 |
reply posted on 11-4-2005 @ 02:25 AM by BillHicksRules
|
Paper,
As a leisure craft, I would have thought that no one would want to use them in non-clear water. It is a bit like flying in cloud, people do it to
retain currency in IFR but most people prefer clear sky flying.
Cheers
BHR
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-4-2005 @ 05:46 AM by paperplane_uk
|
Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Paper,
As a leisure craft, I would have thought that no one would want to use them in non-clear water. It is a bit like flying in cloud, people do it to
retain currency in IFR but most people prefer clear sky flying.
Cheers
BHR 
As you say it limits their use to leasure craft (for now)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-4-2005 @ 07:11 AM by matej
|
Does anybody have any info about this General Dynamics submersible aircraft? I am not interested in things like Sea Dart but specially in this. It was
able not to only submerse, but also to move underwater {in the pics you can see water jets at the rear part of the fuselage}.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-4-2005 @ 07:41 AM by PsykoOps
|
I've always thought that the ultimate 'fighter plane' would be one which would go underwater, fly in air and in space. Imagine a carrier sub that
launches these beauties underwater, from where some part to attack enemy subs and surface vessels completely untouched. The others meanwhile would
race to the surface, fly trought the athmosphere and into low orbit and commence attacks behind enemy lines. Of course this kind of technology
doesn't yet exist but who knows. If they'd make missiles with the same design principles then these fighters would indeed be the ultimate thing
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-4-2005 @ 02:16 AM by BillHicksRules
|
Psyko,
It sounds like a great idea in theory but in practice there are way too many conflicting design pressures on the concept.
Cheers
BHR
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-4-2005 @ 10:37 AM by PsykoOps
|
Well only one I can think of is the engine, it would need to operate everywhere. If you have your basic aerodynamic shape and good design I see no
problems going underwater or up in the air.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-4-2005 @ 02:03 AM by BillHicksRules
|
Psyko,
The aerodynamic wingform you would need in the water is significantly different to that needed in air.
To see this concept in action look at a ships propellor and an aircrafts.
Similar conceptual look but significantly different in execution.
Cheers
BHR
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-4-2005 @ 10:14 AM by PsykoOps
|
Well if you'd have for example a delta wing design that is good for flying, I see no problem for it underwater assuming that the engines support it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-4-2005 @ 01:40 PM by Fenix F 308
|
Rememmber that in one magazine I read about how make the fighter that most base under water.
It was Mig 29, It was student works .. Coool.
Like DPurple. -"Burning in the sky.."
[edit on 14-4-2005 by Fenix F 308]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-4-2005 @ 02:55 AM by BillHicksRules
|
Fenrix,
Sorry to be pedantic but could you post that again in English?
Cheers
BHR
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |