Randy Smith wrote:
>
> Anyway, catagorize this along with
>
> "flaircraft" that "fly" with weird wings that push against high pressure
> squeezed between them and the ground a few feet below. Make it big enough
> and it can transport a lot passingers in comfort.
The Soviets have a real deep history with these ground effect vehicles.
THey look like seaplanes with stub wings.
>
> passenger and cargo submarines that go fast and save fuel because they are
> under the surface turbulence.
Sorry, the excessive surface area of subs versus ships precludes fuel
savings. Surface ships will always go faster for a given amount of fuel.
>
> Giant planes with giant clear bubble domes on top and swimming pools.
There isn't anything theoretically wrong with such concepts, its just
that airports aren't big enough for such planes, so you'd need an all
new infrastructure to deal with giant planes. The Boeing 777, 747, the
Lockheed C-5, and Tupolev transports are about as big as planes can get
without destroying the runways they use. The cost of building bigger
airports mitigates savings from economies of scale in such planes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT