Sea Planes

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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."

 

Sea plane

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."

 

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 ).

 

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).

 

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.

 

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

 

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 ***, 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

 

i meant threw up!!

 

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

 

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