will it take off?

[RobS]

This isn't going to develop into a salt-water/fresh-water issue is it? How about the affects of suspended particulates in the water? Abrasion on the hulls eventually leading to complete failure of the floats?

So many variables, so little time...

 

[Iplayfarmer]

This isn't going to develop into a salt-water/fresh-water issue is it? How about the affects of suspended particulates in the water? Abrasion on the hulls eventually leading to complete failure of the floats?

So many variables, so little time...

Well if we are going to complicate things (and get this thread over a thousand posts) we'll have to introduce a discussion of ground affect and how the moving water underneath the plane will increase the ground affect.

 

[patrick_g]

Well if we are going to complicate things (and get this thread over a thousand posts) we'll have to introduce a discussion of ground affect and how the moving water underneath the plane will increase the ground affect.

Just how will the moving water increase the ground effect? Ground effect is mostly a function of the span, chord, height above surface, and air speed of the relative wind. There is little or no wind speed as the coupling between the moving water and the air above it is slight. The higher you go above the water-air interface the less the effect on wind speed. Virtually all float planes and flying boats are high wing which maximizes the distance above the water for the wing and minimizes the effect, in this case, of moving air and any ground effect.

Sorry, no Pantella.

Pat

 

[turnkey4099]

Silly me, I assumed you wouldn't want to startle the fish any more, the ones that weren't run through the magic prop and were already nearly at max nervousness. So you just drop, or lower the anchor. Of course if you toss it out in a parabolic trajectory starting with a finite upward vertical component there will be an oscillation of the level of the pond but the central tendency will be as I previously described and of course the final result will not change assuming the anchor ends up in the water.

I overlooked the case where the anchor is tossed onto the shore and that will result in the water going down even more by the volume of water that the anchor would have displaced had it gone into the water.

Pat

Nope. The water will go down by the amount of water needed to -equal the weight (mass) of the anchor-. That is more than the amount of water it would displace. Assuming of course that the anchor is heavier than water.

Harry K

 

[patrick_g]

Nope. The water will go down by the amount of water needed to -equal the weight (mass) of the anchor-. That is more than the amount of water it will displace. Assuming the usual, anchor is heavier than water, it isn't spread out so thin surface tension will hold it up, gravity isn't repealed in that very small patch, volcano doesn't suddenly blow a blast of water straight up...

Will we reach 1,000? Stay tuned.

Harry K

Good call Harry, I let my fingers outrun my brain, again and that doesn't mean my fingers are fast!

What you said is what I meant, I think... probably.

I'm distracted... my monitor had a horizontal oscillator failure and all I had was a vertical line in the middle of the screen so I ripped off my wife's monitor. I have to pan around as my whole desktop is larger than here display space. The viewing area thingy isn't the "excuse: for my misspeaking, it is my overwrought mental state at having to research a bunch of sellers and picking a monitor. I think there are too many choices!

Maybe I could trow my monitor in the pond and see what the level did. No, I guess not.. Eddie isn't into polution either.

Pat

 

[RobJ]

Magic pond water? Yall still here? :d

Ok that's 966.

 

[Egon]

The water goes down, the water goes up, there is mass, there is volume, even a tidal effect should be taken into account, the wind may be blowing and there may be an effect from barometric pressure. And while all this is happening an unseen beaver has swam underwater across the pond and exited on the other side for dinner!

Worst of all maybe Eddies had enough and broken out the 12 bore!

 

[patrick_g]

Magic pond water? Yall still here? :d

Ok that's 966.

I don't think we need magic water. Standard water will hold up to the low speeds required to make enough drag to counter the thrust of any production recip seaplane.

The Lake Amphibian is a geared down 3 blade pusher optimized for low speed power to make safe takeoffs and is not a speed demon by any stretch of the imagination. It isn't the most fuel efficient because of that. On a trip from San Diego to the Bahamas to go cove hopping with scuba gear it had to be set down frequently for fuel.

Pat

 

[tallyho8]

It might not be the beaver that Eddie wants to take out.

 

[Egon]

Yep, right on.

 

[RobS]

Worst of all maybe Eddies had enough and broken out the 12 bore!

You say Eddie's bored of this thread for the 12th time?

 

[Egon]

Nope!

 

[Iplayfarmer]

Just how will the moving water increase the ground effect? Ground effect is mostly a function of the span, chord, height above surface, and air speed of the relative wind. There is little or no wind speed as the coupling between the moving water and the air above it is slight. The higher you go above the water-air interface the less the effect on wind speed. Virtually all float planes and flying boats are high wing which maximizes the distance above the water for the wing and minimizes the effect, in this case, of moving air and any ground effect.

