Seaplane Resurgence?

On Sep 30, 11:00 am, "Brian Sharrock" wrote:
"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

No more Area 51, seems to have picked up and moved elsewhere. Somewhat
logical as the new research is in pilotless aircraft. I have heard
that the Dugway Proving grounds in Utah got some of the action and the
former launch sites for the ABM tests in Utah-Colorado to White Sands
some more.

I recently visited the Evergreen Air Museum in McMinnville, Or. The
big feature is the Hughes Hercules, which I had seen in Long Beach,
but my big moment was the D-21. Drone "boy companion" to the
Blackbird, I worked with the guy who did the contract finalization for
it and the SR-71. The thing was so secret in 1967 or so that we
couldn't label folders with the Codeword for the project and it was
one of the few things that was not supposed to sit on a desk top when
not being read.

On Sep 29, 7:01 pm, "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.
Mike Kanze

One of my fav's is the Martin Sea Master,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-6_Seamaster

Martin tried hard, even to go commercial,
but practical issues intervened.

Better off with a "submersible aircraft carrier".
Ken

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 30, 11:00 am, "Brian Sharrock" wrote:
"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

No more Area 51, seems to have picked up and moved elsewhere. Somewhat
logical as the new research is in pilotless aircraft. I have heard
that the Dugway Proving grounds in Utah got some of the action and the
former launch sites for the ABM tests in Utah-Colorado to White Sands
some more.

I recently visited the Evergreen Air Museum in McMinnville, Or. The
big feature is the Hughes Hercules, which I had seen in Long Beach,
but my big moment was the D-21. Drone "boy companion" to the
Blackbird, I worked with the guy who did the contract finalization for
it and the SR-71. The thing was so secret in 1967 or so that we
couldn't label folders with the Codeword for the project and it was
one of the few things that was not supposed to sit on a desk top when
not being read.


Yeah; nostalgia ain't what it used to be. ...
I hefted my electronic spear on the Northern Ramparts - which was so
'Secret' we weren't allowed to mention it and any photographs of the place
had to be scrutinised by the Sy Officer so that we hadn't inadvertently
revealed anything ..... decades later, I'm watching a Rugby game on TV and
blow me down the journo is speaking of the RAF station team that's
participating AND shows off inside the Ops' Room!

During a later posting the Eng Off was being interviewed by BFBS (British
Forces' Broadcasting Service) and everybody thought it was a 'good take',
he'd been 'careful' and not revealed anything. When the interview was
broadcast ,days later, amongst the Q&A could be heard a very faint
background bleap ........ bleap ...... bleap.
Sy branch were down on us like a ton(ne) of bricks; if one examined the
audio on a 'scope; the power, prf , beamwidth and rotation rate might be
deduced. ..... . {Wonder what happened to him .... ?}


--

Brian

On Sep 30, 8:09?am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:00 am, "Brian Sharrock" wrote:





"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

oups.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

No more Area 51, seems to have picked up and moved elsewhere. Somewhat
logical as the new research is in pilotless aircraft. I have heard
that the Dugway Proving grounds in Utah got some of the action and the
former launch sites for the ABM tests in Utah-Colorado to White Sands
some more.

I recently visited the Evergreen Air Museum in McMinnville, Or. The
big feature is the Hughes Hercules, which I had seen in Long Beach,
but my big moment was the D-21. Drone "boy companion" to the
Blackbird, I worked with the guy who did the contract finalization for
it and the SR-71. The thing was so secret in 1967 or so that we
couldn't label folders with the Codeword for the project and it was
one of the few things that was not supposed to sit on a desk top when
not being read.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Area 51, or components thereof, have been placed at all of these other
locations:

DPG: Dugway Proving Grounds
MAAF: Michael Army Airfield
UTTR: Utah Test & Training Range
TAD: Tooele Army Depot
DCD: Desert Chemical Depot
HAFB/HIL: Hill Air Force Base
Area 6413: Green River Complex- White Sands Missile Range
Lakeside Air Force Bombing Range
USCB: U.S. Space Command Base

Rob

On Sep 30, 11:42?am, Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 30, 8:09?am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:





On Sep 30, 11:00 am, "Brian Sharrock" wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

oups.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

No more Area 51, seems to have picked up and moved elsewhere. Somewhat
logical as the new research is in pilotless aircraft. I have heard
that the Dugway Proving grounds in Utah got some of the action and the
former launch sites for the ABM tests in Utah-Colorado to White Sands
some more.

