Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added the H-4 Hercules to flying boats (notable for its sheer size) and mentioned racing seaplanes and their influence in aircraft design in the 1930s
Changed line(s) 23,24 (click to see context) from:
* The first type are known as [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_boat flying boats]] which have a hull that allows them to land on water but [[NecessaryDrawback usually precludes them attempting to land on dry ground]], though some of them do have landing gear to land on ground; examples of this are the Imperial Japanese [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_H6K H6K]], American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina PBY Catalina]], or British [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sunderland Short Sunderland]].
* The second type is a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatplane floatplane]], basically a plane with floats to land on water. The German [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_196 Arado Ar 196]] and American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_OS2U_Kingfisher OS2U Kingfisher]] are examples of floatplanes.
* The second type is a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatplane floatplane]], basically a plane with floats to land on water. The German [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_196 Arado Ar 196]] and American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_OS2U_Kingfisher OS2U Kingfisher]] are examples of floatplanes.
to:
* The first type are known as [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_boat flying boats]] which have a hull that allows them to land on water but [[NecessaryDrawback usually precludes them attempting to land on dry ground]], though some of them do have landing gear to land on ground; examples of this are the Imperial Japanese [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_H6K H6K]], American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina PBY Catalina]], or British [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sunderland Short Sunderland]].
Sunderland]]. One of the largest aircraft to have ever flown (even if for only 26 seconds) was [[Creator/HowardHughes Howard Hughes']] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules Hughes H-4 Hercules]], intended as an aerial answer to German U-boats inflicting losses on Allied shipping during the Second World War.
* The second type is a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatplane floatplane]], basically a plane with floats to land on water. The German [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_196 Arado Ar 196]] and American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_OS2U_Kingfisher OS2U Kingfisher]] are examples of floatplanes. From 1927 to 1934, due to their prevalence in air racing, a series of seaplanes built by Italian and British manufacturers traded the worldwide air speed records at the time. One of these, the Supermarine S.6B, would directly inspire Supermarine's legendary World War II fighter, the Spitfire.
* The second type is a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatplane floatplane]], basically a plane with floats to land on water. The German [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_196 Arado Ar 196]] and American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_OS2U_Kingfisher OS2U Kingfisher]] are examples of floatplanes. From 1927 to 1934, due to their prevalence in air racing, a series of seaplanes built by Italian and British manufacturers traded the worldwide air speed records at the time. One of these, the Supermarine S.6B, would directly inspire Supermarine's legendary World War II fighter, the Spitfire.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14,15 (click to see context) from:
You're in luck! Those are actually real.
to:
You're in luck! Those Tanks that float on water are actually real.
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
Here the problem is threefold - speed, mass and propulsion.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
That being said, however, amphibious planes as in ''can land or take off from water'' are real, and there are two types:
to:
That being said, however, amphibious planes as in ''can "planes that can land or take off from water'' are water" ''are'' real, and there are two types:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
That being said, however, amphibious planes as in ''can land or take off from water'' are real, and there are two types:
* The first type are known as [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_boat flying boats]] which have a hull that allows them to land on water but [[NecessaryDrawback usually precludes them attempting to land on dry ground]], though some of them do have landing gear to land on ground; examples of this are the Imperial Japanese [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_H6K H6K]], American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina PBY Catalina]], or British [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sunderland Short Sunderland]].
* The second type is a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatplane floatplane]], basically a plane with floats to land on water. The German [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_196 Arado Ar 196]] and American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_OS2U_Kingfisher OS2U Kingfisher]] are examples of floatplanes.
* The first type are known as [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_boat flying boats]] which have a hull that allows them to land on water but [[NecessaryDrawback usually precludes them attempting to land on dry ground]], though some of them do have landing gear to land on ground; examples of this are the Imperial Japanese [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_H6K H6K]], American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina PBY Catalina]], or British [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sunderland Short Sunderland]].
* The second type is a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatplane floatplane]], basically a plane with floats to land on water. The German [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_196 Arado Ar 196]] and American [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_OS2U_Kingfisher OS2U Kingfisher]] are examples of floatplanes.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
The main two issues here is mass and size.
to:
The main two issues here is are mass and size.
Changed line(s) 9,10 (click to see context) from:
!!Sumbersible carrier
Leaving aside the difficulty the plane would have returning to its mothership, and the problem of waterproofing the airplanes (and their jet engines), an aircraft carrier is the exact opposite of hydrodynamic, meaning it would move slower and require greater amount of power to push it through the water than its non-aircraft carrying colleagues, necessiting larger power plants. Larger power plants mean far greater noise and heat generation, which increases the sub's visibility - and the entire point of making something submersible is to make it as close to invisible as you can.
Leaving aside the difficulty the plane would have returning to its mothership, and the problem of waterproofing the airplanes (and their jet engines), an aircraft carrier is the exact opposite of hydrodynamic, meaning it would move slower and require greater amount of power to push it through the water than its non-aircraft carrying colleagues, necessiting larger power plants. Larger power plants mean far greater noise and heat generation, which increases the sub's visibility - and the entire point of making something submersible is to make it as close to invisible as you can.
to:
Leaving aside the difficulty the plane would have returning to its mothership, and the problem of waterproofing the airplanes (and their jet engines), an aircraft carrier is the exact opposite of hydrodynamic, meaning it would move slower and require greater amount of power to push it through the water than its non-aircraft carrying colleagues,
Added DiffLines:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
to:
**That being said, UsefulNotes/ImperialJapan during World War II ''did'' build submersible aircraft carriers- the largest non-nuclear submarines ever built, in fact- the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine I-400 class submarines]], which can carry three Aichi [=M6A=] special-purpose floatplanes capable of carrying a single Type 91 aerial torpedo or up to 850kg of bombs. These were intended to destroy the locks of the Panama Canal, but the subs surrendered on their way there in 1945 due to Japan having done the same back home. However, the aforementioned drawbacks are still present- these things were ''huge'' [[note]] to the point that when one surrendered to an American destroyer ''USS Blue'', the crew of the latter basically went "holy crap, look at the size of that thing!" [[/note]] for a sub and can only carry three aircraft.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
Leaving aside the difficulty the plain would have returning to its mothership, and the problem of waterproofing the airplanes (and their jet engines), an aircraft carrier is the exact opposite of hydrodynamic, meaning it would move slower and require greater amount of power to move it through the water, necessiting larger power plants. Larger power plants mean far greater noise and heat generation, which increases the sub's visibility - and the entire point of making something submersible is to make it as close to invisible as you can.
to:
Leaving aside the difficulty the plain plane would have returning to its mothership, and the problem of waterproofing the airplanes (and their jet engines), an aircraft carrier is the exact opposite of hydrodynamic, meaning it would move slower and require greater amount of power to move push it through the water, water than its non-aircraft carrying colleagues, necessiting larger power plants. Larger power plants mean far greater noise and heat generation, which increases the sub's visibility - and the entire point of making something submersible is to make it as close to invisible as you can.can.
!!Amphibious Tanks
You're in luck! Those are actually real.
!!Amphibious Airplanes
Here the problem is threefold - speed, mass and propulsion.
* '''Speed''': The chief enemy of a plane attempting to go underwater is speed. At speeds high enough for the plane's wings to lift it, meeting with the surface of the sea would be roughly equivalent to colliding with a concrete wall, and while the plane's aerodynamic shape could carry the main body into the water, the wings would be essentially torn off.
* '''Mass''': Planes are generally built to be light - otherwise, they wouldn't be able to lift off the ground. Unfortunately, that also means they are not particularly inclined to go ''down'' (luckily), so if you managed to get your plane underwater, it would pop back to the surface due to being too light to sink (assuming the plane is waterproof, that is). And if it didn't, the light mass doesn't make the plane particularly tough - the water pressure alone would crush it at even shallow depths.
* '''Propulsion''': To put it shortly, jet engines don't work underwater, and neither do aircraft propellers.
!!Flying X
Ultimately, it all comes down to mass and aerodynamics. Land and sea vehicles aren't aerodynamic, and their mass is measured in tonnes, or even thousands of tonnes, which means they will be unable to cast off the chains of gravity in the first place.
------------
!!Amphibious Tanks
You're in luck! Those are actually real.
!!Amphibious Airplanes
Here the problem is threefold - speed, mass and propulsion.
* '''Speed''': The chief enemy of a plane attempting to go underwater is speed. At speeds high enough for the plane's wings to lift it, meeting with the surface of the sea would be roughly equivalent to colliding with a concrete wall, and while the plane's aerodynamic shape could carry the main body into the water, the wings would be essentially torn off.
* '''Mass''': Planes are generally built to be light - otherwise, they wouldn't be able to lift off the ground. Unfortunately, that also means they are not particularly inclined to go ''down'' (luckily), so if you managed to get your plane underwater, it would pop back to the surface due to being too light to sink (assuming the plane is waterproof, that is). And if it didn't, the light mass doesn't make the plane particularly tough - the water pressure alone would crush it at even shallow depths.
* '''Propulsion''': To put it shortly, jet engines don't work underwater, and neither do aircraft propellers.
!!Flying X
Ultimately, it all comes down to mass and aerodynamics. Land and sea vehicles aren't aerodynamic, and their mass is measured in tonnes, or even thousands of tonnes, which means they will be unable to cast off the chains of gravity in the first place.
------------
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
The chief problem here is that an airplane launched from such a carrier would be pretty much unable to return to the ship - the current aircraft carriers have the smallest possible runways, and even then landing on them is more of a controllable crash than it is a safe landing. Additionally, keeping the machines waterproof is extremely problematic, as the machines are either kept outside or behind a courtain door - and the RealLife section of the main page can explain to you how ''this'' went down.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
!!
to:
!!Sumbersible carrier
The chief problem here is that an airplane launched from such a carrier would be pretty much unable to return to the ship - the current aircraft carriers have the smallest possible runways, and even then landing on them is more of a controllable crash than it is a safe landing. Additionally, keeping the machines waterproof is extremely problematic, as the machines are either kept outside or behind a courtain door - and the RealLife section of the main page can explain to you how ''this'' went down.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
!WhyWeCantHaveNiceThings
So, why won't those wonderful mash-up machines work?
!!Land Battleship and other giant land vehicles
The main two issues here is mass and size.
* '''Mass''': Any wehicle that big will, quite simply, sink into the ground it stands on - and if that ground happens to be muddy or swampy, good luck trying to get it out. That is, if it will even move at all - the engine required to move something this huge would probably take up most of the vehicle, move it slowly, and, unless its world has some exotic power source, consume truly horrifying amounts of fuel.
* '''Size''': Imagine taking a megatank through a mountain pass. It'd be a horror - such a vehicle would be too wide to fit on a road, and too heavy to climb the incline[[note]]Real-life vehicles of comparable mass - trains - "climb" mountains by being pulled by a chain going between the rails underneath them, powered by an external engine[[/note]]. And you don't even need a mountain. The mighty vehicle of mass destruction would get stuck trying to climb a hill the moment it leaves the plains most such machines tend to dwell on.
!!
So, why won't those wonderful mash-up machines work?
!!Land Battleship and other giant land vehicles
The main two issues here is mass and size.
* '''Mass''': Any wehicle that big will, quite simply, sink into the ground it stands on - and if that ground happens to be muddy or swampy, good luck trying to get it out. That is, if it will even move at all - the engine required to move something this huge would probably take up most of the vehicle, move it slowly, and, unless its world has some exotic power source, consume truly horrifying amounts of fuel.
* '''Size''': Imagine taking a megatank through a mountain pass. It'd be a horror - such a vehicle would be too wide to fit on a road, and too heavy to climb the incline[[note]]Real-life vehicles of comparable mass - trains - "climb" mountains by being pulled by a chain going between the rails underneath them, powered by an external engine[[/note]]. And you don't even need a mountain. The mighty vehicle of mass destruction would get stuck trying to climb a hill the moment it leaves the plains most such machines tend to dwell on.
!!
