Sea Planes

[Poida]

When trans oceanic planes started flying they used seaplanes. This was because they didn't need an airport.

However due to wind restrictions a sleeker body was used and so the cigar shaped prop plane was designed with wheels to land and take off on land.

Then came jets, as they fly higher air is rarer and wind resistance was less of an issue, the body of the planes became wider.

Do you think it is possible that a circle might have turned and the planes may revert back to landing on water again.

Since the days of the old seaplanes new materials have been made and the under belly of the plane could be made as a planing hull.

I would invisage that a scoop would be lowered from the tail to slow the plane down as it approached the surface of the water and the craft would plane to a stop.

This would mean a great reduction in weight as the need for heavy hydraulic pistons and undercarriage would not be needed. Saving in fuel as reverse thrusters are also not required as breaking would be done by the water.

And the another benefit is, the plane if it got into difficulties could be put down in any stretch of calm water.

Taking off the plane would use a ramp type of undercarriage where the plane would leave the undercarriage behind. The undercarriage would be powered something like the planes lifting off from an aircraft carrier. Another fuel saving move. Another type of energy would obviously by used but more ecological.

Well that's it.

Whot er reckon?

Poida

[Bergalia]

Great idea Poida. It might cut down the amount of 'polution' overland - especially for those poor buggers who currently live under the approach/exit lanes of major airports. And we might even see the return of such magnificent beasts as the Spruce Goose.This of course was the US Hughes H-4 Hercules, designed and built by the Hughes Aircraft company and was the largest flying boat, and one of the largest aircraft, ever built.

She was the brainchild of Henry Kaiser, who directed the Liberty ships program. He teamed with aircaft designer Howard Hughes to create what would become the largest aircraft ever built or even seriously contemplated at that time (1942). When completed, it was capable of carrying 750 fully-equipped troops or two Sherman tanks.

To conserve metal for the war effort, the plane was built mostly of wood, hence the name - Spruce Goose.

The development outlasted the war. In 1947, Howard Hughes was called to testify before Congress, and though he was met with skepticism and even hostility from the committee, Hughes remained unruffled. During a break in the hearings, he returned to California, ostensibly to run engine tests on the H-4. On November 2, 1947 with Howard Hughes personally at the controls, the Spruce Goose lifted off from the waters off Long Beach, remaining airborne 70 feet off the water at a speed of 80 miles per hour for just under a mile.

Hughes had proved the critics wrong, but the justification for continued spending on the project was gone. Congress killed the Spruce Goose, which never flew again. It was carefully maintained in flying condition until Hughes's death in 1976.

Though the project was abandoned, the H-4 Hercules presaged the massive transport planes of the future. Aircraft such as the American Lockheed C-5 Galaxy and the Russian Antonov An-124 and An-225 owe their existance to the Spruce Goose, which proved that the physical and aerodynamic principles that made flight possible were not limited by the size of the aircraft.

[kach22i]

When trans oceanic planes started flying they used seaplanes. This was because they didn't need an airport.
False from what I've been exposed to.

The story I've heard is that airlines and passengers were boith to nervous to trust the technology of the day and wanted the option to land at sea just in case something went wrong.

The infastructure cost I'm sure was part of the consideration, but not the driving factor.

NOTE: Salt is still a corrosive, that will always remain true.

[Poida]

Kach I have not investigated the matter, just an idea I had. The part about seaplanes being used, I got from a documentary that stated the reason was because they didn't need an airstrip, and it also stated that the first planes were used for the transport of mail, where your caim regarding passenger aprehension would not have existed.

Salt? Only if they landed in the sea, which I stated would be for emergency reasons only. Airport runways would be replaced by water, at the speed they would land at you would want the water to be as calm as possible.

Another technology now available are barriers that reduce wave action as used in olympic swimming pool lanes.

Whether a modern plane could take off from water, I would not have a clue.

Bergalia you are a storehouse full of information.

