Comments on: Submersible airplane, another DARPA 'must have'

DARPA is soliciting concept proposals for a submersible aircraft.

[Jack K1]

Somebody has been watching way too many Saturday morning cartoons.

[sythara]

This is actually an old Soviet design that never fully got off the ground.

[k2dave]

Is the point of this a plane that can hide underwater, or a sub that can quickly be deployed around the world? It would seem that the design for one would be vastly different then the other.

[Kev_Orng]

They're going at this from the wrong angle. They shouldn't be going for a swimming plane, they should be going for a flying sub. Now THAT's a bit more do-able.

[MacUser-4-ever]

I'm wondering what the possible mission objective could be for such a vehicle. They aren't requiring stealth capability, so as soon as the plane takes flight, it's going to show up on radar. That rules out the idea of a covert operation. A surprise attack would make much more sense by sending a plane that wouldn't be as detectable to begin with. A crew of 8? What's that about?

[mbrito666]

Ah.... I think Angelina Jollie already has experiance flying this plane.. put her eye patch back on and re-enstate her commision.. snicker!!!

[RequiemDogma]

Stealth can be achieved through shape and construction material as much as scramblers and other technology.

A vehicle of this type would allow more options when it came to subverting enemy defenses such as mine fields or Coastal AA batteries. Crew of 8? Pilot & Co, Pointman, Six, Rearguard, Assaultman x2, and a Specialist or vehicle tech... if you're thinking an ops team.

[billmosby]

I seem to recall a submersible airplane design concept "surfacing" in the 60s. Had a flying boat hull on it.

On a related note, I once worked at a site that decades before had hosted both nuclear powered submarine and nuclear powered airplane programs. As the airplane design became heavier and ever more unmanageable, a sign appeared at its contractor's facility that said "we'll have our plane in the ocean before they get their submarine off the ground".

Sounds kind of like what's gonna happen with this project.

[gjkezski]

For a power source, how about a rocket type? Hydrogen-Oxygen fuel rocket for flight to convert to an electric fuel cell for underwater use. For flight use a modified pulse-jet [used in the WW2 V-1 missile] to get up to flight speed then go into a dive to get the speed up to the point where you can lock the pulse vanes in the open mode to convert it to a ram-jet [which is THE most fuel efficient air-breathing aircraft engine] mode. Fuselage style could be one of the various flying wing designs that have been floating around for decades. Your basic flying wing would probably be quite efficient underwater, I have seen pictures of prototype submarines that had similar profiles. Put the flight engine up above the tail as the V-1's was & use a intake similar to the one used on the Harrier VTOL exhaust so as to be able to turn it to face upwards to minimize the chance of ingesting water. Build clamshell covers on both ends of the engine to seal it for underwater mode.

Hey DARPA! How about something for the poor Jarheads? How about a submersible Landing craft? One capable of being loaded over the horizon, enough range submerged to travel 50 miles underwater & able to travel on land at least 100 miles to give fire support. Give it a couple of large breech-loading mortars & a couple of large-caliber direct-fire artillery pieces for immediate protection. Do not say you can't put artillery pieces on a submarine, look up a WW2 french sub named the Surcouf[sp], it mounted a twin 8" gun turret if I remember correctly.. I'm sure the diesel-electric technology has improved enough since then to make this possible.

[nebula777]

Its time to UFO USO fly again

The completion of the Blue Ridge Nebula Spacelines pilot/astronaut training manual, as composed by Dr. Doug Haynes, represents the second to last step in our companys outlined AST/FAA RLV Spaceline application process. As the winter cold finally melts into the warmer breezes of spring it?s time to begin our 2009 Haynes Saucer test flight program along with public demonstration flights.


The Haynes Saucer is the only X-X-Prize competing vehicle which has the capability of flying into space, reentering the atmosphere, and submerging deeply beneath the water as a submersible aircraft.

All within one flight cycle as demonstrated on our You Tube channel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKT5mJEKX7g&feature=channel_page

This years flight testing program will focus on our occupant safety ejection bubble pod features, which can be activated in space ( called bubble space jumping), during decent ( called atmosphere bubble jumping) or while deployed underwater ( called scuba-diving jumping).










The worlds first Spacelines management team is also preparing to host the first of three Colorado 2009 ED Youth Googol Lunar competitions this month, as posted at www.blueridgeairlines.com . This is our way of helping to keep your children first in the fields of science, math and engineering during the 21st century. Feel free to stop by and see aeronautical history unfolding in Denver or tune in at our internet based sites, which also includes www.bluenebula.com.

Thank you and as always God bless you all

[MITEngr]

I seldom reply to posts, but this one is very troubling. As my friends say, "This dog don't hunt." It is a perfect example of why everyone should be critical of the informatione they find on the Internet.

IMHO this "Blue Ridge Spacelines/Airlines" story doesn't even qualify as bad science fiction. If you care and have time to waste, examine the web site(s), watch the "videos," and try to make sense of it all. By any reasonable standard the site is substandard and contains make-believe "Doctored" videos (very poorly doctored, I must add), flawed science, baseless claims, nothing of substance, poor prose, misspellings, .... the list is substantial. The whole effort reminds me of "mom and pop" ventures run out of home garages and back yards.

What is Dr. Haynes' true technical area of expertise? Does he hold a bona fide technical PhD or DSc from an accredited college or university, or is he a "self accredited expert?" What qualifies him to claim the title of Astronaut?

If you have read this far you should be asking yourself, "Why should I trust this guy's opinion instead of Dr. Haynes'?" If you are, good for you.

What follows is not for my personal aggrandizement. It is an attempt to provide credence to my opinions.
1) Formal education: two advanced engineering degrees from MIT (yes, the MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts).
2) Work history: 35+ years of "hands-on" subsea, aeronautical and aerospace engineering, including operations (US Navy, NASA, US Private Sector).
3) Real astronauts:
- I am not one.
- I have the honor of having working for NASA Astronaut Eugene Cernan, CAPT, USN (Ret), Gemini and Apollo Programs, Commander of Apollo 17, and "the Last Man to Walk on the Moon" (the title of his book).
- Personal friends who are NASA Astronauts
4) Areas of technical expertise:
- US Navy submarine (nuclear and non-nuclear) operation, design, construction, upgrades
- NASA flight hardware deveopment for Shuttle Orbiters and International Space Station
- NASA and ESA Astronaut EVA training
- Support of concept designs for Europa (Jupiter moon) and Titan (Saturn moon) exploration platforms
- Manned and unmanned deep submersible development (depths >1000 msw) per US Navy and internationally recognized standards
5) Personal:
- Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour
- All I hold of value belongs to God - I am his servant and steward
- May God Bless you, your family and friends, and may God continue to Bless America!

I am not starting a "blog war" nor will I engage in futile word battles.

Dr Haynes or his firm are welcome refute my opinions - but should do so with verifiable facts.