[PSUBS-MAILIST] Flying submarines

[CWall@swri.edu]

Michael, I suspect the one you described as from the father-and-son team is the
 same one the jr. high kids originated.

In my experience (and as I recall) , the way these things normally go is that
the teacher gets a bug and talks to the kids, and then it becomes "their" idea
(and basically an excuse for the teacher to spend time and money in the
interests of an educational project).   I think there was some further
development when the parents put a stop to the notion of their kids being
strapped to the thing, and at that point the teacher and one of the kids (who
happened to be his son) continued development alone. Big surprize.

Sure it flew well- it was basically your generic ragwing two-seater, and
nothing particularly remarkable. Anyone that had a healthy interest in flying
model airplanes could pull that off.  And the folding wings are the same-
anyone with a nodding acquaintance with typical homebuilt aircraft know how to
make folding wings, although they were MANUALLY folded, and not likely to be
something you could do in a practical sense at that stage of development. (You
can't have someone holding the weight of the wing at the tip, because they'd be
 walking on water.)  Powered wing folding and unfolding is not trivial.

I think the teacher and his son tried to interest the military, and perhaps it
was their second iteration I saw that had the military connection- it may not
have been a military project I'm remembering, but their version they
demonstrated for the military, IOWs.  It may have gone further; I don't know
and I could certainly have missed some news releases or articles.

Really, the only value I can see is as a concealable aircraft for commandos,
and that's not a bad thing to have. But a submarine?  Not really. Just a
submersible parking option.


Incidently, you can forget little jet engines for lowspeed aircraft, unless you
 mean turboprop. Pure jets are a truely miserable waste of energy unless you
can attain cruise speeds that approach a reasonable fraction of the exhaust
velocity.

Meanwhile, a Rogallo, while it has a better L/D than a powered parachute, is
also a miserable thing to stow.   A practical flying submarine is more likely
to be built with a parafoil wing, for obvious reasons....but flying to the site
 and landing and stowing the chute is one thing....trying to deploy and inflate
 a wet wad of fabric is another.  The only way I can see to do it is to not use
 ram air inflation, but to use a closed and pressurize version, similar to the
one made by Jim Bede. (But his was filled with helium.)

I think we're talking about the same "Flying Submarine"- the magazine articles
came out over a roughly 5 year period- but it was just another "bright idea"
that was more enthusiasm than intellect. (It never fails to amaze me that
people rarely ask themselves the obvious question: "How come no one ever
thought of this before?"   Then they go busting straight ahead and build a
mediocre device and start looking for money from investors.....)  It was pretty
 ill-conceived, IMO.

Craig Wall