h a l f b a k e r yIt's the thought that counts.
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,
|
|
|
| |
I think it may be to do with the availability of long, smooth runways, and the fact that you can't take off/land in heavy seas. |
|
| |
Build channels? The trick here is sacraficing a nice place to take/off land from home but think about how ice it will be to cruise around the carribean, like jet cruises. Screw those big boats. Screw 'em. |
|
| |
I've seen jet-powered flying boats, but never a jet-powered sea-plane - does anyone know if anyone ever tried to build one? |
|
| |
Plenty of turbine powered seaplanes around. Cessna Caravan and countless conversions. No, not pure jets, though. |
|
| |
<Pictures an F15 on floats. Yikes.> |
|
| |
The Caspian Sea Monster (an Ekranoplan) is a perfect example of what you're talking about. Also a Nakajima model but I'm having a deuce of a time trying to find a link or picture. |
|
| |
Aww, [bris], I'm hugely disappointed!
Saunders-Roe SR.A/1
Convair XF2Y-1 SeaDart
Martin P6M-2 Seamaster
Proof of the interface between "learn from other people's mistakes" and "try, try again" |
|
| |
I was responding that I've never seen any pure jets on floats and, nope, I haven't. |
|
| |
And, [lurch], I have not seen you on the site for a very long time. I hope you are doing well. |
|
| |
Thank heavens we are allowed to say "Ekranoplan" again. I was getting sick of calling them "top secret surface effect flying boats". |
|
| |
The reason that there are no jet powered sea-planes is that the boat-hull shape required for the lower fuselage is aerodynamically very inefficient, and would drastically increase fuel burn, as well as reduce top speed. Transit times would be longer, not shorter, and maximum range would be reduced. |
|
| |
The infrastructure already exists for land-based aircraft, and there are already many large airports within a short distance of the shore. There's simply no economic reason to design and build large seaplanes anymore. |
|
| |
//Boat-hull shape required for the
lower
fuselage is aerodynamically very
inefficient// Yes, at the cruising height
and speed of a conventional jet. But
according to the link, the efficiency of
these things once they achieve
skimming flight is very good and one of
their attractions. |
|
| |
Yes, but, alas, jet engines at low altitude are anything but efficient. |
|
| |
Ah. Well, then, just scale up.
Presumably the bigger the wing, the
greater the height at which the ground-
effect can be sustained. So, combine
this with the manta-ray-plane idea and
make a wing big enough to maintain
ground effect at 37,000ft. Presumably,
a wing with a chord of a few thousand
feet would do the job..... |
|
| |
Or (I'm on a bit of a roll here), have the
plane at low altitude and the engines at
37,000 feet, connected by a huge
tether. Sort of like a kite, but exactly
the opposite and very different. |
|
| |
Hmm. I like that flying engines idea. Utterly half-baked. |
|
| |
The big flying boats failed after WW2 because of
the massive amount of runway building during the
war, the advances in electronic navigation, the
skill level required to fly the big flying boats, and
the fact that land=based aircraft are much safer. |
|
| |
Jet engines are more efficient per passenger-mile
than piston engines at high altitudes and high
subsonic speeds, but less efficient at the lower
altitudes where seaplanes and flying boats are
most useful. |
|
| |
In NYC - JFK, LaGuardia are adjacent to the shore,
and Newark is within a hundred yards. |
|
| |
In Boston, Logan is built out on fill into the harbor.
SeaTac is within a mile of the sound. LAX fronts
on dunes. San Francisco Airport, built on fill. |
|
| |
As a rule, there isn't a huge amount of travel time
lost "getting to inland airports". And these days
you'd need nearly as much infrastructure (terminal,
people handling, luggage, and security) at a
seaplane terminal as a land based, which means
you'd still have to travel to a set point for large
scale air travel. |
|
| |
I'd argue that the maintenance will kill this one.
Aircraft sitting in sea (or, to a lesser extent fresh)
water are bound to have MUCH higher rates of
corrosion, be it the traditional kind or some horrific
Galvanic destructomonster. Pair this with tough
access for repair crews and you're either going to
much more expensive system, or aircraft falling out
of the sky. |
|
| |
//maintenance will kill this one.// One word: use
composites. |
|
| |
they're not immune <link> and if you're going to be
resistant to lightning, you'll need metals weaving
through the carbon fibre. Although, I suppose you
could use gold. |
|
| |
//they're not immune// Some composites are
vulnerable to some bugs. However, very little
attempt has been made to prevent this
vulnerability, and it would not be difficult to do.
Fibreglass boats seem to manage quite well in
seawater. |
|
| |
Yep, until they suffer massive osmosis and come apart. I'd imagine the 150km/hr + takeoff/landing speed would do well to strip the surface enough to encourage it. |
|
| |
Meh, I'm sure there'll be coatings that would work. |
|
| |