Poida

[Bergalia]

Thanks for the compliment Poida. Thing is they have always fascinated me, I think I've mentioned earlier in some other 'thread' that my old dad - although a trawler skipper for most of his life also flew Sunderlands during the last war (world war) escorting Russian convoys off the West Coast of Scotland. Salt water ? No problem apparently - nor choppy waves. Good subject - hope we get more response.:)

[charmc]

There is a perception that large seaplane development ceased after WW II. The US Navy, however, developed and tested large seaplanes until about 1960. One was the Convair Tradewind, a large turboprop:

"Convair came up with the Model 117. It was a very sleek, high wing boat with a single step hull, four Allison T-40 turboprop engines with six blade, contra-rotating props. Each engine developed 5,100 shaft horsepower (3,806 kW) and 830 pounds (376.48 kg) of jet thrust. The boat was named the "Tradewind". It first flew in 1950 after a delay of some months because of trouble with the Allison engines. The Navy received it first Tradewind in 1954. The Tradewind could lift 8,000 lbs. (3,628.7 kg) of stores. It had a range of 3,450 miles (5,52.1 km) without stores. In this configuration, the Navy called it the "P5Y". In the troop transport/ambulance arrangement, it was called the "R3Y" and could carry 103 fully armed troops or 92 stretcher patients and 12 Medics. The fuel tanker model was also called the R3Y. It was this model which went into the history books in 1954 when it set a transcontinental seaplane speed record of 403 miles per hour utilizing the jetstream. It again set a record in 1956 when it simultaneously refueled four F9F Cougars in-flight. The speed record still stands.

What should have been one of the Navy’s best and most beautiful boats was destined to be very short lived. The Allison T-40 engines were troubled from the start and the problems were never adequately remedied. One of the two original XP5Y-1s crashed and the suspected cause was engine failure. Subsequently, several more of the R3Ys were wrecked and it was judged definitely due to faulty engines. Finally, in 1958 the Navy ordered them grounded and sold for scrap."

[charmc]

Another was a true jet, The Martin P6M Seamaster:

"The first Martin P6M Seamaster made its first test flight on July 14, 1955. During flight testing, speeds in excess of 600 mph (966 km/h) were claimed. They were effectively seagoing B-52s, having a small crew of four and a gross take-off weight of 160,000 lbs (72,575 kgs), the same as the Convair Tradewind. The technology involved in its design was the latest known and included four Pratt & Whitney J75-P-2 turbojet engines of 17,500 lbs (7,938 kgs) thrust mounted on top of a highly swept shoulder-mounted drooped wing which had a span of 100 ft (30.48 m).

It had a T tail configuration and a high length-to-beam ratio of its 134 ft (40.84 m) hull. The engines were mounted in such a way as to prevent ingestion of the water spray pattern into the engine air-intake ducts and the wing-tip floats were integral, enlarged parts of the drooped wing configuration. These floats served additionally as wing-tip plates and in the mooring and docking of the Seamaster they played an important role in picking up the mooring buoy which was the key to swinging the aircraft, almost automatically, into the floating beaching gear or into a dock, whichever system was being used at the time.
Progress was encouraging, however during flight tests, both XP6M-1s crashed. A major redesign program followed during which the wing was given dihedral in place of the former anhedral. Other changes included the installation of more powerful engines, the jet pipes of which toed out sharply. Most important, a new, all-transistorized auto-pilot and flight control system was installed.

The Navy had ordered an initial fleet of 24 Sea Masters, but through the delay caused by the redesign work and the accompanying steep rise in costs, six aircraft were canceled. The first production aircraft, YP6M-1, flew in February 1959. However, by this time the force of 18 aircraft had been reduced to eight, which were planned to operate as a single squadron from a new 'seadrome'. In the event, even these eight aircraft proved too expensive and only an additional three production P6M-2s Sea Masters were built. The Seamaster project was terminated in the autumn of 1959."

[charmc]

I think I've mentioned earlier in some other 'thread' that my old dad - although a trawler skipper for most of his life also flew Sunderlands during the last war (world war) escorting Russian convoys off the West Coast of Scotland.

