here's a display of what it says is the latest on the Ekranoplans.
> > > Since I was the guy who named them I consider the idea to be mine. I
> > > would guess somewhere in the Russian realm or working a deli in
> > > Brooklyn is someone who could explain why the Sovs chose the Caspian
> > > for basing this bugger. No way out, no use except thrill rides,
> > > pictures and exciting Western intelligence people.
>
> > Probably for a similar reason that in the UK a flooded quarry in Somerset
> > was the site for testing Sonar kit. No way out ... or in ! Isn't that the
> > raison d'etre for Area 51? :)
>
> > --
>
> > Brian
>
> No more Area 51, seems to have picked up and moved elsewhere. Somewhat
> logical as the new research is in pilotless aircraft. I have heard
> that the Dugway Proving grounds in Utah got some of the action and the
> former launch sites for the ABM tests in Utah-Colorado to White Sands
> some more.
>
> I recently visited the Evergreen Air Museum in McMinnville, Or. The
> big feature is the Hughes Hercules, which I had seen in Long Beach,
> but my big moment was the D-21. Drone "boy companion" to the
> Blackbird, I worked with the guy who did the contract finalization for
> it and the SR-71. The thing was so secret in 1967 or so that we
> couldn't label folders with the Codeword for the project and it was
> one of the few things that was not supposed to sit on a desk top when
> not being read.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Area 51, or components thereof, have been placed at all of these other
locations:

DPG: Dugway Proving Grounds
MAAF: Michael Army Airfield
UTTR: Utah Test & Training Range
TAD: Tooele Army Depot
DCD: Desert Chemical Depot
HAFB/HIL: Hill Air Force Base
Area 6413: Green River Complex- White Sands Missile Range
Lakeside Air Force Bombing Range
USCB: U.S. Space Command Base

Rob

Rob Arndt[_2_]

September 30th 07, 07:45 PM

On Sep 30, 11:42?am, Rob Arndt > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:09?am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 11:00 am, "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>
> > > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> > ups.com...
>
> > > > On Sep 29, 9:52 pm, Dan > wrote:
> > > >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > > >> > On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > > >> >>> The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
> > > >> >> Not at all similar.
>
> > > >> >> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>
> > > >> >> Graham
>
> > > >> > A technicality at best.
>
> > > >> > Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
> > > >> > type of seaplane.
>
> > > >> > You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
>
> > > >> > Rob
>
> > > >> Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
> > > >> to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
> > > >> WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.
>
> > > >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > > > Here's a display of what it says is the latest on the Ekranoplans.
> > > > Since I was the guy who named them I consider the idea to be mine. I
> > > > would guess somewhere in the Russian realm or working a deli in
> > > > Brooklyn is someone who could explain why the Sovs chose the Caspian
> > > > for basing this bugger. No way out, no use except thrill rides,
> > > > pictures and exciting Western intelligence people.
>
> > > Probably for a similar reason that in the UK a flooded quarry in Somerset
> > > was the site for testing Sonar kit. No way out ... or in ! Isn't that the
> > > raison d'etre for Area 51? :)
>
> > > --
>
> > > Brian
>
> > No more Area 51, seems to have picked up and moved elsewhere. Somewhat
> > logical as the new research is in pilotless aircraft. I have heard
> > that the Dugway Proving grounds in Utah got some of the action and the
> > former launch sites for the ABM tests in Utah-Colorado to White Sands
> > some more.
>
> > I recently visited the Evergreen Air Museum in McMinnville, Or. The
> > big feature is the Hughes Hercules, which I had seen in Long Beach,
> > but my big moment was the D-21. Drone "boy companion" to the
> > Blackbird, I worked with the guy who did the contract finalization for
> > it and the SR-71. The thing was so secret in 1967 or so that we
> > couldn't label folders with the Codeword for the project and it was
> > one of the few things that was not supposed to sit on a desk top when
> > not being read.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Area 51, or components thereof, have been placed at all of these other
> locations:
>
> DPG: Dugway Proving Grounds
> MAAF: Michael Army Airfield
> UTTR: Utah Test & Training Range
> TAD: Tooele Army Depot
> DCD: Desert Chemical Depot
> HAFB/HIL: Hill Air Force Base
> Area 6413: Green River Complex- White Sands Missile Range
> Lakeside Air Force Bombing Range
> USCB: U.S. Space Command Base
>
> Rob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Note: Area 6413 is supposed to be Area 64-13= 51

Rob

Richard Casady

September 30th 07, 08:35 PM

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:57:27 -0700, John Keeney
> wrote:

> (Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft.

You do know that all nearly all aircraft always take off and land in
ground effect. . Anything involving a runway is in ground effect.
Almost Impossible not to, I mean they take off and land from the
ground. There is the space shuttle if you want to call it an aircraft.
It is a rocket for take off, but is an airplane for landing, in ground
effect. It is possible to do a vertical launch with a sufficiently
powerful airplane, but it will have to land in the ordinary way, in
ground effect, or else by parachute.

Casady

Rob Arndt[_2_]

September 30th 07, 08:50 PM

On Sep 30, 12:35?pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:57:27 -0700, John Keeney
>
> > wrote:
> > (Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft.
>
> You do know that all nearly all aircraft always take off and land in
> ground effect. . Anything involving a runway is in ground effect.
> Almost Impossible not to, I mean they take off and land from the
> ground. There is the space shuttle if you want to call it an aircraft.
> It is a rocket for take off, but is an airplane for landing, in ground
> effect. It is possible to do a vertical launch with a sufficiently
> powerful airplane, but it will have to land in the ordinary way, in
> ground effect, or else by parachute.
>
> Casady

Nice, but this has nothing to do with the Avrocar which was a designed
GETOL. Take the time and look at the drawings for its usage- they
feature a hovering vehicle with a bazooka or recoilless gun on the
rear deck prowling the ground for enemy AFVs.

The Avrocar was never intended to fly in the air like a normal a/c.

Try the Avro Spade or WS-601 or any of the OTHER 14 disc designs they
had under Dr. Richard Miethe and John Frost.

Rob

Jack Linthicum

September 30th 07, 08:55 PM

On Sep 30, 3:35 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:57:27 -0700, John Keeney
>
> > wrote:
> > (Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft.
>
> You do know that all nearly all aircraft always take off and land in
> ground effect. . Anything involving a runway is in ground effect.
> Almost Impossible not to, I mean they take off and land from the
> ground. There is the space shuttle if you want to call it an aircraft.
> It is a rocket for take off, but is an airplane for landing, in ground
> effect. It is possible to do a vertical launch with a sufficiently
> powerful airplane, but it will have to land in the ordinary way, in
> ground effect, or else by parachute.
>
> Casady

You know that Lindbergh's flight from New York to Paris was mostly in
ground effect to increase range?

Bill Kambic

September 30th 07, 11:39 PM

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:01:28 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>>but will they now make a comeback in the US?
>
>Short answer: No, IMHO.
>
>Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
> a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
> b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
> c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
> d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
> e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
>This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.
>
>Just not a winner for the U.S.

I've read claims that WWII itself killed the flying boat.

Before the War vast areas of the Pacific were accessible only by
floatplane. During the War every rock big enough to have one got a
runway. And there were vast numbers of surplus cargo aircraft after
the War to use them. A land runway vastly eases maintenance, lowers
landing and takeoff risks, etc.

In Japan (and, I presume, the old Soviet Union) there were a lot of
places that never got paved runways. Nor, in the post War years, was
there the money to build either them or aircraft to fly from them
(Japan was re-building everything; the Soviets were building a war
machine to threaten the West). So for these states using existing
float plane technology made sense.

And, in both cases, you have either straight up state ownership or
massive state subsidies.

There are lots of places inland that could have float plane operating
areas (admitedly with greater or lesser levels of hazard). Almost
anywhere along the TVA system or Mississippi might do. The Missouri
for at least some distance. I don't know how economical it would be
(compared to building/maintaining a hard surface runway) but there's
not reason why you can't dig a long, narrow pond for floatplane ops.

These aircraft are romantic as Hell and rich folks have fitted out
PBYs and Grummans as "flying yachts" complete with Zodiacs to get them
ashore. But as practical, commercial vehicles they just don't make
it.

Jack Linthicum

September 30th 07, 11:56 PM

On Sep 30, 6:39 pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:01:28 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
>
> > wrote:
> >>but will they now make a comeback in the US?
>
> >Short answer: No, IMHO.
>
> >Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
> > a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
> > b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
> > c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
> > d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
> > e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
> >This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.
>
> >Just not a winner for the U.S.
>
> I've read claims that WWII itself killed the flying boat.
>
> Before the War vast areas of the Pacific were accessible only by
> floatplane. During the War every rock big enough to have one got a
> runway. And there were vast numbers of surplus cargo aircraft after
> the War to use them. A land runway vastly eases maintenance, lowers
> landing and takeoff risks, etc.
>
> In Japan (and, I presume, the old Soviet Union) there were a lot of
> places that never got paved runways. Nor, in the post War years, was
> there the money to build either them or aircraft to fly from them
> (Japan was re-building everything; the Soviets were building a war
> machine to threaten the West). So for these states using existing
> float plane technology made sense.
>
> And, in both cases, you have either straight up state ownership or
> massive state subsidies.
>
> There are lots of places inland that could have float plane operating
> areas (admitedly with greater or lesser levels of hazard). Almost
> anywhere along the TVA system or Mississippi might do. The Missouri
> for at least some distance. I don't know how economical it would be
> (compared to building/maintaining a hard surface runway) but there's
> not reason why you can't dig a long, narrow pond for floatplane ops.
>
> These aircraft are romantic as Hell and rich folks have fitted out
> PBYs and Grummans as "flying yachts" complete with Zodiacs to get them
> ashore. But as practical, commercial vehicles they just don't make
> it.

The Soviets went through a period where the theme "we need dirigibles"
seemed to their answer to the problem of supplying isolated outposts.
Whether reason took hold or the wrong side was backing the gas bags
they faded from the public eye.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Hadhuey/Zeitleiste_LS

Mike Kanze

October 1st 07, 12:06 AM

John Keeney,

>I don't disagree with your conclusion, I just think your grasp of the water situation in the heartland is off.

Having lived several years in Cincinnati (on the Ohio River, upriver ~100 miles from Louisville) I have a better grasp than you might think about this.

>There's not been a seaplane built that couldn't land and depart comfortably from the Ohio River at Louisville Ky.

There is no section of the Ohio River flowing past Louisville that is at all aligned with the prevailing winds (roughly NW - SE) in that part of the U.S. Landing a heavily-laden flying boat in such conditions would not be advisable.

Like our land roadways, our riverine waterways are very congested with all manner of craft. Let's start with large, multi-barge river tows, and along the way mention such frequent or recurring obstacles as bridges, locks and dams, seasonal water level fluctuations, snags, and especially flotsam - not to mention the all-too-frequent weekend drunk on his jetski, darting unpredictably about the channel.

Our major rivers either ice over regularly (upper Midwest) or can have ice floes during winter cold snaps at least as far south as the Mississippi - Ohio junction. (I have personally seen folks walk, foolishly, across the Ohio River on winter ice.) So reliable scheduling of commercial seaplane air cargo during part of the year is not an option from Cairo, Illinois north and east. Thunderstorms, which occur at other times of the year, generate major flotsam debris. River tows are impervious to all but the largest flotsam, and smaller craft can see and avoid. Not so a seaplane that has just alighted.

Net, our large rivers are unsuitable for any economically competitive large seaplane ops.

>A large number of TVA lakes (Cumberland, Dale Hollow...) and other lakes about the country (Mead, Great Salt Lake...) like wise have sufficient surface area. A big problem in these locations would be existing boat traffic.

An even bigger problem is that most of these locations are far enough from urban cargo destinations to make them uncompetitive with other forms of commercial cargo movement.

Competitive cost is the largest factor arguing against large commercial cargo seaplane ops. Landplane air freight is the most expensive means of moving goods, and that cost is based partly on an already-existing, well-developed landplane air cargo system.