Sorry, no Pantella.

Pat

I had to read up a bit on ground effect again to re-familiarize myself with it's causes. Originally I thought that it had something to do with the relative density of the air close to the ground. I had figured that the turbulance of the water under the plane would encourage more dissipation of the water, a more humid atmosphere immediately above the surface, and consequently a more dense air than normal.

Upon re-reading the Wikipedia article about Ground effect I now realize that the effect is more a result of the proximity of a hard surface (the ground) interfering with the vortices that are caused at the trailing edges of the wings and reducing drag.

So... Ground effect will only come into play if the plane is overloaded, at which point the plane will take off due to ground effect and then stall crashing into Eddie's lake truly scaring whatever fish haven't been liquified by the magic impeller causing the backwards current.

 

[patrick_g]

I had to read up a bit on ground effect again

So... Ground effect will only come into play if the plane is overloaded, at which point the plane will take off due to ground effect and then stall crashing into Eddie's lake truly scaring whatever fish haven't been liquified by the magic impeller causing the backwards current.

I think you need to read it again. You were doing pretty much OK till you said the part I left quoted above.

Ground effect DOES NOT require the aircraft to be overloaded before it happens. Ground effect will, in fact, reduce the likelihood of a stall, provided you don't mind flying along within a couple wingspans of the ground. Ground effect so reduces drag and enhances lift that the near stall that is induced to make a good power off landing is prevented and instead of settling in nicely the plane (catches a balloon) just floats down the runway as if being held aloft by a tractor beam (not related to THAT kind of tractor.)

One of the dangerous down sides of ground effect is that it will tend to "trap" an overloaded aircraft at takeoff at a low altitude (within a couple wingspans of the ground) by providing extra lift and reduced drag ONLY when the A/C is close to the ground. The unlucky pilot of the overloaded plane can't get above ground effect, not because it holds him back or down but because it is what got him up there and without more lift than the pane can muster in "free air" the extra weight can't be lifted.

There is nothing wrong with using ground effect for beneficial purposes so long as you don't let it get you into trouble. The Russians have huge ground effect cargo carriers that operate like an aircraft but can't get above ground effect. They are very efficient but fly quite low. There are also recreational flying boats that don't get out of ground effect and do not require a pilots lisc.

Ground effect is interesting but NOT INVOLVED in our amphibious plane vs the retarding current experiment since in order to be in ground effect you need to be airborne and that requires sufficient airspeed to lift off which is not provided by the water current.

I do second your comment re the fish and in their behalf I suggest a weir would be needed to keep the fish out of the intake zone of the impeller. Since the inrush current is much more diffuse than the output current the weir (fish protective strainer) will not have to be very far from the impeller making it easier to construct, position, and pay for.

Pat

 

[turnkey4099]

Good call Harry, I let my fingers outrun my brain, again and that doesn't mean my fingers are fast!

What you said is what I meant, I think... probably.

I'm distracted... my monitor had a horizontal oscillator failure and all I had was a vertical line in the middle of the screen so I ripped off my wife's monitor. I have to pan around as my whole desktop is larger than here display space. The viewing area thingy isn't the "excuse: for my misspeaking, it is my overwrought mental state at having to research a bunch of sellers and picking a monitor. I think there are too many choices!

Maybe I could trow my monitor in the pond and see what the level did. No, I guess not.. Eddie isn't into polution either.

Pat

Well, it would have better had my fingers and brain not disconnected. Note that beginning with "assuming" I somehow have the anchor hitting the water again.

967 and counting, who is going to make the 1,000? No cheating now!

And another edit to make that 967 (memo to self, read before sending)

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

Well, it would have better had my fingers and brain not disconnected. Note that beginning with "assuming" I somehow have the anchor hitting the water again.

967 and counting, who is going to make the 1,000? No cheating now!

And another edit to make that 967 (memo to self, read before sending)

Harry K

Well ****. 976...976...976 Talk about fast fingers and not reading!

Harry K

 

[RobS]

Let's see... Magic conveyors, fans, turntables. Planes, helicopters. Runways, waterways. Wheels, floats. All sorts of fun. 978?

 

[tallyho8]

Maybe Eddie hasn't chimed in yet because he doesn't want to see his thread get outdone.

979, but who's counting

 

[Egon]

Ground effect sturgeon fishing platform [Sea Monster] as seen on the Caspian sea.