I've always been fascinated by the big "flying boats". One of the few remaining Sunderlands in flyable condition is based about 1 1/2 hours drive from me. This one has an interesting history. Bergalia, who knows, it could have been flown by your dad, as it was flown in WW II by the British, Canadian, and Norwegian forces. It was built as a MK III, upgraded to a MK V (Pratt & Whitney engines and feathering props). Flew in the Berlin Airlift, later transferred to the RNZ air force. Bought by Ansett in 1964, used on its Sydney - Lord Howe Island run. It was purchased in the 1970's by a former Pan American Clipper pilot who used it in the Caribbean for a number of years. After he was killed, it was sold and moved to the UK. American Kermit Weeks bought it in 1993 and flew it across the Atlantic. In 1996 it flew the Olympic torch on one leg of the journey from Greece to Atlanta. It's kept at Week's Fantasy of Flight museum in Polk City, FL. Still flown, the hanger is in front of a lake.

You're welcome to come by and see her anytime. We could get together for dinner, tell stories over beers ... a lot more fun for grownups than the Rat, errrrr sorry, Mouse Kingdom a bit further up the road. Come to think of it, I'd enjoy meeting any of you guys if you're passing through, taking the kids or grandkids to see Mickey (world's biggest money vacuum, not counting governments :D ).

[Bergalia]

Thanks for invite Charmc. One day, one day I may just take you up on that. In the meantime I'll email the younger brother back in the UK who still has a whole collection of 'family' photos including dad in his 'Biggles' days. Somewhere I remember seeing a 'snap' of dad and his crew plus the Sunderland moored in Castle Bay, Barra (the old home island).

[jehardiman]

Podia, notice that one of the topics that keeps comming up in the flying boat C&Ps is the term "wrecked" or "crashed". One of the big problems with flying boats is the landing field. A much larger precentage of flying boats were lost or damaged during water ops than land based airplanes in takeoff and landings. By the end of WWII, planes had the range and reliability to easily cross the oceans without having to risk a water landing or takeoff. Also, the strengthing needed for water landings is on the same order as land landings. The orginal move to water was to allow for greater gross weight (i.e. longer range) than could be supported by the dirt/grass/tarmac fields of the 20's and 30's. Additionally, people rarely only want to travel quickly to coastal cities. Land based air travel is here to stay, and the flying boats only occupy the niche markets that require them, i.e. bush and small island service.

BTW, they are much less ecomonical in flight due to from drag also. Hoerner has a long discussion about it.

[Guillermo]

...Since the days of the old seaplanes new materials have been made and the under belly of the plane could be made as a planing hull....
"Belly of the plane"....Some photos, already posted somewhere else in these forums.

[lazeyjack]

when I was younger(not so long ago) we lived on Gt Barrier island NZ, we used to go to town in a Grummen Widgeon, the noise was unbelievable, we cruised abt 120 knots, Often our landing had to be through small surf, often the waves washed up and over the screen, I remember I bought a new sheep dog from town, just as we trundled up the beach, she through up, all over the cabin, the pilot was very angry the Grummens were marvellous, and some pilots were MUCH better than others One smart ass, gave a fully rebuilt plane a huge rev on our beach and flipped it
now the Russians have this massive amphib, and they bring firefighting choppers down here

[lazeyjack]

i meant threw up!!

[lazeyjack]

False from what I've been exposed to.

The story I've heard is that airlines and passengers were boith to nervous to trust the technology of the day and wanted the option to land at sea just in case something went wrong.

The infastructure cost I'm sure was part of the consideration, but not the driving factor.

NOTE: Salt is still a corrosive, that will always remain true.


there is a Catalina sunk in 200 foot plus water in PT VILA Vanuuatu, the RAAF Had a cat base there in WW2, according to my mate he dived on her and said all the controls still worked
Alluminium alloys were tops even back then and aladyne an old invention, but yeppers salt was murder on iron I,m not sure when or if radial engines went to alloy pots

[lazeyjack]

ps i,m not sure when she sunk, and he dived upon her in late 70,s

[lazeyjack]

for those really into planes dial up tupolev, he was perhaps the most proflific designer of any and all aircraft
You all know my admiration for thing s Ru in ships , aviation, they had and have 100,s of seaplanes and amphibs

[charmc]

Seaplanes and the big ground effect "planes" make sense for the eastern half of Russia, given the long distances and need to gain access to remote areas where large land airbases have not been built yet. Development of designs usually follows needs and the most cost effective solution. Russian designers have been outstanding in developing simple and rugged aircraft able to be maintained in remote areas.

The Pan Am Clippers and other big seaplanes enabled flight to less developed areas without hard runways; they were necessary in their time. WW II aviation developments meant that there were both large long range aircraft and hard runways in many parts of the world, so the need for large seaplanes declined.

Salt is definitely a problem for seaplanes. In Miami there was a fatal crash of an amphibian a few years ago. The wing snapped off as the plane was climbing out after takeoff. The small airline was once family owned; they were obsessive about maintenance. More recently it was bought by a holding company, maintenance became the bare minimum needed to keep FAA certification ... :mad:

[lazeyjack]

Seaplanes and the big ground effect "planes" make sense for the eastern half of Russia, given the long distances and need to gain access to remote areas where large land airbases have not been built yet. Development of designs usually follows needs and the most cost effective solution. Russian designers have been outstanding in developing simple and rugged aircraft able to be maintained in remote areas.

The Pan Am Clippers and other big seaplanes enabled flight to less developed areas without hard runways; they were necessary in their time. WW II aviation developments meant that there were both large long range aircraft and hard runways in many parts of the world, so the need for large seaplanes declined.

Salt is definitely a problem for seaplanes. In Miami there was a fatal crash of an amphibian a few years ago. The wing snapped off as the plane was climbing out after takeoff. The small airline was once family owned; they were obsessive about maintenance. More recently it was bought by a holding company, maintenance became the bare minimum needed to keep FAA certification ... :mad:

read Shutes book abt the Reindeer, , a story abt metal fatigue in tail spar of the plane NO HIGHWAY, that's an order
I have flow out of Kemerove Siberia on Tups and to St Pete, I have absolute faith in Ru pilots in snow

[Bergalia]

Lazey makes the (THE) valid point - maintenance. And it's on that, that I suggested 'saltwater' was 'no problem'. The RAF/Navy were meticulous in their maintenance schedules for the escort Sunderlands (less so for their crews). As an afternote my brother suggests that the three aircraft used on the Scottish West Coast for convoy patrols eventually found their way down south and did brief service during the 'Berlin Airlift'. He's still looking for the photos of the old feller and his crew.

[lazeyjack]

Lazey makes the (THE) valid point - maintenance. And it's on that, that I suggested 'saltwater' was 'no problem'. The RAF/Navy were meticulous in their maintenance schedules for the escort Sunderlands (less so for their crews). As an afternote my brother suggests that the three aircraft used on the Scottish West Coast for convoy patrols eventually found their way down south and did brief service during the 'Berlin Airlift'. He's still looking for the photos of the old feller and his crew.

ok mate, those grummens were built 52, and I think THEY MAY BE STILL FLYING aK

[Frosty]

read Shutes book abt the Reindeer, , a story abt metal fatigue in tail spar of the plane NO HIGHWAY,

This book is about an aircraft engineer who said the metal fatige would eventually cause the tail to fall off. However he got his hangar temperature wrong or more like dis regarded it . When corrected his mathamatics proved to be correct and it fell off.

Riveting stuff!

[lazeyjack]

This book is about an aircraft engineer who said the metal fatige would eventually cause the tail to fall off. However he got his hangar temperature wrong or more like dis regarded it . When corrected his mathamatics proved to be correct and it fell off.

Riveting stuff!

but jack you just spent a week telling us you don't read fiction?
So if you read that you MUST have read SLIDE RULE?

[Frosty]

I didnt look the book I read the film.

Dont have time for books --my eyes can take in information thousands of times faster than the written word.

[Bergalia]

Hey Stu - is there any way we can ensure this man doesn't pollute the human gene pool.....:confused:

[Poida]

Land based air travel is here to stay, and the flying boats only occupy the niche markets that require them, i.e. bush and small island service.

Oh jehardiman me mate, what a left brain thinker you are.:D

Now what if the Wright Brothers thought like you.

It crashed doesn't work, give up.

There was a time in aviation history, where I don't know, when single wing spans were banned as too many crashed. It was just a matter of getting the right design.

Seaplanes could be used in emergency relief, sometimes airports are too far from the effected areas. Transporting a few hundred troops in a hurry to basically any coastline in the world.

Also in times of war enemy airstrips are bombed to prevent their planes from taking off. Imagine hangers around the coast where planes could take off and the list goes on, or it would if I could think of anything.