Shippers use air freight only when its incremental cost above motor freight, rail freight, etc., is far outweighed by some other value factor, like speed. There would need to be some very, very good reason, one that would trump the existing landplane cargo economics, for the creation and sustainment of seaplane cargo ops in the U.S. heartland. If such reason exists, I am not aware of it.

--
Mike Kanze

In Amy Bloom's new novel AWAY, Lillian Leyb discovers that "the odds are good but the goods are odd" for women seeking men in Alaska.

"John Keeney" > wrote in message ups.com...
On Sep 29, 10:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>
> Short answer: No, IMHO.
>
> Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
> a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.

There's not been a seaplane built that couldn't land and depart
comfortably from the Ohio River at Louisville Ky. A large number of
TVA lakes (Cumberland, Dale Hollow...) and other lakes about the
country (Mead, Great Salt Lake...) like wise have sufficent surface
area. A big problem in these locations would be existing boat traffic.

> b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
> c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
> d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
> e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
> This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.
>
> Just not a winner for the U.S.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, I just think your grasp of the
water situation in the heartland is off.

If the seaplane -as a large cargo transport- had a future it would
likely be competing as a smaller-faster cargo ship and the coastal
ports would be a natural location for them. Being able to hop in to
Detroit & Chicago would be a real plus. Even the occasional stop in
some where like Louisville could well happen (I'm thinking of some
metal presses made in Germany, shipped to New Orleans, brought by
river barge to Louisville then trucked with dozens of police escorts
up the Interstate to the plant.)

Kyle Boatright

October 1st 07, 01:55 AM

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 30, 3:35 pm, (Richard Casady)
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:57:27 -0700, John Keeney
>>
>> > wrote:
>> > (Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft.
>>
>> You do know that all nearly all aircraft always take off and land in
>> ground effect. . Anything involving a runway is in ground effect.
>> Almost Impossible not to, I mean they take off and land from the
>> ground. There is the space shuttle if you want to call it an aircraft.
>> It is a rocket for take off, but is an airplane for landing, in ground
>> effect. It is possible to do a vertical launch with a sufficiently
>> powerful airplane, but it will have to land in the ordinary way, in
>> ground effect, or else by parachute.
>>
>> Casady
>
> You know that Lindbergh's flight from New York to Paris was mostly in
> ground effect to increase range?

Jack,

Do you have a citation for that? I've never heard anything of the sort,
although it would have been an excellent idea IF Lindberg had the
concentration to fly at <<50' for 36 hours in an airplane that was blind in
the forward direction.

KB

Eunometic

October 1st 07, 02:43 AM

On Sep 30, 1:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> >but will they now make a comeback in the US?
>
> Short answer: No, IMHO.

Thanks for your list. It forms a logical point for discusion.

>
> Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
> a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental >heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.

I would raise two counter arguments to this:
a/ The Sea planes could be made 'amphibious' in that case they can
operate on airports, perhaps only those with 11000ft runways, and they
could then use seaplane ports in locations where a 11000ft runway
would be prohibitive due to cost or geography.

b/ Oversize seaplanes could opperate in a niche all by themselves
competing for coastal cargo.

> b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.

True it would be a problem but possibly not insurmountable. Someone
or something such as a robot with appropriate sensors would need to
patrol the area for debris and a dredge or ship scoup such things up.

The seaplane would need to be designed to be repairable in such an
incident eg an removable modular or tiled energy absorbent
bottom hull.

> c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban >.shoreline.

Quite serious: floating concrete structures?

> d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
> e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.

The development of large scale composite polymer/GFRP/CFRP hulls
adresses much of this.

Bill Shatzer

October 1st 07, 05:36 AM

wrote:

-snip-

> The article was about military use. For some (quite) recent
> scenarios....

> Falklands 1982: Say, British have twenty Shin Meiwa US-1 style, but
> Martin Mars sized flying boats, in their inventory, capable of aerial
> refuelling. Supply and troop transport problems are entirely
> different.

Dunno. One nice thing about a runway is if you can find it, you can
land on it.

Sea conditions are often not that forgiving. Especially below latitude
50 south with the southern hemisphere winter fast approaching.

It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.

Cheers,

Jack Linthicum

October 1st 07, 10:35 AM

On Sep 30, 8:55 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 3:35 pm, (Richard Casady)
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:57:27 -0700, John Keeney
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > (Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft.
>
> >> You do know that all nearly all aircraft always take off and land in
> >> ground effect. . Anything involving a runway is in ground effect.
> >> Almost Impossible not to, I mean they take off and land from the
> >> ground. There is the space shuttle if you want to call it an aircraft.
> >> It is a rocket for take off, but is an airplane for landing, in ground
> >> effect. It is possible to do a vertical launch with a sufficiently
> >> powerful airplane, but it will have to land in the ordinary way, in
> >> ground effect, or else by parachute.
>
> >> Casady
>
> > You know that Lindbergh's flight from New York to Paris was mostly in
> > ground effect to increase range?
>
> Jack,
>
> Do you have a citation for that? I've never heard anything of the sort,
> although it would have been an excellent idea IF Lindberg had the
> concentration to fly at <<50' for 36 hours in an airplane that was blind in
> the forward direction.
>
> KB

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E6D61538F932A15756C0A9649C8B 63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print
Last two paragraphs contain a journalist's method of saying "I was
wrong but don't understand the correction"

Correction: May 25, 2002, Saturday An article in Science Times on
Tuesday about Charles Lindbergh's first trans-Atlantic flight referred
incorrectly to the first flight of the Wright brothers' plane at Kitty
Hawk. Their plane flew over 120 feet of ground, not at a height of 120
feet.

