Submersible aircraft design alternate history discussion gas national average 2013


A liquid by definition doesn’t compress much, and therefore doesn’t expand much, and therefore any chemical reactions you can manage to arrange for in water (which is scanty of free oxygen compared to the air anyway) would be pretty futile, unless you can release so much heat you actually flash the water into gas (or plasma!) that expands anyway despite the pressure at some depth. But such reactions, if we can imagine some way of achieving them electricity word search answer key (bombard the water with high-energy fission or fusion product particles? Carry pure sodium as fuel? Black magic?) would make one noisy, spectacular process and probably be inefficient as hell too. So a jet in the sense of actually using the fluid as a part of the source of the energy-producing reaction, which is what an atmospheric turbojet does, is silly in water.

If the desired speed is just 5 knots, I suppose that electricity and magnetism study guide batteries supplying electricity to the turbojet’s starter motor can make the compressors of the jet engine into a sort of pumpjet, if you can bypass the turbine and decouple it mechanically to minimize drag. Now you’ve got seawater running right through ducts meant for hypersonic, heated airflow; it’s hard to believe the same duct and blade shapes can serve well for hot gas x user reviews supersonic air and cold salty water flowing at 3 meters per second or so, but maybe a very clever fluid dynamicist can figure that part out. And a good materials science team can figure out how to employ materials that survive and serve well in both environments. And can take the insane thermal transition from the white heat of a jet combustion chamber to the near-freezing temperature of sea water in just a half second or so without bursting, then clear all that salty water out of the entire duct so the turbojet engine can start again without say being thrown centrifugally out of whack by clinging seawater droplets, suffering corrosion, jamming by bits of seaweed and krill and whatnot…

A somewhat less clever electricity and circuits physics but more overall competent fluid dynamicist, or any sort of expert whatsoever, seeing this design, would blanch in horror and (assuming there is some good reason to want a craft with this combination of capabilities!) come back with designs that firmly shut the jet pods to all water flow gas 0095; probably one would reject the usual modern practice of external jets and instead revert to a more British 1940s/50s approach of embedding the jet engines in the wings or fuselage, so that when their intakes and exhausts are sealed shut they don’t leave a hydrodynamic exterior trace.

Convair had a general interest in seaplanes that gaston yla agrupacion santa fe could serve as high-performance warplanes as well in the 40s and 50s. They designed (and actually flew a few prototypes of) a delta-winged jet fighter seaplane that was supposed to be supersonic (and might have been, if the engines it was designed for had been available–also had the project continued doubtless it would have been redesigned for the Whitcomb Area Rule as the concurrent landplane F-102 was) and power energy definition took off and landed using a retractable hydroplane–basically a water ski. I can’t see the OP illustrations as I write but I think one shows such a ski; if not there, see the extra pics Asnys offered. There too you can see that each illustration is for a different plane! The one on the left there, showing the thing submerged, looks most like what a realistic approach would look like.

Note that except for that one, most have pretty traditional flying boat hull bottoms, and that is a major source of drag both in the air and submerged. Drag is not only costly of power and hence slows the thing down and reduces submerged range, it also would tend to make the craft noisier at any speed. Since the only tgas advisors company profile use I can imagine for submerging an airplane is to hide it for strategic reasons, noise very much defeats the purpose!

So if I were to design such a thing, I’d start with making the hull a good streamlined shape. At speeds well below sonic speed, the fluid dynamics of air are pretty similar to those of water so the same fuselage shape should serve well, at least until one gets up to speeds close to sound. The only thing wrong with the submerged picture Asnys pointed to is that the nose is pointed–good, indeed probably necessary, if it is supersonic, but otherwise not a good idea; a pointed nose is not ideal in the realm of moderate-speed, incompressible flow gas after eating meat, and probably a source of noise. But at least that illustration shows a fuselage with some serious address of issues of pressure, such as minimal windows electricity projects for high school students, and no visible air intake ducts–presumably they are sealed.

Then, to prevent having to make a flying-boat style underbody, I’d rely on retractable submerged hydro foils for takeoff and landing; they’d lift the hull clear of the water completely during takeoff runs. Such an approach might allow very high takeoff speeds, which would in turn allow a smaller wing hence less parasitic drag from it while submerged.