Wilford Twin-Hull Submarine

Very interesting, hesham, a great example of using what you have now rather than wait for what you'd like to have someday. One language point--aircraft have fuselages, boats and ships have hulls, and that applies to submarines, too. So it should be "Wilford Twin-Hull Submarine."
 
cluttonfred said:
Very interesting, hesham, a great example of using what you have now rather than wait for what you'd like to have someday. One language point--aircraft have fuselages, boats and ships have hulls, and that applies to submarines, too. So it should be "Wilford Twin-Hull Submarine."
Click to expand...


OK my dear Cluttonfred,I correct it.
 
cluttonfred said:
Very interesting, hesham, a great example of using what you have now rather than wait for what you'd like to have someday. One language point--aircraft have fuselages, boats and ships have hulls, and that applies to submarines, too. So it should be "Wilford Twin-Hull Submarine."
Click to expand...

Indeed. But it's not the only problem with this topic. It absolutely shouldn't be in an aviation-related board! We have a "Naval projects" section and that's where it belongs. However, a link to it from the existing Wilford/Pennsylvania topic would be relevant.
 
Skyblazer said:
Indeed. But it's not the only problem with this topic. It absolutely shouldn't be in an aviation-related board! We have a "Naval projects" section and that's where it belongs. However, a link to it from the existing Wilford/Pennsylvania topic would be relevant.
Click to expand...


Hi Skyblazer,


this section was for any speculative or theoretical design,aircraft,boat,submarine or army armored
vehicle,and for Wilford,how we check it was a real design ?,maybe just a hypothetical one.
 
hesham said:
this section was for any speculative or theoretical design,aircraft,boat,submarine or army armored
vehicle
Click to expand...

I am not quite certain of this, we need confirmation from the admin on that particular point.


hesham said:
and for Wilford,how we check it was a real design ?,maybe just a hypothetical one.
Click to expand...

After all these years it is sad you are still so often confused about what is and what isn't a "real design".
You keep placing on the same level the musings of a magazine's inhouse illustrator, the imaginings of a technical student and the thorough research of a company's bona fide design office!
 
A look at the topics shows, that we have ships, tanks, launching platforms and space vehicles here in this
section. A point to be discussed could be, if this section should be divided, too, into an aircraft, a naval, an
army (or landbased) and a space section. But to my opinion, this would mean too much effort for those
often somewhat borderline themes.
Here the question is, if this proposal, coming from a well-known company rather belongs to the Naval Projects
section ? But to me, the description makes quite clear, that it really was just an idea, and the USN seems not
to have bothered very much about using their old subs as platforms for SLBM.
So, I think, hesham was quite right to put it here.
 
I agree that "Theoretical and Speculative Projects" should not be limited to aviation projects given the non-aviation sections we already have and this topic is in the right place. I, for one, found it very interesting, and it is not just a fantastical sketch by an illustrator but an attempt to put an image to what was actually being discussed at the time.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom