Personal Aircraft Carrier

And what sort of 'fly swat' would you reccommend for all these noisy little pests flying around the anchorage on a Sunday afternoon?

A balloon is slower but quiter, easier to launch and recover - easier to hit too if it gets annoying (a balloon wouldn't disturb to much of course)

 

Chuckle

I doubt seriously if such a vessel would be around an anchorage on any afternoon. I further doubt that either one of will ever see one.

 

Here is a link to someone that was serious enough to ask Phil Bolger about it.

Civilian Carrier

It's based on Bolger's Wyoming sharpie.

 

Greenseas youv'e cheered me up but once mooted these things have a nasty habit of becoming real I'm afraid (now were did I put that 'calibre 30'!)

 

I believe that FAR's limit the weight of an ultralight to something like 275 pounds.

True , but weren't you planning on a driver too??

The "training " exemption gives lots more initial weight than 254.

Landing Signal Officer , or build a mirrored "Meatball" system for approaches?

FAST FRED

 

Not to worry

Hey Walrus, I don't envision seeing a personal aircraft carrier during my lifetime other than mega-yachts with choppers. If someone, by chance, should invest in the big bucks and money to build one, the USCG and Home Land Security would probably blow it out of the water thinking it was terrorists. One ulralight and barge up in smoke after thye crew had been water boarded of course.

 

Greenseas, yeah! sounds good, then peace would return to the anchorages! Look like these terriers may have a use after all (not much mind!)

 

tiger woods new yacht?

 

In that case, why not tow a Zeppelin or blimp? Sure, that's a lot of air drag- but at 20 knots over ground in a 20 knot headwind, the blimp's effectively going 40 knots, and a blimp doesn't need much power at all to do that- the big Zeppelin NT has only 600 hp total, and can do nearly 70 knots with ease. Air drag goes with the square of the speed- towing the 10-tonne NT at 40 knots effective airspeed would probably only take about 200 hp. A Lightship-class blimp would only need somewhere from a quarter to a half of that amount. I can think of a lot of yachts that can spare that much power. The only thing is, the boat'll have to be heavy and long enough that the airship doesn't pull it off course in a crosswind.

 

Bridge clearance might be a ***** ...

In crosswinds, just tow the boat with the blimp ..?

 

I'd sugest building a new plane with swing type wings like the F-14 b1b or F-111. then you could land at slow speeds and fly at higher ones.

 

In terms of variable geometry wings, I think for STOL you'd have better luck with the Gevers telescopic wing than with a jet fighter's swing wing... the idea of most swing wings is to allow supersonic flight while preventing low speed performance from becoming absolutely disgusting. Their benefits are pretty much negated on anything with a top speed under six hundred knots. Look up the Gevers concept- the telescoping wing has a lot of promise for STOL, especially with the addition of slats/flaps (even though the designers don't really think that's necessary).

 

The above is/was true, but the concept of the swing-wing now appears obsolete for supersonic aircraft as well. With the retirement of the F-14, the previous retirement of the F-111's (excepting only the EF-111 Ravens) this leaves ony one swing wing airplane in the US military inventory the, B1B heavy bomber. And if they designed it again for the capability it was reduced to as the B1B from the B1, it certainly would not have been a swing-wing in the first place.

The Russians have been on a similar path. Both of their premier fighter families, Fulcrum and Flanker, have stationary wings. 'Their F-111' the Sukhoi SU-24, is several years younger than our F-111 and was a bit better thought-out, so will probably remain in service a few years longer. Their B1, the TU-160, had an amazingliy similar troubled gestation having entered service only in the mid 80's so will also be around for a few more years.

Point is there are no more 'swing-wing' fighters being planned; modern aerodynamics have moved beyond the need so that the penalties of weight and complexity cannot be justified, even when cost is no object.

Jimbo

 

Absolutely true- the mechanisms to actuate a swing wing are heavy, complicated, take up a lot of space, and require constant maintenance in addition to being expensive. It's possible now to design a fixed wing that does well over a wide speed range. Also, the demand for Mach 2+ is gone in modern fighters; efficiency, range and stealthiness have taken priority, and Mach 1.5 is more than enough for most air forces.

Wait a sec. Are we wanting to carry a supersonic jet on our Personal Aircraft Carrier? Egad, I think we're drifting off topic! :O

 

What about an aircraft launching system where you hook the plane up to the boat and have it power up to full throttle and then use a quick release to let it go? As for landing you could probably do it the navy way and tow around a hook that catches a wire with some brakes on it. Then when the plane meets the deck you go to fullpower and if it dosn't catch you can go around?