Oh, lord, they're at it again.Just remember, it's a "submersible aircraft"; not a flying submarine.
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
Flying Sub
Oh, lord, they're at it again.Just remember, it's a "submersible aircraft"; not a flying submarine.
6 comments:
Rules for submitting comments:
1. No profanity. I maintain the pretense that this is a family-friendly site.
2. Stay on topic. A bit of straying and off-hand commenting is okay, but hijacking the discussion is right out.
3. No ad hominem attacks. Attack the subject, not the other person on the thread and keep the discussion civil.
4. No spamming or commercial endorsements. These get deleted immediately.
Tip: Beware of putting hyperlinks in your comments–especially at the end. For some reason, Blogger interprets these as spam.
Note: Due to the recent spate of anonymous spamming, registration for comments is now required.
In 500 years, instead of Nostradamus, there will be tv specials about that amazing visionary; Irwin Allen.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there's a similar military project someplace called "Tick Tock"
All aircraft are submersible, at least once. It's just that business of dredging them back to the surface that gets tricky.
ReplyDeleteC Palmer....
ReplyDeleteI was about to say that it's doable with a single-use vehicle.
An X-15 like vehicle carried by a B-52?
Mission Impossible 4?
If they would just let the water in, half of the challenge would disappear. The plane should get as heavy as possible to sink anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt would be much easier for pilots to put on diving suits then to make the entire fuselage waterproof. And piston engines would be easier to dry after getting soaked, I think.
And how could I forget ?
ReplyDeleteCheck out this
http://www.subpirates.com/viewtopic.php?t=2025
Forget Irwin Allen, Gerry Anderson had the ultimate in land/sea/air/space vehicle back in the early 60's.
ReplyDelete