Seaplane Resurgence?

"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.