The article also referred incorrectly to the advantages of flying at a
very low altitude, as Lindbergh did in daytime. Experts indeed
acknowledge a ''ground effect,'' which increases the wings' lift and
thus makes flight somewhat more efficient near the surface; that was
not an incorrect premise of Lindbergh's era.

http://www.neoterichovercraft.com/general_info/historyof.htm
American aviator Charles Lindbergh is reported to have flown in ground
effect in order to conserve fuel during his historic transatlantic
flight in 1927. The challenge of flying along the wave tops no doubt
also served to stave off boredom during his long journey!

http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviation.piloting/49/msg50545.htm
I haven't seen the book mentioned but Lindbergh came up constantly in
the discussion of the Caspian Sea Monster and its capabilities.

guy

October 1st 07, 01:21 PM

On 30 Wrz, 03:04, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
>
> Not at all similar.
>
> The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
>
> Graham

ISTR (from a documentary I saw on them) Ekranoplanes ***almost***
always flew in ground effect, they could climb out of it if really
neccessary (lots of power, lots of wasted fuel) but it was possible.

guy

Richard Casady

October 1st 07, 01:55 PM

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:36:46 -0700, Bill Shatzer
> wrote:

>Dunno. One nice thing about a runway is if you can find it, you can
>land on it.

You can try to.

You also can crash on landing with wheels on the plane A light plane
has more trouble from crosswinds as any given one is a higher
percentage of the stall speed. Still, there have been incidents with
heavy aircraft. There is also such a thing as hitting a truck or
another plane on the runway. Deadliest accident in aviation history
was a ground collision on the runway. I once, in a tail wheel equipped
plane, had a ground loop. This is where, in a stiff crosswind, the
wind overpowers the steering, and the plane tips over or runs off the
runway. I hit one of those distance remaining signs, 4x4 foot plywood,
destroyed the sign, no damage to the propeller it went through. If
there had been anyone there to hit there wouldn't have been anything I
could do: I was just along for the ride. Sail boat owners would know
the feeling.
>
>Sea conditions are often not that forgiving. Especially below latitude
>50 south with the southern hemisphere winter fast approaching.

Worst weather in the world, Falklands area is bad, further south is
worse.

>It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.

There is a weight penalty [less range] with a flying boat, and
distances are long in that part of the world.

Casady

Jack Linthicum

October 1st 07, 02:13 PM

On Oct 1, 8:55 am, (Richard Casady) wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:36:46 -0700, Bill Shatzer
>
> > wrote:
> >Dunno. One nice thing about a runway is if you can find it, you can
> >land on it.
>
> You can try to.
>
> You also can crash on landing with wheels on the plane A light plane
> has more trouble from crosswinds as any given one is a higher
> percentage of the stall speed. Still, there have been incidents with
> heavy aircraft. There is also such a thing as hitting a truck or
> another plane on the runway. Deadliest accident in aviation history
> was a ground collision on the runway. I once, in a tail wheel equipped
> plane, had a ground loop. This is where, in a stiff crosswind, the
> wind overpowers the steering, and the plane tips over or runs off the
> runway. I hit one of those distance remaining signs, 4x4 foot plywood,
> destroyed the sign, no damage to the propeller it went through. If
> there had been anyone there to hit there wouldn't have been anything I
> could do: I was just along for the ride. Sail boat owners would know
> the feeling.
>
>
>
> >Sea conditions are often not that forgiving. Especially below latitude
> >50 south with the southern hemisphere winter fast approaching.
>
> Worst weather in the world, Falklands area is bad, further south is
> worse.
>
> >It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.
>
> There is a weight penalty [less range] with a flying boat, and
> distances are long in that part of the world.
>
> Casady

Saint Exupery flew the mail in Patagonia where "landings" consisted of
matching the wind over ground and the ground crew bringing the plane
down to the ground.

[email protected]

October 1st 07, 03:14 PM

On 1 Oct, 07:36, Bill Shatzer > wrote:

> Dunno. One nice thing about a runway is if you can find it, you can
> land on it.

If the runway is long and strong enough, not mined etc... In many
cases the runway is not conveniently situated. Most of the modern
flying boats are actually amphibian.

> Sea conditions are often not that forgiving. Especially below latitude
> 50 south with the southern hemisphere winter fast approaching.
>
> It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.

Well, although sea conditions weren't nice, one has to remember the
possibility of flying into various fjords etc. Note that I'm not
suggesting that actual maritime transportation would not have been
needed, just that even in intra-Falklands conditions flying boats
would have been extremely useful. To use direct historical examples,
Teal Inlet and Bluff Cove. In addition, various critical supplies
could have been brought into theater more easier, and casualty
evacuation to UK would have been a lot easier. According to the link
in OP, Shin Meiwa US-1 is, for example, capable of operating into Sea
State 4.

Mvh,
Jon K

Richard Casady

October 2nd 07, 12:13 AM

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:55:16 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

>orst weather in the world, Falklands area is bad, further south is
>worse.
>>It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.
'
It would cost quite a bit more, I suspect.

>There is a weight penalty [less range] with a flying boat, and
>distances are long in that part of the world.

New Zealand uses C-130's for search and rescue. When It comes to
fishing survivors of sinkings out of the water, a flying boat would
probably have considerably more range than a helocopter, and faster
too. Good as it is, the C-130 cannot land in mid ocean. The best it
can do is drop supplies. The New Zealands do have a good record at SAR
using them. however. I think the market is limited for this and
everything else, and so it won't happen.

Casady

Eugene Griessel

October 2nd 07, 01:32 AM

"TMOliver" > wrote:

>The awful truth....
>
>Them dannable Tscherman N*zis and the Hirohito's aggressive pursuit of the
>East Asian Coprosperity Sphere sealed the doom of the flying boat and sea
>plane by causing we Merkins to pave or at worst lay steel mat over the
>majority of the Western World's (and some Eastern's too) long flat places.
>When there were runways everywhere, planes that floated were relegated to
>niche market status, quaint curiosites in the midst of a dynamic world.
>

Slightly off-topic. When my brother-in-law (then to be) immigrated
out here in 1952 it was a 5 day odyssey aboard a flying boat which
stopped at all sorts of interesting places along the way. They landed
on Lake Victoria in the late afternoon and had to leave very early in
the morning because the heat would rob the engines of the required
power to lift off. They finally ended up on the Vaal dam just south
of Johannesburg. Must have been close to the swansong of the Empire
flying boat service. In-flight movie was sliding back your window and
watching the herds of animals as you flew over them at a couple of
thousand feet.

