h a l f b a k e r yWe are investigating the problem and will update you shortly.
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,
|
|
|
A standard narrowboat is about 20 metres long.
The USS Nimitz is about 300 metres long.
The ratio is therefore 15:1.
A 1:15 scale F-18 Hornet is about a metre long.
So if a 20 metre narrowboat were equipped with a
through-deck,
arrestor wires and a "steam" (probably compressed air,
for
convenience) catapult, radio controlled
model aircraft could fly off and land on it*.
*Original text: "it could fly off and land on radio
controlled model aircraft.", modified because of alleged
ambiguity and repeated pestering by small minded
pettifogging pedantic grumblers.
Could have been changed to "it could fly off, and land on,
radio controlled model aircraft" but that probably
wouldn't have satisfied the nit-pickers.
Everyone's a critic ...
wick
http://en.wikipedia...Nimitz_%28CVN-68%29
nimitz 332.8 m [popbottle, Sep 13 2014]
Canals without land on either side
http://weburbanist....avigable-aqueducts/
[pocmloc, Sep 13 2014]
Canals under the oceans
http://en.wikipedia..._Sea_undersea_river
..well, more like channels really [not_morrison_rm, Sep 15 2014]
Narrow boat mounted on top of a model aeroplane ready for takeoff
http://www.dorcasla...dorcas-drydock2.jpg
If you look really carefully, you can see the model plane beneath the third window behind the yellow barriers. [pocmloc, Sep 15 2014]
Shortly after takeoff
http://2.bp.blogspo...0/Craning%2B008.jpg
[pocmloc, Sep 15 2014]
Actual launch
http://4.bp.blogspo...600/08-DSCF9502.JPG
Steam from the catapult launch is obscuring the model plane in this photo [pocmloc, Sep 15 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I think there is an error in your phrasing of that last paragraph (implies
the narrowboat could do the flying). |
|
| |
Yeah but it's [8th]: there's probably some kids flying model airplanes outside and he can't remember where he put the blunderbuss (the white phosphorous one, not the rock salt or armour piercing ones). So a flying barge would do. |
|
| |
I'm pretty certain that takeoff and landing distance do not scale linearly. |
|
| |
Hang on just a moment. The pride of the US Navy is
only 20 times longer than a canal boat? |
|
| |
15. 6 times faster, and Nimitz just can't compete on
charming painted watering cans with flowers in. |
|
| |
I'm a bit shocked. I mean, no disrespect, but having
something 15 times bigger than a canal boat as the
star attraction of the navy of the world's largest
superpower is just... underwhelming. |
|
| |
The Nimitz is also (says Google) only twice as long as
Roman Abramocich's personal yacht. |
|
| |
I expect the Nimitz has more than 15 times as many
guns as a canal boat. Yes, that would be it. |
|
| |
Things don't scale that well. The boat would be
pushed backwards in the water with some of the
momentum from the plane. Furthermore you're
talking about two entirely different aircraft. A model
airplane won't need 1/15th the speed, nor will it
reach the speed it needs in 1/15th the runway. |
|
| |
//The boat would be pushed backwards in the water with some of the
momentum from the plane. // |
|
| |
Yes, but the boat will have momentum, and the relative mass of the
model is small. |
|
| |
// A model airplane won't need 1/15th the speed, // |
|
| |
No, considerably more. But the wing loading is much, much lower for
a
model. |
|
| |
// nor will it reach the speed it needs in 1/15th the runway. // |
|
| |
Did you read the bit about the catapult launch ? It can be given as
much acceleration as the airframe will stand. |
|
| |
I have to admit to a little disappointment, [8th], that
you did not opt for scale models of the HMS Furious
and the naval version of the Spitfire, the Seafire. |
|
| |
[+] It wouldn't be _that_ much trouble to put a kettle on to launch the things (though really you could just use a bunch of rubber bands) |
|
| |
What [Vernon] said is, with all due respect, utter bollocks. |
|
| |
We considered HMS Vindictive, but model biplanes fly so slowly
as to not require either catapults or arrestor wires. In fact, a real
Fairey Swordfish would probably struggle to keep up with an
average narrowboat if there was a strong breeze that day. |
|
| |
We also considered WW2 options, but the risk of hharming even
a model Seafire is so close to blasphemy as to be unacceptable.
But you can crash as many SB2C's, Hellcats and Corsairs as you
want. … |
|
| |
You don't even have to do anything wrong to harm a Seafire. Normal
operations will crumple up that structure in no time. |
|
| |
"fly off" and "land on" are the correct technical terms
used in Naval aviation for the actions of departing
from and returning to a carrier flight deck. |
|
| |
I think that, for once, [Vernon] is making sense. His
point is that your original phrasing suggests that the
narrowboat is doing the flying, and the model aircraft
is acting as the runway. |
|
| |
He might just be referring to very small barge and 1: 1 and a bit scale model Spruce Goose. |
|
| |
//the narrowboat is doing the flying, and the model aircraft is acting as the runway// I see, indeed, you are saying that that is very sensible idea by [Vernon]'s standards. |
|
| |
It's probably easier to get a narrowboat to fly than you
think. |
|
| |
Typical narrowboat 18 tons, 36,000 lb. Lighter than a F35. |
|
| |