If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
On Sep 30, 8:09?am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Sep 30, 11:00 am, "Brian Sharrock" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message oups.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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
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 oups.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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
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? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Seaplane Resurgence?
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/Benutze.../Zeitleiste_LS |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seaplane Base 1 - Leaving the Seaplane Base-2.jpg (1/1) | john smith[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 2 | August 2nd 07 08:37 AM |
seaplane takeoff | Lets Fly | Owning | 1 | December 5th 05 10:18 PM |
seaplane motoglider? | John Ammeter | Home Built | 23 | September 19th 05 04:11 AM |
ultralight seaplane | Friedrich Ostertag | Piloting | 13 | September 16th 05 03:37 AM |
Seaplane Rating Add-On and Seaplane Rental | Peter Bauer | Piloting | 10 | May 29th 05 11:53 AM |