Way back in 1960 I was privileged to watch a French squadron, 27F
Flotille, using Martin Marlin flyingboats operating out of the lagoon
next to my home. They had flown from Dakar to Langebaan non-stop some
3600 nautical miles which was considered excellent for that time. On
their return they used JATO - the first time it was ever used in South
Africa - to get airborne. Also doing so at first light and using an
enormous run of 5 to 6km run to get airborne. One of the boats
suffered a JATO bottle explosion which ripped a substantial hole in
her side. It was slipped at Langebaan using the gear from the
Sunderland squadron that used to operate there (and which was still in
storage there) and a borrowed tractor to get her up the slipway.

Eugene L Griessel

Old age is when you find yourself using one bend-over
to pick up two things.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Bill Kambic

October 2nd 07, 04:44 AM

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:51:14 -0500, "TMOliver"
> wrote:

>The awful truth....
>
>Them dannable Tscherman N*zis and the Hirohito's aggressive pursuit of the
>East Asian Coprosperity Sphere sealed the doom of the flying boat and sea
>plane by causing we Merkins to pave or at worst lay steel mat over the
>majority of the Western World's (and some Eastern's too) long flat places.
>When there were runways everywhere, planes that floated were relegated to
>niche market status, quaint curiosites in the midst of a dynamic world.

Yup, what he said.

Floatplanes are romantic as all get out, but lack economic
practicality.

Maybe someday somebody will figure out how to make money on them the
way some folks make big cruise ships pay. Until then they are just a
chapter in Naval Aviation (and aviation) history.

John Keeney

October 2nd 07, 06:30 AM

On Sep 30, 7:06 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> John Keeney,
>
> >I don't disagree with your conclusion, I just think your grasp of the water situation in the heartland is off.
>
> Having lived several years in Cincinnati (on the Ohio River, upriver ~100 miles from Louisville) I have a better
> grasp than you might think about this.

If your experince is limited to the Cincinnati area, I can certainly
understand it. The river is but a trickle of what you'll find behind
the McAlpin dam at Louisville.
The two cities are seaperated by a bit over 100 *air* miles but that
is one hell of a drainage.

> >There's not been a seaplane built that couldn't land and depart comfortably from the Ohio River at Louisville Ky.
>
> There is no section of the Ohio River flowing past Louisville that is at all aligned with the prevailing winds (roughly
> NW - SE) in that part of the U.S. Landing a heavily-laden flying boat in such conditions would not be advisable.

The pool behind the dam at Louisville is over a mile wide (within a
few miles, very much so) and can be sighted down from mid river for
over a half dozen miles. A very gentle bend gets you nearly twice that
many more.
Prevailing winds out on the water are within 10-20 degrees of straight
up that first stretch. This may be related to the Indiana bank being
high enough to shield it.

> Like our land roadways, our riverine waterways are very congested with all manner of craft. Let's start with large,
> multi-barge river tows, and along the way mention such frequent or recurring obstacles as bridges, locks and
> dams, seasonal water level fluctuations, snags, and especially flotsam - not to mention the all-too-frequent
> weekend drunk on his jetski, darting unpredictably about the channel.

You will recall I did not dispute your conclusion.
But large tolls rarely are within several miles of each other (the
time it takes to lock through at the dam prevents it). And bridges
over the Ohio cluster at major cities: three car & three railway
bridges at Louisville, the next closest bridge up-stream is about 35
miles away at Madison. Down-stream, call it 30 miles.
Dams, baa, how many dams do you think are between Louisville an
Cincinnati? I believe the correct number is 1.

> Our major rivers either ice over regularly (upper Midwest) or can have ice floes during winter cold snaps at least
> as far south as the Mississippi - Ohio junction. (I have personally seen folks walk, foolishly, across the Ohio
> River on winter ice.)

I can remember one (1) year that there was ice on the river here
sufficent to tempt people to walk upon it. It is even considered
enough of a novelty for flow ice to be coming down stream big enough
to find to hop in the car to go get a look.

> So reliable scheduling of commercial seaplane air cargo during part of the year is not an
> option from Cairo, Illinois north and east. Thunderstorms, which occur at other times of the year, generate major
> flotsam debris.

*A* storm has a trivial effect on the river here. To put flotsam in
the water you dump a lot of rain on the water shed up stream to raise
the river level. The river will then creast a few days later here
carring trash in.

> River tows are impervious to all but the largest flotsam, and smaller craft can see and avoid. Not
> so a seaplane that has just alighted.

I admit it would be a problem. One of the reasons I agreed with your
conclusion.

The very biggest reason sea planes won't make a come back is existing
airports support more efficent land planes. Ignoring some island out
in the ocean with insufficent land area for the airfield, there simply
is no justification for regular scheduled seaplane service.

John Keeney

October 2nd 07, 06:46 AM

On Sep 30, 9:43 pm, Eunometic > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 1:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>
> > Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as
> > attempts to revive LTA.
> > a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities
> > at all in the continental >heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
>
> I would raise two counter arguments to this:
> a/ The Sea planes could be made 'amphibious' in that case they can
> operate on airports, perhaps only those with 11000ft runways, and they
> could then use seaplane ports in locations where a 11000ft runway
> would be prohibitive due to cost or geography.

The seaplane hull has never been as aerodynamic as a land planes: it's
less efficent. Now you want to go ahead and add landing gear too? More
weight. Now even fewer miles per ton of fuel.

> b/ Oversize seaplanes could opperate in a niche all by themselves
> competing for coastal cargo.

Possibly, but don't waste effort making them amphibs.

> > c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive /
> > scarce near-urban >.shoreline.
>
> Quite serious: floating concrete structures?

Good enough for docks. But it's like hydrogen fueled cars: which do
you build first; the millions of hydrogen fueling stations or the
millions of hydrogen powered cars? If socity hadn't gone done a
different econmic track doing both at once might have been worth while
but substitues do exist and it's hard to justify the investment for
another way of doing the same thing.

Jack Linthicum

October 2nd 07, 11:25 AM

On Oct 1, 8:32 pm, (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
> "TMOliver" > wrote:
> >The awful truth....
>
> >Them dannable Tscherman N*zis and the Hirohito's aggressive pursuit of the
> >East Asian Coprosperity Sphere sealed the doom of the flying boat and sea
> >plane by causing we Merkins to pave or at worst lay steel mat over the
> >majority of the Western World's (and some Eastern's too) long flat places.
> >When there were runways everywhere, planes that floated were relegated to
> >niche market status, quaint curiosites in the midst of a dynamic world.
>
> Slightly off-topic. When my brother-in-law (then to be) immigrated
> out here in 1952 it was a 5 day odyssey aboard a flying boat which
> stopped at all sorts of interesting places along the way. They landed
> on Lake Victoria in the late afternoon and had to leave very early in
> the morning because the heat would rob the engines of the required
> power to lift off. They finally ended up on the Vaal dam just south
> of Johannesburg. Must have been close to the swansong of the Empire
> flying boat service. In-flight movie was sliding back your window and
> watching the herds of animals as you flew over them at a couple of
> thousand feet.
>
> Way back in 1960 I was privileged to watch a French squadron, 27F
> Flotille, using Martin Marlin flyingboats operating out of the lagoon
> next to my home. They had flown from Dakar to Langebaan non-stop some
> 3600 nautical miles which was considered excellent for that time. On
> their return they used JATO - the first time it was ever used in South
> Africa - to get airborne. Also doing so at first light and using an
> enormous run of 5 to 6km run to get airborne. One of the boats
> suffered a JATO bottle explosion which ripped a substantial hole in
> her side. It was slipped at Langebaan using the gear from the
> Sunderland squadron that used to operate there (and which was still in
> storage there) and a borrowed tractor to get her up the slipway.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Old age is when you find yourself using one bend-over
> to pick up two things.
>
> - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

My college roommate was from South Africa and his description of his
flight on a Comet in 1954 or so read like a comedy routine. Up in the
air, down to refuel; up in the, air down to refuel, etc.

R.C. Payne

October 2nd 07, 02:04 PM

Bill Kambic wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:51:14 -0500, "TMOliver"
> > wrote:
>
>>The awful truth....
>>
>>Them dannable Tscherman N*zis and the Hirohito's aggressive pursuit of the
>>East Asian Coprosperity Sphere sealed the doom of the flying boat and sea
>>plane by causing we Merkins to pave or at worst lay steel mat over the
>>majority of the Western World's (and some Eastern's too) long flat places.
>>When there were runways everywhere, planes that floated were relegated to
>>niche market status, quaint curiosites in the midst of a dynamic world.
>
> Yup, what he said.
>
> Floatplanes are romantic as all get out, but lack economic
> practicality.
>
> Maybe someday somebody will figure out how to make money on them the
> way some folks make big cruise ships pay. Until then they are just a
> chapter in Naval Aviation (and aviation) history.

I know it's a niche market, but there are at least two companies flying
otter and twin otter float planes between Victoria and Vancouver in BC
(as well as a few other destinations in the area). The geography of
those two cities is such that the seaplanes can provide a downtown -
downtown service with a short journey time, indeed in less time than it
would take to drive to the airport. They seem to cope quite well with
the other traffic in the harbours.

Robin

Jack Linthicum

October 2nd 07, 05:18 PM

On Oct 2, 12:04 pm, "TMOliver" > wrote:
> I note that the poor deluded and apparently deranged woman who died -
> strangled in an attempt to get out of the irons - while cuffed and shackled
> at Sky Harbor, the Phoenix Airport, was the daughter of a retired SA Navy
> CDR. The story has played mightily here in the US, drawing response from
> the two predictable positions, the usual tearful hand-wringers blaming the
> cops or the TSA (a bit off, since the TSA apparently weren't ever involved),
> and the "just desserts" crowd, which in this case seem likely to be correct
> in their view.
>
> Throwing a fit, especially over being denied boarding because the door was
> closed - a routine and to be expected inconvnience these days - is bad
> enough, but throwing one which requires the gendarmes to put you in
> restraints (implying an ongoing failure of rationality) seems evidence of
> deper problems....
>
> Apparently, she was on her way to an alcohol rehab center in Tucson. Sad,
> since were she not so purposeful in her intent to beat booze, she could have
> simply gone in the bar, had a few belts, and simply felt depressed, not
> antagonistic.
>
> TMO

Her inlaws were also very important people. It is like the old
mysteries where the lord is killed in a closed room. You wait for the
autopsy, and assume the police handled it well and if they didn't,
there are no surveillance cameras or eye witnesses. The family lawyer
was in the Keating case. Deep draft.

"Police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said officers placed Gotbaum in a
room without a surveillance camera. After about five to 10 minutes,
officers no longer could hear her voice and went to check. Gotbaum was
found unconscious with her hands "pressed against her neck area," Hill
said.

In a statement released Monday, Hill said Gotbaum had been shackled to
a bench as well as being handcuffed. The shackle's chain ran from an
eyehook and the other was connected to the chain on Gotbaum's
handcuffs."

