Design Off?

[cthulhu77]

What? No Spats?  Brian will be crushed...

[RLBH]

Count me in, I'm sure I can do ideas and words, if other people more able can do pictures.

[kitflubber]

On the subject of fantasy planes, I have been noodling a large five-engine Italian Luxury flying boat to compete with the Sikorsky S-42 and others. It's double hulled, with outrigger stub wings for stability, and a thick airfoil in line joining the hulls (observation lounge inside, dance floor above when moored). Pylons rise from both hulls to the main wing, where threre are two pods with tandem engine (push/pull). A center pod holds the bridge, captain's quarters and dining lounge, and a fifth pusher prop aft.

It's like, totally overkill!

[kitflubber]

I was not clear, it would be 1930s-40s (perhaps from an alternate history with no WWII).

[kitflubber]

A taste:

[Planeman]

awesome plane BTW.

But on the topic of the challenge, it looks like Submarine aircraft carrier is pretty popular. I'd never even given it a thought until I wrote that but now I'm hooked on the idea, hang the practicality! My mind is racing with rediculous calculations like "how many Yak-141 Freestyles can I fit into a Typhoon SSBN sized hull???"

[GTX]

So is there a criteria of "Technical Accuracy" - i.e. the final proposals must be plausible from a technical point of view (with any contentious points justified by the designer)?

Regards,

Greg

[kitflubber]

Planeman, I would love to try a submersible carrier -- is there not a constraint probelm in hull design, that the cross sections must be circular to minimize surface area? One could have a series of circular cross sections intersectig, but I believe the must meet at 120º, if my memory of "Patterns in Nature" serves me.

Quite a challenge! We need Tom Swift's Spectromarine Selector, that repelled only seawater, leaving a perfect sphere in which to perform aircraft maintenance.

[kitflubber]

This is the book I was referring to (Patterns in Nature),  now out of print and very expensive:

http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Nature-Pete...73843095&sr=1-1

[Planeman]

In answer to my own question "how many Yak-141s can you fit into a Typhoon SSBN?", the answer is several.

A Typhoon is almost as wide as a typical light "harrier carrier" (eg Spainisgh PdA) and about 3/4 as long. With the tanks flooded the Typhoon weighs about 4 times as much as the light carrier.

The Typhoon is 23m wide and 12m in draught. The yak is 10m wide, about 6m with the wings folded. And about 5m tall and 18m long.

The pic on the left is a rough cross-section of the Typhoon main hull(s) with a Yak-141 in a circular hanger (pressure vessels tend to be cylindrical).

The pic on the right is a quick sketch of an aircraft carrier sub cross-section.... maybe 5-6 aircraft.

[GTX]

is there not a constraint probelm in hull design, that the cross sections must be circular to minimize surface area?

They don't have to be - just look at the Typhoon SSBN.  What is usually circular in cross section are the pressure vessels (though again, they don't have to be):





Regards,

Greg

[Mossie]

Couple of real world projects to get the juices flowing:


Lockheed UCAV launched from a Submarine, I imagine from the vertical missile tubes. Taken from aeronautics.ru: http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/future/uavs.htm


Avro Silverbug launched from converted sub.  Scanned from Flying Sacuer Aircraft, Rose & Butler.


Avpro Avenger VTOL UCAV, scanned from Key Publishing X-Planes.

These pics invite a few questions.  For ultimate stealth, Lockheeds UCAV would be the key.  Launched from underwater, both the sub & aircaft would be difficult to detect until launch.  But how would you protect an (assumedly) airbreathing aircraft from the effects of the water & how would you recover it?

The Silverbug launch platform would be easier from a design point of view, but the sub would be vulnerable for the period of the launch.  Also the aircraft is manned, sub launches are likely to have a certain increase in risk, if you loose the aircraft, your likely to lose the pilot.

The third pic shows a compact VTOL UCAV.  UCAV's present the lowest risk but again the sub would be vulnerable.  It would also be slightly smaller than a manned platform, giving weight & space savings.  But would there be special considerations for controlling a UCAV from a submerged sub?  You could use a seperate land or surface control staion, but this is then more vulnerable to attack than the sub.

I guess from todays point of view, the ultimate design would be platform capable of launching, controlling & recovering a UCAV while submerged.  But of course the ultimate is always the most difficult & costly.  I guess the furthest compromise would be Planemans Typhoon Carrier, a platform launching manned STOVL (easier to operate but not as desireable as pure VTOL) aircraft while having to surface to do so?

Simon.  

[GTX]

The Lockheed UCAV design goes by the name Cormorant.  More can be seen here (be sure to click on the "View Photos" link)

Regards,

Greg

[cthulhu77]

Take out stock in Evergreen Styrene...I've just seen Kitflubber's design for this one. Yipes.  I need new glasses, and  a safety helmet. Where's the bondo?

[kitflubber]

Here is a very rough idea for a submersible carrier -- the trick Cthulhu77 and I have settled on is partial submersion -- pressure vessel are not really needed, as is about 30 deep. In submerged mode, the conning tower breaks the surface. We have built in a ramp, and the hump this creates in the hull will hold weapons. Greg had the idea of elevators fore and aft, and after the aircraft lands, it is lowered thru the right elevator, towed aft while being refit, and raised through the left elevator. Direction of travel is to the right. Oh, and I stuck on propulsion pods instead of conventional screws and rudder. Planeman's Chinese fighter graces the deck