Seaplane Resurgence?

On Sep 30, 1:16 am, Rob Arndt wrote:
Most people consider the failed Avrocar (which was a propaganda tool
to deceive the public and Soviets) an "aircraft" even w/o the "flying

Then most people are ignorant.

saucer" or "disc aircraft" stigma... and yet it was never meant to fly
very far off the ground as it was supposed to be a flying jeep armed
with a bazooka or recoilless gun on the rear deck. It was a GETOL

Best I recall it was originally expected to be fully a flying craft.

(Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft. Hint: joint US Army/Avro
project.

But everyone considers it an aircraft and in every aviation book it is
in, it is referenced as an aircraft

In aircraft books simply because it was a FAILED aircraft.
That it succeded in being a hovercraft (even if a bad one) is
a seperate issue.

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

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

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?

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
ups.com...
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?

Jack,

Do you have a citation for that? I've never heard anything of the sort,
although it would have been an excellent idea IF Lindberg had the
concentration to fly at 50' for 36 hours in an airplane that was blind in
the forward direction.

KB

On Sep 30, 8:55 pm, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

ups.com...



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?

Jack,

Do you have a citation for that? I've never heard anything of the sort,
although it would have been an excellent idea IF Lindberg had the
concentration to fly at 50' for 36 hours in an airplane that was blind in
the forward direction.

KB

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print
Last two paragraphs contain a journalist's method of saying "I was
wrong but don't understand the correction"

Correction: May 25, 2002, Saturday An article in Science Times on
Tuesday about Charles Lindbergh's first trans-Atlantic flight referred
incorrectly to the first flight of the Wright brothers' plane at Kitty
Hawk. Their plane flew over 120 feet of ground, not at a height of 120
feet.

The article also referred incorrectly to the advantages of flying at a
very low altitude, as Lindbergh did in daytime. Experts indeed
acknowledge a ''ground effect,'' which increases the wings' lift and
thus makes flight somewhat more efficient near the surface; that was
not an incorrect premise of Lindbergh's era.

http://www.neoterichovercraft.com/ge.../historyof.htm
American aviator Charles Lindbergh is reported to have flown in ground
effect in order to conserve fuel during his historic transatlantic
flight in 1927. The challenge of flying along the wave tops no doubt
also served to stave off boredom during his long journey!

http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec...9/msg50545.htm
I haven't seen the book mentioned but Lindbergh came up constantly in
the discussion of the Caspian Sea Monster and its capabilities.