Eugene Griessel

October 2nd 07, 05:39 PM

Jack Linthicum > wrote:

>On Oct 1, 8:32 pm, (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
>> "TMOliver" > wrote:
>> >The awful truth....
>>
>> >Them dannable Tscherman N*zis and the Hirohito's aggressive pursuit of the
>> >East Asian Coprosperity Sphere sealed the doom of the flying boat and sea
>> >plane by causing we Merkins to pave or at worst lay steel mat over the
>> >majority of the Western World's (and some Eastern's too) long flat places.
>> >When there were runways everywhere, planes that floated were relegated to
>> >niche market status, quaint curiosites in the midst of a dynamic world.
>>
>> Slightly off-topic. When my brother-in-law (then to be) immigrated
>> out here in 1952 it was a 5 day odyssey aboard a flying boat which
>> stopped at all sorts of interesting places along the way. They landed
>> on Lake Victoria in the late afternoon and had to leave very early in
>> the morning because the heat would rob the engines of the required
>> power to lift off. They finally ended up on the Vaal dam just south
>> of Johannesburg. Must have been close to the swansong of the Empire
>> flying boat service. In-flight movie was sliding back your window and
>> watching the herds of animals as you flew over them at a couple of
>> thousand feet.
>>
>> Way back in 1960 I was privileged to watch a French squadron, 27F
>> Flotille, using Martin Marlin flyingboats operating out of the lagoon
>> next to my home. They had flown from Dakar to Langebaan non-stop some
>> 3600 nautical miles which was considered excellent for that time. On
>> their return they used JATO - the first time it was ever used in South
>> Africa - to get airborne. Also doing so at first light and using an
>> enormous run of 5 to 6km run to get airborne. One of the boats
>> suffered a JATO bottle explosion which ripped a substantial hole in
>> her side. It was slipped at Langebaan using the gear from the
>> Sunderland squadron that used to operate there (and which was still in
>> storage there) and a borrowed tractor to get her up the slipway.
>>
>> Eugene L Griessel
>>
>> Old age is when you find yourself using one bend-over
>> to pick up two things.
>>
>> - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
>
>My college roommate was from South Africa and his description of his
>flight on a Comet in 1954 or so read like a comedy routine. Up in the
>air, down to refuel; up in the, air down to refuel, etc.

Yes - the London to Johannesburg service was one of the very first
long distance jetliner services. I've just been reading a short
biography of one Don Parker, SAAF Spitfire pilot in WW2 and Mustang
and Sabre pilot in Korea. He was one of the first SAA pilots to
qualify on the Comet. The service was a joint BOAC-SAA venture. His
brief summation reads: "The Comet lacked power and was unable to carry
enough fuel for the long distances undertaken and it literally
puddle-jumped across seas and and African states. The tenacity and
skill of the senior captains who handled a potentially dangerous
situation with courage and fortitude had to be admired."

Eugene L Griessel

If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Vince

October 2nd 07, 05:55 PM

TMOliver wrote:
> I note that the poor deluded and apparently deranged woman who died -
> strangled in an attempt to get out of the irons - while cuffed and shackled
> at Sky Harbor, the Phoenix Airport, was the daughter of a retired SA Navy
> CDR. The story has played mightily here in the US, drawing response from
> the two predictable positions, the usual tearful hand-wringers blaming the
> cops or the TSA (a bit off, since the TSA apparently weren't ever involved),
> and the "just desserts" crowd, which in this case seem likely to be correct
> in their view.
>
> Throwing a fit, especially over being denied boarding because the door was
> closed - a routine and to be expected inconvnience these days - is bad
> enough, but throwing one which requires the gendarmes to put you in
> restraints (implying an ongoing failure of rationality) seems evidence of
> deper problems....
>
> Apparently, she was on her way to an alcohol rehab center in Tucson. Sad,
> since were she not so purposeful in her intent to beat booze, she could have
> simply gone in the bar, had a few belts, and simply felt depressed, not
> antagonistic.
>
> TMO
>
>

We train police to never leave a handcuffed person unattended
Epileptic seizures and similar events have killed handcuffed people

From an arizona case on leaving a handcuffed person unattended

Second, they argued that theirfactual allegations and the inferences
that could be drawn from them stated a claim for gross negligence. They
included an affidavit from an expert witness on police practices and
procedures, who opined that Officer Congrove's actions constituted
gross negligence and that DPS was grossly negligent in providing a
patrol car that lacked security features routinely found in such
vehicles.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/arizonastatecases/app1/cv970475.txt

Vince

Eugene Griessel

October 2nd 07, 06:11 PM

Jack Linthicum > wrote:

>On Oct 1, 8:32 pm, (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
>> "TMOliver" > wrote:
>> >The awful truth....
>>
>> >Them dannable Tscherman N*zis and the Hirohito's aggressive pursuit of the
>> >East Asian Coprosperity Sphere sealed the doom of the flying boat and sea
>> >plane by causing we Merkins to pave or at worst lay steel mat over the
>> >majority of the Western World's (and some Eastern's too) long flat places.
>> >When there were runways everywhere, planes that floated were relegated to
>> >niche market status, quaint curiosites in the midst of a dynamic world.
>>
>> Slightly off-topic. When my brother-in-law (then to be) immigrated
>> out here in 1952 it was a 5 day odyssey aboard a flying boat which
>> stopped at all sorts of interesting places along the way. They landed
>> on Lake Victoria in the late afternoon and had to leave very early in
>> the morning because the heat would rob the engines of the required
>> power to lift off. They finally ended up on the Vaal dam just south
>> of Johannesburg. Must have been close to the swansong of the Empire
>> flying boat service. In-flight movie was sliding back your window and
>> watching the herds of animals as you flew over them at a couple of
>> thousand feet.
>>
>> Way back in 1960 I was privileged to watch a French squadron, 27F
>> Flotille, using Martin Marlin flyingboats operating out of the lagoon
>> next to my home. They had flown from Dakar to Langebaan non-stop some
>> 3600 nautical miles which was considered excellent for that time. On
>> their return they used JATO - the first time it was ever used in South
>> Africa - to get airborne. Also doing so at first light and using an
>> enormous run of 5 to 6km run to get airborne. One of the boats
>> suffered a JATO bottle explosion which ripped a substantial hole in
>> her side. It was slipped at Langebaan using the gear from the
>> Sunderland squadron that used to operate there (and which was still in
>> storage there) and a borrowed tractor to get her up the slipway.
>>
>> Eugene L Griessel
>>
>> Old age is when you find yourself using one bend-over
>> to pick up two things.
>>
>> - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
>
>My college roommate was from South Africa and his description of his
>flight on a Comet in 1954 or so read like a comedy routine. Up in the
>air, down to refuel; up in the, air down to refuel, etc.

As an addendum - consider the luck of an SAA pilot, Doug Meaker,
he flew Comet Yoke Peter to London on the 5th January 1954. On the
10th it crashed near Elba due to catastrophic depressurisation due to
metal fatigue.
He was booked to fly a Comet on the the 8th April - but something came
up and he was given an earlier flight. Comet Yoke Yoke crashed south
of Naples .....
Must be fun to have the grim reaper breathing down one's neck like
that!

Eugene L Griessel

Communication - the art of transferring thought from one brain
to another successfully.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Eugene Griessel

October 2nd 07, 06:52 PM

"TMOliver" > wrote:

>I note that the poor deluded and apparently deranged woman who died -
>strangled in an attempt to get out of the irons - while cuffed and shackled
>at Sky Harbor, the Phoenix Airport, was the daughter of a retired SA Navy
>CDR.

Nope - never knew a Cmdr Henry Stiger. Cannot find him on the Navy
list during the time I was in the service or the press has the name
wrong. Supposed to have been OC diving school. Rings no bells,
unfortunately.

Eugene L Griessel

Communication - the art of transferring thought from one brain
to another successfully.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Jack Linthicum

October 2nd 07, 07:17 PM

On Oct 2, 1:52 pm, (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
> "TMOliver" > wrote:
> >I note that the poor deluded and apparently deranged woman who died -
> >strangled in an attempt to get out of the irons - while cuffed and shackled
> >at Sky Harbor, the Phoenix Airport, was the daughter of a retired SA Navy
> >CDR.
>
> Nope - never knew a Cmdr Henry Stiger. Cannot find him on the Navy
> list during the time I was in the service or the press has the name
> wrong. Supposed to have been OC diving school. Rings no bells,
> unfortunately.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Communication - the art of transferring thought from one brain
> to another successfully.
>
> - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Some confusion on my part. This is a New York Times article on the
wedding of Carole Anne Stiger and Noah Eliot Gotbaum says she was
going to retain her Stiger name. Also the Johannesburg Star says it
has no reference to Stiger.

WEDDINGS; Noah E. Gotbaum, Carol A. Stiger

Published: June 11, 1995

Carol Anne Stiger, a daughter of Comdr. and Mrs. Henry B. Stiger of
Cape Town, was married last evening in Manhattan to Noah Eliot
Gotbaum, the son of Victor Gotbaum of Brooklyn and Dr. Sarah C.
Gotbaum of Chevy Chase, Md. Rabbi Charles Lippman performed the
ceremony at the Loeb Boathouse in Central Park.

Ms. Stiger, 33, is keeping her name. She is a senior buyer in London
for the House of Frasier, a department store company. She received an
M.B.A. from the University of Wi****ersrand in Johannesburg. Her
father retired as the commander of the South African Navy Diving
School in Simonstown. The bride's previous marriage ended in divorce.

Mr. Gotbaum, 35, is a director of the Central Europe Trust Company, a
consulting and investment firm in London. He graduated from Amherst
College and received a master's degree in public policy management
from Yale University.

His mother is a public affairs and health-policy consultant in
Washington. His father, the former executive director of District
Council 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, is an author and consultant in New York. The bridegroom's
stepmother, Betsy Gotbaum, is the executive director of the New-York
Historical Society.

ljd

October 2nd 07, 07:38 PM

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:16:23 -0700, Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> On Sep 29, 7:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>> >but will they now make a comeback in the US?
>>
>> Short answer: No, IMHO.
>>
>> Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in
>> the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
>> a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal
>> population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental
>> heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
>> b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache
>> for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor
>> flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
>> c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.)
>> along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
>> d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more
>> open waters.

> One of my fav's is the Martin Sea Master,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-6_Seamaster
>
> Martin tried hard, even to go commercial,
> but practical issues intervened.

The seaplane ramp at the former Martin factory airport still exists [1],
so there's a seadrome ready-made less than an hour's drive from our
nation's capital.

Sure, I suppose it's possible that Frog Mortar Creek may have silted
up a bit in the forty years or so since Martin last launched seaplanes
there. Yes, arriving and departing aircraft might have to avoid the
locals' crab pots and pick their way through swarms of recreational
boaters while taxiing past Bowley Bar between the upper Chesapeake
and the airport, but so what? Minor details.

So-called "practical issues" can not be allowed to stand in the way
of the inevitable comeback of the seaplane!

ljd

[1] 39-18-56.06 N, 076-24-19.52 W

Andrew Chaplin

October 3rd 07, 11:38 AM

"R.C. Payne" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Kambic wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:51:14 -0500, "TMOliver"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>The awful truth....
>>>
>>>Them dannable Tscherman N*zis and the Hirohito's aggressive pursuit of the
>>>East Asian Coprosperity Sphere sealed the doom of the flying boat and sea
>>>plane by causing we Merkins to pave or at worst lay steel mat over the
>>>majority of the Western World's (and some Eastern's too) long flat places.
>>>When there were runways everywhere, planes that floated were relegated to
>>>niche market status, quaint curiosites in the midst of a dynamic world.
>>
>> Yup, what he said.
>>
>> Floatplanes are romantic as all get out, but lack economic
>> practicality.
>>
>> Maybe someday somebody will figure out how to make money on them the
>> way some folks make big cruise ships pay. Until then they are just a
>> chapter in Naval Aviation (and aviation) history.
>
> I know it's a niche market, but there are at least two companies flying
> otter and twin otter float planes between Victoria and Vancouver in BC (as
> well as a few other destinations in the area). The geography of those two
> cities is such that the seaplanes can provide a downtown - downtown service
> with a short journey time, indeed in less time than it would take to drive
> to the airport. They seem to cope quite well with the other traffic in the
> harbours.

I chartered one of their Twin Otters to take the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans to look at the situation of salmon farms in the Broughton
Archipelago back in 2002. It was a bit like being on a date with the family
car because we had to return in time for the a/c to fuel before its evening
commuter run. Great flight, though -- we were about 1,000 feet all the way up
and down the Island, and we could see the white-sided dolphins rolling to take
a look at us as we dropped down.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)