The end result I think makes up for it, twin propeller supersonic V
Thank you for having followed, and for your continued interest in BCS
A few days later I came back to this post with the following considerations, if air channels are meant to channel wind on top of the boat, do we have the same function below, to channel water, or do we in fact scoop water for the propeller chamber
Which water dynamics role is it, do we allow water to passively fill the propeller chamber volume or do we force it in
I came to the conclusion that it is a bit of both and that these channels are less in the rear, we do not necessarily need a bump for establishing water flows as much as to force as many volumes of water in the propeller chamber as the propeller blades are able to deplete
While staying below the thin red line for this boat, the point where its propellers start to vaporize water
Why not just plain scoopers while the narrower apertures in the back, because it is a dumb idea to go against elements
For the simple reason that the element can be often more than you what design, and the limit narrows with speed, water reaches a certain density, so does air, so much so that in terms of structural strength any dead ends are inherently inadequate engineering
Thinking that it'll hold the catastrophe materializes because it's a bet, it's not a certainty and you are constantly betting on your bet
Conversely letting water have its escape allows for pushing things much further
Picture an airport conveyer, they're nice after several hours of flight, most travelers are just taking the ride standing on it, that conveyer belt is the flow established by the channels/scoopers, and accounts for one in terms of plane, the second plane is the static travelers transiting upon it
Whereas the exhaust blades are in fact much more rapid, they become that second plane, with the difference that you are not standing on the conveyer, rather sprinting on it
We said there could be many questions and not too many answers, but that should atleast answer why we have these on the keel of the ship and what for
Combined these things make speeds such as Mach 3 a possibility for this boat, which certainly doesn't go above Mach 2 for safety reasons
While we are at it, we said it could transit underwater for several hundreds of meters, it can also fly for several hundreds of meters, at these speeds the ocean surface becomes a surface to operate, on the surface, below the surface, and above that surface, water and air dynamics blend in with speed
Yes but in the air the propellers are out of water, wrong they're still propellers, air still has a higher density at such speeds, and the boat is still motored until it reaches the limits imposed by gravity and the cycle restarts
So you could never fly anything if you rely just on motorization metrics, they're only half of it, the other half has to do with the aerodynamics
In this specific project we have blended both air and water dynamics for a specific goal, speed matters more than environment because the trajectory imposes itself on the medium
That's why it's a boat on the surface, it can dive under the surface and even fly over it trajectory and speed allowing, but we are not really inventing anything, shark have already done that, it's a large fish until you see it soaring in the air, ie for sharks air is not a limit if anything a different medium
We said approximately 6,830km (4,244 miles) from Casablanca, Morocco to Atlantic Beach, Florida, Mach 2 aboard this ship yields an ETE of 2.76 hours, rounded up to 3.6 hours
The intended goal was not to beat an airliner and the result could be that the PHANTOM is twice faster, theoretical crossing records on flat seas, and there those days when the ocean is calm like a breeze
So yes I am convinced that it can, Norfolk VA as a home port, I think in an enclosed dock
Home of the PHANTOM, Bombardier Marine PHANTOM, Bombardier Ultra Marine PHANTOM maybe, BUMP
Thank you for having followed
