Seaplane Resurgence?

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

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 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 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

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

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 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

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 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