Seaplane Resurgence?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.)

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

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.

In article . com,
(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.

"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