Flightless Float Plane

[wiltzei]

"Only in America", one might say. Bloody brilliant and interesting idea, though. :eek: :confused: :icon_lol:

http://www.hydrolance.net/HL-Boeing727-Ferry%20conversion.htm

[cheezyflier]

definitely interesting, if it's viable.

i think this, while not quite the same thing, is a very interesting alternative to what we have now

TYFEFekPzDM

[Skittles]

What a load o' crap.

This picture sums up the proposal nicely;

5524

Fat Albert skimming accross the ocean while F35's fly in formation overhead.

Sure thing.

I can't wait to see how they modify a jet engine to run on varying degrees of air/water mixtures.

And as for travelling 120 knots;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZa6KJhPCI

[tigisfat]

What a load o' crap.

This picture sums up the proposal nicely;

5524

Fat Albert skimming accross the ocean while F35's fly in formation overhead.

Sure thing.


yup. That'll be the day.

http://i595.photobucket.com/albums/tt32/walkeramerican/forum%20commentary%20pictures/1228204074295.jpg

[Ken Stallings]

The most dangerous phase for a high speed boat is when it becomes airborne.

The most dangerous phase for an aircraft is when it is leaving the ground or touching the ground.

Notice the earrily similar situation for both vessels!

What he is designing is a former aircraft who's role now is to fly permanently in that dangerous transition between boating and flying.

It could work very well if the sea is calm.

It could become extremely deadly if the sea turns rough.

The issue about the jet engines is spot on. Engines can be designed for marine use such as what is done on hovercrafts. And that point brings me full circle. He's really trying to reinvent the light bulb here. A hovercraft has perfected the art of skimming the water's surface on a cushion of air. It works very well and adds vital stability and bouyancy in rough seas.

In terms of him wanting to achieve 120 knots speed, if I recall correctly, that's not much faster than a current general LCAC or the hovercraft already used in Britain for ferrying cars and passengers across the channel.

Ken

[Lionheart]

definitely interesting, if it's viable.

i think this, while not quite the same thing, is a very interesting alternative to what we have now

TYFEFekPzDM



Cheezy,

That is one hot aero hover! (or what ever you would call it).

I wonder how high these things can hop?



On the first plane, first post on this thread, I think its a bit 'odd'. I cant see putting a jet airliner on top of a ocean liner hull. The amount of fuel you would burn to just do a safe speed would be moderate.


Bill

[pilottj]

the idea of jet airliners on water is not unlike the idea of the Caspian Sea Monster project. Ekranoplanes are a facinating concept.
5563

[Ken Stallings]

the idea of jet airliners on water is not unlike the idea of the Caspian Sea Monster project. Ekranoplanes are a facinating concept.
5563

True, but the Ekranoplane was purposely built and therefore designed more as a seaplane than as a jet airliner. Ultimately, despite being purpose built, it was mothballed.

Ken

[centuryseries]

It wasn't mothballed because it didn't work, it would more than likely have been mothballed due to it completing the testing of the concept that then became the Orlyonok and Lun assault vehicles, plus the Spasatel rescue vehicle all built around the same concept of under the radar fast assault.

The subsequent combat vehicles were retired at the end of the Cold War, the Spasatel apparently is still under slow construction.

The advatages of WIG craft other than surprise in a combat situation are reduced fuel burn during cruise in a similar way airliners have winglets by there proximity with the ground, however fuel burn for takeoff must be pretty high!!

120 knots would be easy using hydroplanes that lift the craft out of the water cutting drag, however the faster you go the quicker the reactions of the crew would need to be. You almost need some kind of fly by wire system to keep the ship being destroyed.

[cheezyflier]

Cheezy,

That is one hot aero hover! (or what ever you would call it).

I wonder how high these things can hop?



On the first plane, first post on this thread, I think its a bit 'odd'. I cant see putting a jet airliner on top of a ocean liner hull. The amount of fuel you would burn to just do a safe speed would be moderate.


Bill

the power required to maintain it's "near flight" is far less than what is required to get it there. they claim operating cost of 14 cents/nautical mile per passenger. they also said that once airborne, the craft can maintain 2 or 3 meters above wave height. it seems very doable to me.

[Lionheart]

the power required to maintain it's "near flight" is far less than what is required to get it there. they claim operating cost of 14 cents/nautical mile per passenger. they also said that once airborne, the craft can maintain 2 or 3 meters above wave height. it seems very doable to me.

Yep..

There are perhaps 20 or 30 different types of these ground effect planes in Switzerland and I think Germany. They were pretty big over there a few years ago. They can circumnavigate those big mountain lakes really fast.

[srgalahad]

so what's new??

:The US Navy is debating whether or not to cancel developmental and test funding for the Floatplane, an amphibious version of the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules transport.Continued defence budget constraints have jeopardised the project's future. The Office of Naval Research, which controls the funding for this and other navy developmental projects, is considering terminating the project's FY98 budget allocation.The Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) is protesting against this possibility, contending that the Floatplane would be a "low-cost"kit modification to existing E, H and J model C-130s.The retrofittable system would allow the C-130 to take off in water as shallow as 1.5m, permitting operations from 70 per cent of the earth's surface, according to Larry Donaldson, Lockheed Martin's director of advanced technology applications.
Jane's Defence Weekly, Aug 27, 1997 http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-97/AMPHIBIOUS-C-130-MAY-NEVER-LEAVE-TEST-PHASE.html

and turbine/jets operating on water.. it'll never work...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOrj2cSDO-M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT-N-ReR-ls&feature=fvw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pl1aMVnZyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QowTqmxYZ1Q