Would it be technically feasible to built a jet-powered flying boat? Something large enough for a large cabin, along the size lines of a Martin Mars. I would think you would want it capable of landing on both water and land. I am not concerned with the financial feasibility, that is a different topic so please keep that part of the discussion to another thread.

Ever heard of the Russian Be-200?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200

cloudboy wrote:

Would it be technically feasible to built a jet-powered flying boat? Something large enough for a large cabin, along the size lines of a Martin Mars. I would think you would want it capable of landing on both water and land. I am not concerned with the financial feasibility, that is a different topic so please keep that part of the discussion to another thread.

As Wayfarer says, Beriev have already got there first and the Ekranoplan ground effect boats are technically waterborne aircraft.

The biggest issue here is salt water. New generation engines run hot and have exotic alloys in the core. Salt water is corrosive to a lot of these alloys so making a jet powered amphibious aircraft gets a little complicated as there is the need to deal with this, and it won't be easy. There is also the general issue of corrosion on the entire aircraft and making it waterproof will add to the weight, as will pressurisation.

It points to a lot of work being needed to mitigate the problems of operating off water.

How about this one, Convair F2Y Sea Dart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F2Y_Sea_Dart



This was a jet fighter concept for the USN, in the fifties. So yes it is possible to build a jet powered a/c, something as large as an small jetliner, perhaps, but why would you like to?

Ekranoplan technically isn't an airplane, waterborne aircraft is a nice term for it.

Besides the problems of salt water causing corrosion, wouldn't water landing gear make high speed flying problematic? If a flying boat lands on pontoons, wouldn't they cause lots of air resistance. What would be the point of her engines on such an aircraft?

Bring back the Spruce Goose (using modern materials)

Just for fun, Google the Saunders-Rowe SR jet fighter

The Be-200 is on my shopping list for when I'm a billionaire, with the island to go with it.

Aesma wrote:

The Be-200 is on my shopping list for when I'm a billionaire, with the island to go with it.

Ditto. I'm gutted I was too young to remember it being landed in Auckland harbour.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Ever heard of the Russian Be-200?

Beriev had entered those waters (pun intended) far earlier - in the mid-50s to be precise - with the Be-10. A modified example (designated the M-10) had in its time held several world records in its class, including top speed (472.9 knots, http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=3655) and altitude (49,088 ft, http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=3498).

coolian2 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The Be-200 is on my shopping list for when I'm a billionaire, with the island to go with it.

Ditto. I'm gutted I was too young to remember it being landed in Auckland harbour.

I believe it was a Beriev A-40 Albatross that visited Auckland in the 1990s.

The us was flying the Martin Seamaster in the 50s as well. Reportedly did Mach 0.9 on the deck.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Besides the problems of salt water causing corrosion, wouldn't water landing gear make high speed flying problematic? If a flying boat lands on pontoons, wouldn't they cause lots of air resistance. What would be the point of her engines on such an aircraft?

A flying boat never lands on pontoons

Amphibians land on pontoons.

WIederling wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Besides the problems of salt water causing corrosion, wouldn't water landing gear make high speed flying problematic? If a flying boat lands on pontoons, wouldn't they cause lots of air resistance. What would be the point of her engines on such an aircraft?

A flying boat never lands on pontoons

Amphibians land on pontoons.

They do have outrigger pontoons though.

WIederling wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Besides the problems of salt water causing corrosion, wouldn't water landing gear make high speed flying problematic? If a flying boat lands on pontoons, wouldn't they cause lots of air resistance. What would be the point of her engines on such an aircraft?

A flying boat never lands on pontoons

Amphibians land on pontoons.

Actually, only some amphibians are on pontoons. However there are plenty of amphibians that land on their hulls, for instance Albatrosses, later model PBYs, and a number of others.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Ever heard of the Russian Be-200?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200

I did not. I knew about the Ekranoplanes, but my understanding was they were never designed to be flown at altitude. Even the Be-200 looks like it doesn't have much of a service ceiling, why is this?

cloudboy wrote:

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Ever heard of the Russian Be-200?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200

I did not. I knew about the Ekranoplanes, but my understanding was they were never designed to be flown at altitude. Even the Be-200 looks like it doesn't have much of a service ceiling, why is this?

I'm going to go with drag. Big fat drag.

Boat hulls are draggy.

Starlionblue wrote:

cloudboy wrote:

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Ever heard of the Russian Be-200?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200

I did not. I knew about the Ekranoplanes, but my understanding was they were never designed to be flown at altitude. Even the Be-200 looks like it doesn't have much of a service ceiling, why is this?

