A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Seaplane Resurgence?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 30th 07, 03:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Dan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 465
Default Seaplane Resurgence?

Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:52 pm, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
Not at all similar.
The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
Graham
A technicality at best.
Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
type of seaplane.
You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
Rob

Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


So how would you define an Ekronoplan? Seacraft? It is piloted and
flies. I believe ti has a/c controls as well...


How about a separate category of WIG, xenia? Using your "logic" a
hovercraft is a helicopter.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
  #12  
Old September 30th 07, 05:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Richard Casady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default Seaplane Resurgence?

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:31:04 -0700, Rob Arndt
wrote:

The spaceplane continues to
fly until it reaches its escape velocity of around 966 km/h.

..Flying machines don't have an escape velocity. Planets or
stars have one, but not aircraft. We are talking about escaping
_something_, but what? what does the number relate to? For the earth
escape velocity is 7 miles per second, or a bit more than 40 000
km/h.

Casady
  #13  
Old September 30th 07, 06:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Rob Arndt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Seaplane Resurgence?

On Sep 29, 7:36?pm, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:52 pm, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
Not at all similar.
The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.
Graham
A technicality at best.
Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
type of seaplane.
You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.
Rob
Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


So how would you define an Ekronoplan? Seacraft? It is piloted and
flies. I believe ti has a/c controls as well...


How about a separate category of WIG, xenia? Using your "logic" a
hovercraft is a helicopter.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Most people consider the failed Avrocar (which was a propaganda tool
to deceive the public and Soviets) an "aircraft" even w/o the "flying
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
(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

Rob

  #14  
Old September 30th 07, 07:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
John Keeney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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.

  #15  
Old September 30th 07, 08:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Seaplane Resurgence?

On 30 sept, 05:01, "Mike Kanze" wrote:
but will they now make a comeback in the US?


Short answer: No, IMHO.

Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.

Just not a winner for the U.S.


The article was about military use. For some (quite) recent
scenarios....

Falklands 1982: Say, British have twenty Shin Meiwa US-1 style, but
Martin Mars sized flying boats, in their inventory, capable of aerial
refuelling. Supply and troop transport problems are entirely
different.

Africa - almost what ever conflict. At many times larger availability
of lakes and rivers than runways.

Seaplanes are really out of fashion in the military circles because
they are out of fashion. A major reason may be that USAF never
operated seaplanes in large quantities, and probably has not been that
interested in airlift mission anyway.

Mvh,
Jon K

  #16  
Old September 30th 07, 08:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
John Keeney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Seaplane Resurgence?

On Sep 29, 10:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" wrote:

Short answer: No, IMHO.

Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.


There's not been a seaplane built that couldn't land and depart
comfortably from the Ohio River at Louisville Ky. A large number of
TVA lakes (Cumberland, Dale Hollow...) and other lakes about the
country (Mead, Great Salt Lake...) like wise have sufficent surface
area. A big problem in these locations would be existing boat traffic.

b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.

Just not a winner for the U.S.


I don't disagree with your conclusion, I just think your grasp of the
water situation in the heartland is off.

If the seaplane -as a large cargo transport- had a future it would
likely be competing as a smaller-faster cargo ship and the coastal
ports would be a natural location for them. Being able to hop in to
Detroit & Chicago would be a real plus. Even the occasional stop in
some where like Louisville could well happen (I'm thinking of some
metal presses made in Germany, shipped to New Orleans, brought by
river barge to Louisville then trucked with dozens of police escorts
up the Interstate to the plant.)

  #17  
Old September 30th 07, 02:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Eeyore[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Seaplane Resurgence?



Rob Arndt wrote:

Here is a dated article from New Scientist and their description, used
as an example:

Spacecraft may one day take off from the backs of seaplanes travelling
at half the speed of sound. That's the future of space travel if
Russian and Japanese scientists get their way, according to the
journal New Scientist.


Just goes to show how little real science makes it's way into New Scientist
these days.

How many 'free energy' articles did they have in that issue ?

Graham

  #18  
Old September 30th 07, 03:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default Seaplane Resurgence?

On Sep 29, 9:52 pm, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
Not at all similar.


The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.


Graham


A technicality at best.


Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
type of seaplane.


You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.


Rob


Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Here's a display of what it says is the latest on the Ekranoplans.
Since I was the guy who named them I consider the idea to be mine. I
would guess somewhere in the Russian realm or working a deli in
Brooklyn is someone who could explain why the Sovs chose the Caspian
for basing this bugger. No way out, no use except thrill rides,
pictures and exciting Western intelligence people.

  #20  
Old September 30th 07, 04:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Brian Sharrock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Seaplane Resurgence?


"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 29, 9:52 pm, Dan wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:04?pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes
Not at all similar.


The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.


Graham


A technicality at best.


Ekranoplans are planes and are sea-based, so they are only a DIFFERENT
type of seaplane.


You can't call them flying ships- they are WIG aviation.


Rob


Oh, please, seaplanes can fly overland, fly at altitude, don't have
to go around islands, can fly over rough seas and a few other things
WIGs can't do. Even you should be able to see that, xenia.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Here's a display of what it says is the latest on the Ekranoplans.
Since I was the guy who named them I consider the idea to be mine. I
would guess somewhere in the Russian realm or working a deli in
Brooklyn is someone who could explain why the Sovs chose the Caspian
for basing this bugger. No way out, no use except thrill rides,
pictures and exciting Western intelligence people.


Probably for a similar reason that in the UK a flooded quarry in Somerset
was the site for testing Sonar kit. No way out ... or in ! Isn't that the
raison d'etre for Area 51?

--

Brian


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seaplane Base 1 - Leaving the Seaplane Base-2.jpg (1/1) john smith[_2_] Aviation Photos 2 August 2nd 07 08:37 AM
seaplane takeoff Lets Fly Owning 1 December 5th 05 11:18 PM
seaplane motoglider? John Ammeter Home Built 23 September 19th 05 04:11 AM
ultralight seaplane Friedrich Ostertag Piloting 13 September 16th 05 03:37 AM
Seaplane Rating Add-On and Seaplane Rental Peter Bauer Piloting 10 May 29th 05 11:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.