h a l f b a k e r yThe word "How?" springs to mind at this point.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
While watching a video which featured the Saunders-Roe SRA1 and Douglas Fireball, the former a jet-fighter with a boat hull, the latter a prop-fighter with a supplementary jet engine, it was rather natural to ponder on the question of "Why not put a jet-engine on a propeller-driven flying boat ?".
The
feng shui of small propeller-driven aircraft which make their home in the water is usually marred by engine-placement: on flying boats the engine/propeller is placed rather high above the center of drag, and on floatcraft the floats add quite heavily to the drag. Both of course because you don't want the spinning propeller to come in contact with the water.
The FFKwaM design criteria is for a small aircraft with the propeller in the usual spot, that also sports a jet engine. For water takeoffs and landings the 2-bladed propeller is halted in the horizontal position and the jet engine spun up.
Pros: allows a sleek design, and propeller thrust can be along the center-of-aerodrag resulting in better handling and greater fuel economy. The jet engine also acts as an emergency backup in case of piston-engine failure. For land-based use the jet can be used to supplement the piston-engine for a much shorter takeoff run.
(For clarification, avgas (high octane gasoline) can be used in a jet (which usually drink a more dieselly/kerosene fuel); it's mostly just necessary to add some oil, as in a chainsaw or lawnmower, if the jet components aren't otherwise lubricated.)
Cons: a bit of extra weight and complexity; jet engines are fuel hogs (even though they'd only be used for takeoffs).
Halfway halfbaked
http://www.mokai.com/
It's a great starting point for this idea, just add flying! [Alterother, Feb 07 2014]
[link]
|
| |
It would be fun to apply this technique to other
vehicles as well, hybrid jet/internaal combustion
engine cars for speedy acceleration |
|
| |
the mustache is a canard? |
|
| |
The Poirotian moustache is the propeller, halted in an horizontal orientation, for water landings and takeoffs (and "kayak" because floats look like kayaks to me). |
|
| |
Rear-engined canards would be quite suitable; the Vari-Eze for instance: just lop off the landing-gear and reshape the bottom fuselage as a boat hull. |
|
| |
Such designs would also lend themselves quite nicely to installation of a coaxial motorjet integrated with the engine. |
|
| |
//the mustache is a canard?// [marked-for-tagline] I think. |
|
| |
I have no choice to bun this based on the title. If
and when I read the idea, I expect it to live up. |
|
| |
//cars// The issue with that is fuel consumption... unless you just want to clear the plowmound first thing in the morning, |
|
| |
//the mustache is a canard?// |
|
| |
Canard has at least 2 meanings; was it intentionally a
pun? Most of the 1/2B could be considered a
canard! |
|
| |
Both meanings were quite apropos; a literary double-word score for Vernon, indeed. [edit: and a triple-letter score for Monsieur bigsleep] |
|
| |
Aside, to whomever decided the post deserved a bone, assumedly because the promised whimsy of the title is missing from the post body, might I point out that |
|
| |
a) "Propeller-Driven Light Seaplane/Amphibian Utilizing a Jet Engine Exclusively for Takeoffs and Landings" is a dismal title, and |
|
| |
b) The post is about lending gracefulness to a class of aircraft which should look like flying-fish and manta-rays, but actually look like "oh damn, we forgot the engine; pass me the hacksaw and duct tape". |
|
| |
The autoboner has the market covered when it comes to flying fish. |
|
| |