I'm going to go with drag. Big fat drag.

Boat hulls are draggy.

The Seamaster fixed this with 4 17,000 pound thrust J-75s. The whole "given enough thrust even a brick will fly" hypothesis.

Spacepope wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

cloudboy wrote:

I did not. I knew about the Ekranoplanes, but my understanding was they were never designed to be flown at altitude. Even the Be-200 looks like it doesn't have much of a service ceiling, why is this?

I'm going to go with drag. Big fat drag.

Boat hulls are draggy.

The Seamaster fixed this with 4 17,000 pound thrust J-75s. The whole "given enough thrust even a brick will fly" hypothesis.

True. However our beancounters would like to introduce you to this thing called "specific fuel consumption".

TripleDelta wrote:

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Ever heard of the Russian Be-200?

Beriev had entered those waters (pun intended) far earlier - in the mid-50s to be precise - with the Be-10. A modified example (designated the M-10) had in its time held several world records in its class, including top speed (472.9 knots, http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=3655) and altitude (49,088 ft, http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=3498).

It was so good, it could take off uphill!

loranfair wrote:

WIederling wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Besides the problems of salt water causing corrosion, wouldn't water landing gear make high speed flying problematic? If a flying boat lands on pontoons, wouldn't they cause lots of air resistance. What would be the point of her engines on such an aircraft?

A flying boat never lands on pontoons

Amphibians land on pontoons.

Actually, only some amphibians are on pontoons. However there are plenty of amphibians that land on their hulls, for instance Albatrosses, later model PBYs, and a number of others.

To be clear:
Flying boats use their fuselage for primary flotation. The fuselage is a boat.
Seaplanes float of pontoons
Amphibians can be either sea planes (e.g.Cessna Caravan or Twin Otter) or flying boats (PBY-A Catalinas , CL-215, Beriev B200)

It's certainly feasible! I guess the #1 example I can give is the Martin SeaMaster. It was a test nuclear bomber/seaplane that was scrapped because of some big technical and electrical problems. Pretty neat idea, however. I do wonder, however, why you ask this question?

cloudboy wrote:

I did not. I knew about the Ekranoplanes, but my understanding was they were never designed to be flown at altitude. Even the Be-200 looks like it doesn't have much of a service ceiling, why is this?

8.000 m service ceiling according to Wikipedia. My guess is that the designers considered 8.000 m enough for fire fighting, search and rescue and maritime patrol.

FrmrKSEngr wrote:

To be clear:
Flying boats use their fuselage for primary flotation. The fuselage is a boat.
Seaplanes float of pontoons
Amphibians can be either sea planes (e.g.Cessna Caravan or Twin Otter) or flying boats (PBY-A Catalinas , CL-215, Beriev B200)

I agree with your definitions but I'm struggling to place the Grumman Duck.

kurtverbose wrote:

FrmrKSEngr wrote:

To be clear:
Flying boats use their fuselage for primary flotation. The fuselage is a boat.
Seaplanes float of pontoons
Amphibians can be either sea planes (e.g.Cessna Caravan or Twin Otter) or flying boats (PBY-A Catalinas , CL-215, Beriev B200)

I agree with your definitions but I'm struggling to place the Grumman Duck.

Floatplane. The float is a distinct added design element.

"flying boat" has the float function integral to the fuselage structure.

IMHO and all that jazz:
The Flying Glog ( BF138 ) still is a flying boat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_138
while the Mitsubishi F1M is a floatplane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F1M

Bostrom wrote:

cloudboy wrote:

I did not. I knew about the Ekranoplanes, but my understanding was they were never designed to be flown at altitude. Even the Be-200 looks like it doesn't have much of a service ceiling, why is this?

8.000 m service ceiling according to Wikipedia. My guess is that the designers considered 8.000 m enough for fire fighting, search and rescue and maritime patrol.

It's because they're designed to be flown in "ground effect", i.e. when you're low enough that the high pressure you create under the wing has something solid the other side to push against. Like flying wing passenger aircraft, always interesting, big theoretical advantages, always the next big thing. Until the next big thing shows up.

scbriml wrote:

TripleDelta wrote:

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Ever heard of the Russian Be-200?

Beriev had entered those waters (pun intended) far earlier - in the mid-50s to be precise - with the Be-10. A modified example (designated the M-10) had in its time held several world records in its class, including top speed (472.9 knots, http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=3655) and altitude (49,088 ft, http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=3498).

It was so good, it could take off uphill!

Well of course...you take off and land INTO the current..........................