If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Flyability of Biplane Flying Boat
I have been working on a biplane flying boat (similar to some in the
early 1900s). Rough weight estimates a fuselage/tail/controls 200, Rotax 503/5Gal fuel 150, wings 150, me 225 = 725 gross. The reason for the biplane configuration is for the large wing area (250sq.ft) I feel will be needed to get off the water. Any opinion on whether this will work? Perhaps I could get by with less wing area? I would also like tandem seating if the design can handle the extra weight. Brock |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Flyability of Biplane Flying Boat
On 1/26/2011 1:32 AM, durabol wrote:
I have been working on a biplane flying boat (similar to some in the early 1900s). Rough weight estimates a fuselage/tail/controls 200, Rotax 503/5Gal fuel 150, wings 150, me 225 = 725 gross. The reason for the biplane configuration is for the large wing area (250sq.ft) I feel will be needed to get off the water. Any opinion on whether this will work? Perhaps I could get by with less wing area? I would also like tandem seating if the design can handle the extra weight. Probably could get by with less wing area. Fly Babies have 120 square feet of wing, and the 65-HP prototype did fly with floats. Roughly 1,000 pounds gross. A company called Two Wings Aviation had a biplane flying boat a number of years back, powered by a Rotax two-stroke. http://www.lightsportaircraftpilot.c...sportaircraft/ It had the same span as a Fly Baby, probably slightly less chord, but of course two wings. Probably ~175-200 sq ft. However, the devil is in the details. The hydrodynamics of the hull are going to be vital, and selecting a prop that'll let the plane get off the water quickly yet still offer some cruise speed will be involved. Ron Wanttaja |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Flyability of Biplane Flying Boat
Op 26/01/2011 09:32, durabol schreef:
I have been working on a biplane flying boat (similar to some in the early 1900s). Rough weight estimates a fuselage/tail/controls 200, Rotax 503/5Gal fuel 150, wings 150, me 225 = 725 gross. The reason for the biplane configuration is for the large wing area (250sq.ft) I feel will be needed to get off the water. Any opinion on whether this will work? Perhaps I could get by with less wing area? I would also like tandem seating if the design can handle the extra weight. I can't help telling you to calculate the wing area you want rather than feeling it, sorry if that sounds rude. Also I seem to understand taking off from water will merely require a longer run to reach lift-off speed, but then the very reason for taking off from water is the availability of long straight flat areas of it. Compared to a "conventional" aircraft, a hydroplane has more drag; that requires more engine power to counter, not more wing surface. BTW you left me in a bit of doubt about how to interpret your figures: are your weights lbs or kgs? But I think it may be assumed you are US'an, and talking feet and pounds. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Flyability of Biplane Flying Boat
-Thanks for the information.
-The Mariner is very similar to what I had envisioned. -I will probably reduce the wing area to a bit under 200sq.ft (a bit more manageable size wise and better in the wind) -I will probably go with a "climb" prop. to get off the water, cruise speed isn't a concern as I just plan to fly it for fun. I have a fair amount of information on seaplane hulls so hopefully I can just use typical dimensions. -For wing design I had thought about making as large a wing as practical for as low a take off speed as possible, as I thought this would give the best odds of getting off the water. -Yes I was using lbs. I'm actually Canadian and we are officially metric but because the US refuses to adapt we have to learn both. They really messed me up in that for temperature I use Celsius when it is cold and Fahrenheit when it is warm. Brock |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Flyability of Biplane Flying Boat
I can't recall the particulars, but I remember seeing a biplane flying
boat at Sun n Fun years ago. It actually was an aluminum boat (I think it was a 14' jon boat) with a set of biplane wings grafted on... I think with a tail boom mounted empanage. I also think it had retractible wheels for land ops. Maybe some other reader can add details? On Jan 26, 4:32*am, durabol wrote: I have been working on a biplane flying boat (similar to some in the early 1900s). Rough weight estimates a fuselage/tail/controls 200, Rotax 503/5Gal fuel 150, wings 150, me 225 = 725 gross. The reason for the biplane configuration is for the large wing area (250sq.ft) I feel will be needed to get off the water. Any opinion on whether this will work? Perhaps I could get by with less wing area? I would also like tandem seating if the design can handle the extra weight. Brock |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Flyability of Biplane Flying Boat
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:08:22 -0800 (PST), rckchp
wrote: I can't recall the particulars, but I remember seeing a biplane flying boat at Sun n Fun years ago. It actually was an aluminum boat (I think it was a 14' jon boat) with a set of biplane wings grafted on... I think with a tail boom mounted empanage. I also think it had retractible wheels for land ops. Maybe some other reader can add details? IIRC it was setting in a puddle of water. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Flyability of Biplane Flying Boat
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 at 4:32:09 AM UTC-5, durabol wrote:
I have been working on a biplane flying boat (similar to some in the early 1900s). Rough weight estimates a fuselage/tail/controls 200, Rotax 503/5Gal fuel 150, wings 150, me 225 = 725 gross. The reason for the biplane configuration is for the large wing area (250sq.ft) I feel will be needed to get off the water. Any opinion on whether this will work? Perhaps I could get by with less wing area? I would also like tandem seating if the design can handle the extra weight. Brock There are many examples of which you describe and much seaplane design info at a yahoo group called SEABUILD. The size of the wings or the "wingloading" mostly dictates how fast you want to fly and crash assuming you have designed for enough thrust to get you to the speed necessary for flying. Although biplanes disappeared due to poor efficiency in favor of monoplanes there are a couple of good reasons for their use in seaplanes. Mainly they are good to mount sponsons on the lower wings while avoiding the dangerous massive pitch forward tendencies of pure low wing monowing seaplanes. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
canard flying boat | Darrel Toepfer | Home Built | 14 | October 19th 15 07:37 AM |
Art - 'RAAF Sunderland flying boat attacking U-Boat' Dennis Adams 1967 | Dave Kearton[_3_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | June 12th 09 05:56 AM |
H-16 flying boat | Terry M[_3_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | May 18th 08 03:35 AM |
FLYING BOAT FESTIVAL International | Dave[_8_] | Home Built | 0 | February 14th 07 03:01 PM |
sunderland flying boat (origin of the name) | Edward Senft | Military Aviation | 18 | February 11th 04 01:31 AM |