Poida

[Bergalia]

A point that jehardiman seems to overlook is that the majority of population centres i.e. world capitals, cities, and conurbations are built on or near a waterfront. Land in these capitals, cities etc is fast becoming a premium asset - and unlikely to be 'sacrificed' for airport extensions. Instead it would logical that a greater emphasis will be placed on air transport that can use the relatively 'cheap' water space for access. :)

[Poida]

I wish I could have said that Bergalia.:(

[kach22i]

"Belly of the plane"....Some photos, already posted somewhere else in these forums.

The Bell Aerospace Air Cushion Landing System. I have somewhere a once classified paper/pdf on many more designs and configurations. PM me if you are into that stuff and I'll try to dig it up.

[Bergalia]

I wish I could have said that Bergalia.:(

It's what was at the back of your argument Poida...It's just that (being really old) I've got more time on my hands to flesh out your original theory....:)

[lazeyjack]

not sure whether this girl was built
http://www.329amphibian.com/Largest_Amphibian_Aircraft.htm

[lazeyjack]

Russia planes rush to Greek fires
Russian firefighting plane
The Russian Ilyushin can carry a huge cargo of water
Russia is to send firefighting aircraft to help Greece combat forest fires raging amid record high temperatures.

Five aircraft will be sent to Greece on Friday in response to an appeal by Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis, Russia's Itar-Tass news agency said.

Greek emergency crews are fighting fires in at least 15 parts of the country, officials said. There are also fires in Bulgaria, Italy and Macedonia.

Hundreds of people have died in sweltering heat in South-East Europe.
THIS JOB 42 TONNES h2o

[safewalrus]

Balloons! Even cheaper, slower true but hell we're going to fast as it is, slow down and enjoy life before it's to late!

Bring back the zepplin (just change the gas is all)

[Poida]

That's easy if you are in America Walrus, you just pull into a gas station.

Poida

[marshmat]

The idea of commercial seaplanes is a romantic one, a throwback to the heady days of the previous century when the big flying boats were the pinnacle of luxury travel.
As nice as it may be to see more of them, practical concerns at present effectively mandate that commercial aircraft be land-based. The first is our desire to cruise at 0.8 Mach; at these speeds, virtually any hullform suitable for water takeoff creates an incredible amount of drag even in the thin air at 30,000 feet up. An additional concern is that the ability to cruise at such high speeds necessitates a very high wing loading, and thus a high landing speed even when loaded to the hilt with high-lift devices. Hitting the waves at a hundred and fifty knots is neither pleasant for the passengers, nor easy on the structure. Landing slower requires a bigger, less heavily loaded wing and thus lower cruise speeds. For high-speed aircraft, by which I mean anything capable of over about three hundred knots, land-based has won out on fundamental engineering considerations.
As to airships. I'm really quite surprised we don't see more of them in a commercial capacity. When filled with helium they're pretty darn safe (I read a report a while ago about a Lightship, a 60-metre if I recall correctly, being tested by the US military- after emptying something like five hundred rounds of machine-gun ammo into the thing, it took two hours before it actually hit the ground with about as much force as a car bumping into a wall while parking). Many current designs can do 150 mph- not jetliner speeds, but they'll use as much fuel in a week of flying as a 737 does taxiing from the gate to the runway.
In any case, each of a 747-400's four engines burns about one litre per second at cruise. Its average fuel consumption per passenger per kilometre is comparable to that of a midsize car or van with two to three people in it. Not quite so horrifically inefficient on that basis, but still wastes an awful lot of fuel compared to what we could do if we were willing to slow down a bit.

[lazeyjack]

nice post Matt, but most Ru seaplanes have a role, purpose built , see there are about a squiilion runways in Siberia, (in summer) and as the pic shows they are deployed all over the world, although the one above is not , that I,m aware a seaplane
if you google up seaplane or amphib, you would be rocked to see justt how many modern ones there are

[marshmat]

Oh, there's plenty of modern seaplanes, and not just Russian. Canadians use them too and there are some very hi-tech rigs out of Japan. But look at what they can do- much lower ceilings and cruise speeds than land-based aircraft of comparable size and capacity. It's exactly like you say- they're purpose built, designed and constructed to be able to operate in areas where there simply is no useable land infrastructure, or where airports are too far between or inconvenient. Try to coax even the best of them to do 0.5 Mach, let alone the 0.8-0.9 cruise of the transcontinental jets. They need heavier structures and aerodynamically awkward hull shapes to be able to operate from the water, and so are substantially less efficient to run than comparable land-based aircraft.

