reply to post by shortywarn
It's really late and I'm about to drop. But the basics; the Russians designed this plane in the late 1960's. The greatest problem with any "ship
in the water" is hull/water friction which greatly reduces the speed of any ship. Flying on an air bubble is far more economical; other ships certain
classified hulls are quite effective for greatly reducing hull/water friction. You have coatings that we use for some subs that change the coefficiant
of friction between hull and water. Also helps with stealth, though I can't go into details on the chemistry of same (I was involved in the design of
some of these materials). Second options is to create nose cavitation that creates an air layer between water and hull. Far as I know this is used for
sub-flank-speed, and some Russian torpedos.The speed is highly classified but you can get idea of the basics by googling skua or squawl/or Russian
torpedo technology. It is stated in the open press the MINIMUM speed of these torps is about 500 plus miles per hour. The Russians a number of years
ago had a torpedo that because it had a probe that created a noisy then hull creating a cavitation based air bubble around the torpedo, so in fact it
changed the whole strategic situation, for a while. This torpedo was moving threw the "air and not water" in a bubble of air, not water. Speed was
fantastic. Loud, but open source media has claimed with the minimum speed, you could hear the dam thing accross the hundreds of miles, but moving at
500-600 mph, some say they can go supersonic the bloody thing could be a brass band, would it make a difference? I don't think so. Don't believe me?
Google it, look it up, whatever. By the way the skua is rocket propelled, with a extended nose probe that creates a nose based cavitation that
surronds the torp.
The anti-detection methods for our subs/ships remain highly classified. The technology, for the most part computers were very primitive in the
6'0/70/and even 1980's was not up to the task of controling turbulance and other when the Russians were working on the technology, concerning
computers were just not good enough. The closest we came to build a trully big flying boat was the "slow,big,and a nightmare to fly" Hughs "spruce
goose". Three things killed it. It's slow speed was considered a sitting, and a very fat duck at that. Also it's lifting capacity was made
redundent regarding sea power so late in WW-2 we had established good island based air fields with planes that were faster, also our sea lift capacity
had limited the U-Boat problem.
But the biggest problem with the plane getting "goosed" was the flight technology was just to primitive, and hard to fly. We think the Russians had
the same problem with the name I know it as; the econoplane, which had the same problem (Russians). With all cable to control surfaces and a
gazillion dials to keep track of and was quite lethal to fly, a real nightmare. Everyhing I have heard about the "flying boat" was it was like the
spruce goose a real bear, no pun intended to fly. The advantage of a flying, even a real big one, was no direct contact with water on the hull. This
created what could have been a very efficiant sea based air plane. boat, whatever you want to call it. The friction of a hull not in the water far
surpassed any ship/sub or conventional torpedo of the time. Speed of the skua far exceeded or main torpedo, though upgraded over many years, the ADCAP
that years, that so many years later we still employ even after decades. It's one mean dude of a torpedo.
We have numerous ways of of reducing "hull in water friction". The ones are available in the ocean are for the most three; friction reducing
coatings, of which I worked on. The use of accoustic resonance that would create a "hull-to-water harmonic", cavitation (using this you will soud
like a brass band accross the ocean, but its for :we need to get the hell out of here)
I would siggest we use modern tecnology to augment controls on a new version of the econoplane. The technology would be no more advanced then a Boing
777. Trus me, the Russians have all our commercial airliners. Were not talking about giving them F-22/F-35 technology.Our aviation production is if
not superior, but is more efficient then what they have. But they have excellent engineers. It would be a great gesture of co-operation. I would never
consider giving any one classified technology, and we just don't need to to make this work.
The use of a plane like this would be every thing from search and rescue, heavy transports (since they are seaplanes we don't need huge air fields.
In fact few airfields would accomadate such a massive aircraft). This sense of aircraft/boat, whatever by creating a bubble of air under it. It's
fuel economy could be really fantastic, not to mention the ability of landing on 70% plus of the Earths surface.I could think of dozens of
applications for something like this. One or two good ones, it becomes economical. More later as I can get further details. Pax Humana Pax gang, and