I recently visited the Evergreen Air Museum in McMinnville, Or. The
big feature is the Hughes Hercules, which I had seen in Long Beach,
but my big moment was the D-21. Drone "boy companion" to the
Blackbird, I worked with the guy who did the contract finalization for
it and the SR-71. The thing was so secret in 1967 or so that we
couldn't label folders with the Codeword for the project and it was
one of the few things that was not supposed to sit on a desk top when
not being read.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Area 51, or components thereof, have been placed at all of these other
locations:

DPG: Dugway Proving Grounds
MAAF: Michael Army Airfield
UTTR: Utah Test & Training Range
TAD: Tooele Army Depot
DCD: Desert Chemical Depot
HAFB/HIL: Hill Air Force Base
Area 6413: Green River Complex- White Sands Missile Range
Lakeside Air Force Bombing Range
USCB: U.S. Space Command Base

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Note: Area 6413 is supposed to be Area 64-13= 51

Rob

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?

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:01:28 -0700, "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.

I've read claims that WWII itself killed the flying boat.

Before the War vast areas of the Pacific were accessible only by
floatplane. During the War every rock big enough to have one got a
runway. And there were vast numbers of surplus cargo aircraft after
the War to use them. A land runway vastly eases maintenance, lowers
landing and takeoff risks, etc.

In Japan (and, I presume, the old Soviet Union) there were a lot of
places that never got paved runways. Nor, in the post War years, was
there the money to build either them or aircraft to fly from them
(Japan was re-building everything; the Soviets were building a war
machine to threaten the West). So for these states using existing
float plane technology made sense.

And, in both cases, you have either straight up state ownership or
massive state subsidies.

There are lots of places inland that could have float plane operating
areas (admitedly with greater or lesser levels of hazard). Almost
anywhere along the TVA system or Mississippi might do. The Missouri
for at least some distance. I don't know how economical it would be
(compared to building/maintaining a hard surface runway) but there's
not reason why you can't dig a long, narrow pond for floatplane ops.

These aircraft are romantic as Hell and rich folks have fitted out
PBYs and Grummans as "flying yachts" complete with Zodiacs to get them
ashore. But as practical, commercial vehicles they just don't make
it.

On Sep 30, 6:39 pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:01:28 -0700, "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.

I've read claims that WWII itself killed the flying boat.

Before the War vast areas of the Pacific were accessible only by
floatplane. During the War every rock big enough to have one got a
runway. And there were vast numbers of surplus cargo aircraft after
the War to use them. A land runway vastly eases maintenance, lowers
landing and takeoff risks, etc.

In Japan (and, I presume, the old Soviet Union) there were a lot of
places that never got paved runways. Nor, in the post War years, was
there the money to build either them or aircraft to fly from them
(Japan was re-building everything; the Soviets were building a war
machine to threaten the West). So for these states using existing
float plane technology made sense.

And, in both cases, you have either straight up state ownership or
massive state subsidies.

There are lots of places inland that could have float plane operating
areas (admitedly with greater or lesser levels of hazard). Almost
anywhere along the TVA system or Mississippi might do. The Missouri
for at least some distance. I don't know how economical it would be
(compared to building/maintaining a hard surface runway) but there's
not reason why you can't dig a long, narrow pond for floatplane ops.

These aircraft are romantic as Hell and rich folks have fitted out
PBYs and Grummans as "flying yachts" complete with Zodiacs to get them
ashore. But as practical, commercial vehicles they just don't make
it.

The Soviets went through a period where the theme "we need dirigibles"
seemed to their answer to the problem of supplying isolated outposts.
Whether reason took hold or the wrong side was backing the gas bags
they faded from the public eye.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutze.../Zeitleiste_LS