Slashdot Mirror
Researchers To Build Underwater Airplane
coondoggie writes to tell us that DARPA seems to still be having fun with their funding and continues to aim for the "far out." The latest program, a submersible airplane, seems to have been pulled directly from science fiction. Hopefully this voyage to the bottom of the sea is of the non-permanent variety. "According to DARPA: 'The difficulty with developing such a craft come from the diametrically opposed requirements that exist for an airplane and a submarine. While the primary goal for airplane designers is to try and minimize weight, a submarine must be extremely heavy in order to submerge underwater. In addition, the flow conditions and the systems designed to control a submarine and an airplane are radically different, due to the order of magnitude difference in the densities of air and water.'"
Airplanes underwater??? This is crazy talk! Next they will wants subs that fly!
to build a flying submarine - I mean after all, if we made a brick fly (an old saying about the F-4 Phantom).
Linky
Steve Fossett's Unfinished Project
Posted by kdawson on Sunday October 05, @02:36AM
from the ocean-flying dept.
Transportation Science Technology
MazzThePianoman writes "Steve Fossett left behind a secret vessel project called the Deep Flight Challenger. Fossett was funding the development of a winged submersible being designed by Hawkes Ocean Technologies in California. The intent was for the vehicle to be capable of travel to the very bottom of the ocean -- the Mariana Trench, more than 11,000 meters beneath the surface. 'It would have dramatically, dramatically opened the oceans for exploration. It would have been a game changer,' said Graham Hawkes, the designer. Testing had been completed at Department of Defense facilities. Field testing was only four weeks away when Fossett's untimely death, a year ago, put the project on hold." Hawkes Ocean Technologies owns the design but the vehicle itself is owned by Fossett's estate.
I don't have anything to say, but everybody else is posting stuff with "Steve Fosset" as the title.
Sounds like a few too many people at DARPA liked 'The Phantom Menace' a little too much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flying_Sub.jpg Someone's imagination is running wild. If DARPA is giving them money then it's time to turn them off.
No, this is an airplane that can also be a submarine (and surface vessel). Fossett was financing a sub that "flew" underwater.
Rocks sink, and Rocks Fly. Problem Solved!
I'm not sure, but I believe those "underwater airplanes" already exist.. and are called "submarines".
MABASPLOOM!
study up on flying fish and flying squid
then dabble in cormorants and water beetles
once again, mother nature was here first and has a lot to teach us about where to start
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Before they go too far with the designs, DARPA might want to check their figures for the densities of water and air. Last time I checked they differed by a lot more than "an order of magnitude" and I'd think this might be important.
Supercavitation would allow submarines to move at supersonic (with reference to water) speeds while submerged, and dogfight underwater like WWI aircraft did in the air. If they can come to a complete stop they'd be silent and invisible, just floating there, then fire up the engines and go back to moving faster than ship-based sonar would be able to detect them. There's already a supercavitating torpedo. People who design targets -- I mean aircraft carriers and destroyers -- must be worrying about this.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
How about this, a rear propulsion planwhich the pilot operates in a counterbalanced globe at the nose. The airplane slows down to a minimum airspeed and inserts the nose and flips over, the pilot's globe rights itself and the planes control surfaces are inverted. The fusalage takes on water to neutral bouyancy and the plan controls as if it were upside down. I'm sure this is completely unfeasible and I hope someone will explain why. The main problems I see are 1.) Slowing the plane enough that 'insertion' doesn't rip it apart. 2.) The pilot seizing up during this maneuver which would go against all of their piloting instincts. 3.) Control systems designed for air travel would be completely inefficient/infeasable in an aquatic environment. Did I forget anything else?
-=Bang Bang=-
"We're taking over 150 atmospheres of pressure!"
"How many atmospheres can this ship take?"
"Well, it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between 0 and 1."
Eek!
I don't have anything to say either.
This was Fossett's project I believe. They already have a design and partial prototype yes?
I think they've built a prototype, yes. Unfortunately, the test of the prototype of Fossett's follow-on project, an airplane that can fly underground, ended in disaster.
Too soon?
The enemies of Democracy are
since when is "fuckofftags" a useful tag?
You gotta keep scientists off the streets and out of trouble somehow.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
They're saying how the requirements for submersibles and aircraft are diametrically opposed. That's good! If they were only kinda in opposite directions, that'd be a challenge. But calling on my vast electrical engineering knowledge (and what is mechanical engineering but electrical engineering with molecules instead of electrons?), I can tell you this is easy. What do you do if you discover that your current is diametrically opposed to what you want? That's right, you flip the terminals around, and bam your current is spot on!
So, using the same principle. In air you want the plane light and lift high because gravity means the natural tendency of the plane is to go downward and you want to go up. Underwater, gravity turns into buoyancy and your plane would naturally want to go up when you want it to go down. This sounds like our current problem -- we have a plane that flies perfectly in air, but in water goes the opposite direction of what we want. So what do we do? Yeah, we just flip it. Now the "lift" of the wings is pointed down. All you need then is an engine that works in air and water, and either a crew compartment that rotates to stay vertical, or sturdy straps and training for pilots to maneuver while upside-down. Done!
I just but the reversed-wing thing is actually used in some high speed submersible. Exercise on how to make it work in either direction above/below water left as an exercise for the DARPA grantee.
The enemies of Democracy are
When I was in the Navy, my Captain was a submariner and my XO (2nd in command) was a helicopter pilot.
These two guys didn't get along.
In one (of many) knock down drag 'em out verbal exchanges the two had, the Captain yelled at the XO,
"There are more helicopters at the bottom of the sea then there are submarines in the sky!!"
http://www.htcherocentral.com
So, I hear the prototype airplane that flew underground, lost power and crashed into the surface?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
What? Oh sorry, wrong door.
I love the self-assurance of the ignorant. Quite cute, really...
I work with ex-submariners. One of the reasons that they hated and feared a real reactor SCRAM was that the sub was essentially relying on its forward motion to maintain it's depth.
Yes, it was negatively buoyant, but the slight upward pitch of its planes enabled it to "fly" through the water. Supposedly, you get much more responsive control that way, rather than wallowing in the water while you wait for tanks to fill or empty. Very important, when you're trailing an aggressive Russian sub...
When the reactor shuts down and the screw stops turning, the damn thing will sink until the control team get the tanks set for neutral or positive buoyancy. Not a comfortable time as the boat heads down and the hull groans and creaks and everyone starts to wonder if there's enough high pressure air in reserve to blow the tanks.
Mainly OT, but by God and by golly, major navies do FLY their subs.
Political language