[lazeyjack]

google up Tupelove or lev, you would be sprised just how fast they were

[Poida]

Sure Warshmat they reckon these days you can fly to anywhere in the world at only half the time it takes you to get your luggage at the other end.

Poida

[eponodyne]

I really like the idea of ekranoplans. I have several sketches of possible designs, a couple of them kite-powered. Which would be the bees knickers for getting 3-4 people from point to point at about 40 MPH, if I could just figure out how to make the "vessel" handle any sort of a sea state.

On a much larger scale, the economies of scale become much more apparent. One could move hundreds of tons of cargo at 250-300KT for a much lower fuel burn than either surface transport or high-altitude flight.

The Wing-In-Ground-Effect (http://www.se-technology.com/wig/index.php) home page has tons more information than my raddled brain can assimilate. I reckon it's a terrific concept whose time has come.

[kach22i]

UPDATE: 10/09/2007

Interesting site......................about stability.
http://www.equatorair.de/flwing.htm
http://www.equatorair.de/images/do24_caps.jpg

[safewalrus]

katch that chappie seems to have a small problem with stability - taking of would prove interesting to say the least!

I still can't see the need for all this speed, certain things yes the faster the better but most stuff is both safer and cheaper (and more interesting) at a slow speed!

[charmc]

I still can't see the need for all this speed, certain things yes the faster the better but most stuff is both safer and cheaper (and more interesting) at a slow speed!

Mike,

I think the point of ground effect flight is that it is both slower and requires less power, so therefore costs less per ton of cargo than high altitude "traditional" cargo flights. Conversely, a ground effect craft with the same power can carry far more payload than a traditional cargo jet.

As for "interesting", 250-300 knots on the deck in a craft the size of a 747 should keep crew and passengers from being bored!

Here's a video covering the history of the Soviet ekranoplan program, pretty informative despite the Russian narration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6HQSNERadQ

[Jimbo1490]

You can have your cake and eat it too with the offering of the Russian company Beriev. Their Albatross amphibious jet takes off from water (in impressively short distance, I might add) has a large useful load (MTOW nearly 200,000 lbs :eek: ), decent range and cruises at mach .7 above weather. Here's a video:

http://www.airspacemag.com/multimedia/video/beriev.php

Some pics:

http://www.aviationtrivia.homestead.com/BerievA40.html

It's kind of handsome in a seaplane kind of way, too :)

Though the higher maintenance costs associated with seaplanes would prevent such an aircraft from competing directly with the likes of the B737 or A320 series, it could make jet travel a reality for millions of people forced to live out their lives on beautiful, remote tropical islands without airports. :D

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

I think the point of ground effect flight is that it is both slower and requires less power, so therefore costs less per ton of cargo than high altitude "traditional" cargo flights.

Except for the energy used to climb to altitude, high altitude flight definitely requires less power and therefore consumes less fuel.

There are several examples of aircraft that evolved from piston to turboprop power, and in the process became much more fuel efficient despite using relatively thirsty turboshaft engines of much greater power output. Why? Because with turbine power, their service ceiling was 10-15,000 ft higher so they flew in thinner air with far less friction. Their cruise speed always went way up, like over 100 kts increase.

Jimbo

[safewalrus]

Charlie

Whilst it is nice to keep the flight interesting I don't want to be 'that' interested the need to go straight from the flight to the bathroom to change my pants is not my idea of fun!! Maybe once, but not now!

[Gannet]

Jimbo1490 quote on 10-09-2007 11:03 PM
Except for the energy used to climb to altitude, high altitude flight definitely requires less power and therefore consumes less fuel.

The Von Karman-Gabrielli diagram attached below represents the current maximum transport efficiency for various transportation modes. The cruise power per unit weight, P/W ratio is very low for WIG boats as compared to other forms of transport.

As a matter of interest Bugatti the builder of Megayachts is currently advertizing WIG Boats for the super wealthy see attached images below

[Jimbo1490]

Wigs are obviously an exception. Nobody considers them 'real' airplanes; not even the gov't sanctioning bodies. We were talking about real airplanes in this thread. WIG type craft are more akin to fast watercraft.

[kach22i]

Wigs are obviously an exception. Nobody considers them 'real' airplanes; not even the gov't sanctioning bodies. We were talking about real airplanes in this thread. WIG type craft are more akin to fast watercraft.

1. No one may consider WIG's real aircraft, however I know first hand that some designs can go higher that 50 feet in the air and out of ground effect if they so choose to. Of course this is a big NO-NO, as most WIG's lack some of the control surfaces true aircraft seem to need - plus there is the FAA and all those rules intended to protect us from our foolish selves.

2. Taking off and landing a seaplane is similar to WIG behaviour and must adbide to all the same laws of physics. I see some relevancy to include them in any discussion, just as long as we all understand the context of their being mentioned.

[Gannet]

I agree with those who state it not airplane and those who that state is not a boat. Or as I like to say, it is literally a flying boat with its wings clipped.

It operates in the regime of transition between true vessel that has contact with water and an aircraft that is free from the earth surface and its effects.

In addition, that in this regime the best transport efficiency can be obtained for maximizing payload weight and speed transported at the lowest possible cost. This is why I believe that the future looks bright for WIGs.

I've have been looking for a forum to discuss WIGs and Seaplanes. As a matter of fact, I tried AirplaneDesign.aero and found nothing when searching for posts on amphibians, seaplanes, flying boats or WIGs.

My main goal (when I retire shortly after 40 years in both the marine and aerospace industry as a mechanical design engineer) is to create and test different WIG's design as scale models. I've read all the NACA papers on flying boat tests and ground effect and everything I can find on the internet.

I am interested if anyone has any lessons-learned based on test or experiences, so that I may avoid any pitfalls. Also, would like to provide any assistance to anyone in the design or built of their Seaplane or WIG endeavours.

[safewalrus]

They all however have one thing in common, they cause Noise and Air pollution and waste hugh amounts of natural carbon fuels (except airships and they don't count, apparantly!)

[kach22i]

I've have been looking for a forum to discuss WIGs and Seaplanes. As a matter of fact, I tried AirplaneDesign.aero and found nothing when searching for posts on amphibians, seaplanes, flying boats or WIGs.

Do an advanced seach using my user name "kach22i", you may find more posts in this forum that way.

May I suggest joining the Hovercraft Club of America, I'm a member and there are often articles on WIG's in our bi-monthly news letter.

Link-1:
http://www.hoverclubofamerica.org/

You can post as a guest, but once a member you can see all the images, post topics and download many pdf papers.

You could also try the UK site and do a seach or two.

Link-2:
http://hovercraft.org.uk/FUDforum2/index.php?t=i&cat=2&S=b392d539f3af10521ca0906a36277bf8

I think that to get started you will be building a few scale models, so you better bookmark this site too.

Link-3:
http://rc-hovercrafts.com/phpBB2/index.php

Universal Hovercraft has WIG's for sale, and Weber Hovercraft has a few old experiments posted on the Internet. The advantage of an air cushion landing system is safety, but it's higher air drag (mostly because of upward attitude pitch) means lower operating speeds in general. I've read that WIG mode actually consumes more fuel than hovercraft mode for the above mentioned reasons.

EDIT:
Above all else; Never fly higher than you are willing to fall.;)

Do some research, you will find that many WIG inventors/innovators have met an early death. Same can be said of Ultra-light operators. Hovercraft people live longer and have an excellent safety record.

EDIT II
Another UK RC model site.
Air & Marine
http://www.msuk-forum.co.uk/index.php?act=idx

Looks interesting.

[Gannet]

Thanks kach22i

I appreciate the info & links and will investigate.

My plan is to design, build, and test some RC dynamic scale model WIGs and then maybe advance to an Unmanned Surface Vehicle of a WIG Type.

[aztek]

'And the another benefit is, the plane if it got into difficulties could be put down in any stretch of calm water'

what if there is no calm water? isn't it likely that more accidents will happen in bad weather?

