Is it just me that thinks this was stupid

"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 14, 7:43 pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
Didn't the B-25 guys bombing Japan fly low too?

I think they were actually afraid of hitting fishing boats if they
went that low.

The most famous ground effect demo has to be that of the Hughes'
Spruce Goose "takeoff" in harbor.

Least famous, but more important, were the use of ground effect by
some of the US Navy NC flying boats to make the first transatlantic
crossing in 1919 by airplane.

Cheers, Kev

I believe the mission was designed to go in low to avoid being seen by
defending fighters. Also, the bomb runs were briefed low to insure specific
target destruction. This led to the low altitude decision that afforded the
both of these two worlds.
Dudley Henriques

"Blanche" wrote in message
...

Can you have "ground effect" over water?


Yes, if you are low enough.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
played with the RPM, and made it home.
Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
long time ago.

Don't you have to be within half the wing span to benefit much from ground
effect?

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let
down to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a
ton, played with the RPM, and made it home.
Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
long time ago.

Don't you have to be within half the wing span to benefit much from ground
effect?

Ground effect can be considered generally or more accurately for a specific
aircraft.
GENERALLY speaking, you can begin to consider ground effect a factor about a
wingspan's distance above the surface.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Blanche" wrote in message
...
On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:

A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his
cellphone
and flying 10 feet above the water.
Can you have "ground effect" over water?

There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down
to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton, played
with the RPM, and made it home.
Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a long
time ago.
Dudley Henriques


Maybe a true story but I think the the odds are they would have been
much better off at high altitude. As I understand it, induced drag is
only reduced by 10% at 50% of wing span above surface. At 20% of wing
span altitude the drag is still ~70% (Surface skimming birds actually go
lower, nearly touching the water with their wing tips). Of course if the
Stratocourser dropped to say 10' it could have worked better... -kersplash!

Cheers MarkC

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Dudley Henriques" said:
There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let
down
to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
played
with the RPM, and made it home.
Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
long
time ago.

Sounds like an Ernie Gann story.

You know, I think you might be right. It might very well have been from
Fate is the Hunter; but I think I remember seeing it in some magazine as
well years ago.

Wouldn't your MPG be better at altitude?

In article ,
"Bravo Two Zero" wrote:

A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx
8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and
flying 10 feet above the water.

According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a
boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal
the boat's location.

If he is dead, he may qualify for a Darwin Award.

"Matt Barrow" wrote

Wouldn't your MPG be better at altitude?

Considering the great reduction of induced drag while in ground effect, it
would depend on the engine, I would think.

RPM's would have to be reduced until the power output of the engine is down
below 55% or thereabouts, and it would have to be leaned aggressively.

Why don't we get someone to do an extended run along the surface of the
ocean, and then do the same test at altitude, and report back.

It would be interesting, I think! g
--
Jim in NC

"DR" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Blanche" wrote in message
...
On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote:

A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at
approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his
cellphone
and flying 10 feet above the water.
Can you have "ground effect" over water?

There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it
was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let
down to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a
ton, played with the RPM, and made it home.
Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
long time ago.
Dudley Henriques

Maybe a true story but I think the the odds are they would have been much
better off at high altitude. As I understand it, induced drag is only
reduced by 10% at 50% of wing span above surface. At 20% of wing span
altitude the drag is still ~70% (Surface skimming birds actually go lower,
nearly touching the water with their wing tips). Of course if the
Stratocourser dropped to say 10' it could have worked
better... -kersplash!

Cheers MarkC

If I remember right, nobody reporting on the incident reflected on what they
might have done, only on what they actually did. They very well might have
optimized range at altitude.
I can't remember the specifics involved. Knowing the exact circumstances
would make it a lot more clear for those interested in making a judgment on
the incident I would imagine.
Dudley Henriques

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Dudley Henriques" said:
There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think
it
was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let
down
to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton,
played
with the RPM, and made it home.
Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a
long
time ago.

Sounds like an Ernie Gann story.

You know, I think you might be right. It might very well have been from
Fate is the Hunter; but I think I remember seeing it in some magazine as
well years ago.

Wouldn't your MPG be better at altitude?

A lot would depend on what you had to expend in resources to get up there
from where you were when the decision had to be made . Not sure at all what
the circumstances were in this incident.
Dudley Henriques