Gr8 idea otherwise poida

[White Knight]

I love Seaplanes. I especially love anything amphibious. That's why I spent three years working on DUKW-253 WWII amphibious landing crafts. Lots of people have them, but I loved actually taking passengers for cruises in them. It was fun work. Amphibious things that fly are better yet. A year or more ago I had some friends come by to stay a couple of days and let me fly their Spanish built seaplane they are importing. It was a Colyaer SL Gannet Light
Sport Seaplane. It's made from the same composite that Burt Rutan used in his X-Prize rocketship and mothership. It has two beautiful, thin layers like fiberglass (the outer one was kevlar or similar) with an inner corrugated matrix like the inside of cardboard, but of end-cut material. It is very light weight but looks like a boat or corvette finish. They import a new model now called the Freedom that is fully amphibious, with retractable landing gear. I want one -bad. Real bad. It's a hoot to fly with a sailplane high aspect wing that glides really good. It exhibits a sailplanes tendency to counter roll with yaw but responds readily to judicious rudder inputs. Fast taxi on the water at 85 MPH is thrilling. Runs on hi-test mo-gas or LL-100 avgas. Fast cruise about 115 MPH with 9.5 hr. range with the extended tanks. Usable performance for hopping 'round the keys - huh? Check it out at http://www.lightsportaircraft.ca/ColyaerS100Freedom.html or E-mail Don Langford at: LSA-Aero@att.net or phone# 256-348-9770 in Tanner, Ala. ( Friendly not business relation). Their website at www.LSA-Aero.com seems to be down for some reason right now. For now a more affordable alternative for me may be the Polaris Flying Boat. The new FIB 2001 version is pretty cool and can be transported on many boats or trailered to vacation sites. The boat is a great RIB by itself and a great airboat too! See it at http://www.polarismotor.it/ . I'll settle for one of these for now. HE-HE! Mark

[White Knight]

I've been searching , but I can't find the link I had to the guys who now produce the old Grumman amphibs. Must be in my old computer. I'd do a Google search but you can too and I'm tired right now. They offer them with proper radial engines or turboprops. There has been a seaplane certified in the US lately. First one in decades. I'll have to flip through some of my back issues of Flying and/or Plane And Pilot Magazines to find it. It's in the ads a lot. Later - gotta sleep, Mark

[eponodyne]

You're thinking of Canadair, I believe. They're not the same as the old Grummans but they do look similar (in the way all flying boats look *sort of* alike). Good planes, I hear; I'd like to fly one someday.

[kach22i]

I love Seaplanes.
The last image posted of a flying rubber boat looks similar to what Seair has done. I've been warned by others to stay clear of such designs.

Never fly higher than you are willing to fall, which is why I like hovercraft.:D

EDIT: I just found this..............
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200808/1217947678.html
The Hov Pod design resulted by accident – company founder Peter Ward suffered a nasty paraglide landing, so not wanting to give up flying but consequently scarred of heights, he looked for alternative ways to fly, a little closer to the ground. Hov Pods fly 8 inches above the ground, indeed any flat surface at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour.

[masalai]

This is the seaplane I like.... http://www.fantasyofflight.com/aircraftpages/sunderland.htm

[MoBill122]

My father has a molded mahongany plywood boat that was bought around 1949. The boat only weighs like 50-60 lbs. He says it was build by Fairchild Aircraft Company, using up the plywood left over from building seaplanes during WWII.
Anyone know anything about such boats ?? What's it might be worth ? If anything ? He's talking about taking a chain saw to it, cause me and my brother both want the boat. <G>

Bill

[Gannet]

I've been searching , but I can't find the link I had to the guys who now produce the old Grumman amphibs. Must be in my old computer. I'd do a Google search but you can too and I'm tired right now. They offer them with proper radial engines or turboprops. There has been a seaplane certified in the US lately. First one in decades. I'll have to flip through some of my back issues of Flying and/or Plane And Pilot Magazines to find it. It's in the ads a lot. Later - gotta sleep, Mark

The latest seaplane to be certified is the Beriev Be-103 See attachment

The link for the Replica of the Grumman G21 Goose is http://www.antillesseaplanes.com/about.htm