|
| 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
June 10th 04, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#3
June 10th 04, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" wrote in message
... Nathan: Several of us including a P.E have set around the table talking about the same thing. Diesel engines great for the lagoon hopping out in the So. Pacific. I even approached one of Burt Rutan's test pilots and told him to get Burt working on the idea..?? I think the idea is neat.. We spent 8 years out in the Pacific in the Marshall islands and the type of ship you are playing with would be the thing to have. Better than a sailboat. I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia etc. featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find the name of the series. Kumaros It's all Greek to me
|
|
#4
June 10th 04, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"kumaros" wrote in message ...
to have. Better than a sailboat. I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia etc. featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find the name of the series. Maybe something involving Jaques Cousteau? He had a converted Catalina. Veeduber - "pilot's head in the pylon" - the shoulders are in the hull, then?
|
|
#5
June 11th 04, 12:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe something involving Jaques Cousteau? He had a converted Catalina. Veeduber - "pilot's head in the pylon" - the shoulders are in the hull, then? Yes, but his son died in the crash....
|
|
#6
June 11th 04, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I watched the series on PBS a while back (probably a couple years) it was
very interesting. Completely purpose built. But alas, sorry I have no other info on it! John kumaros wrote: "Kathryn & Stuart Fields" wrote in message ... Nathan: Several of us including a P.E have set around the table talking about the same thing. Diesel engines great for the lagoon hopping out in the So. Pacific. I even approached one of Burt Rutan's test pilots and told him to get Burt working on the idea..?? I think the idea is neat.. We spent 8 years out in the Pacific in the Marshall islands and the type of ship you are playing with would be the thing to have. Better than a sailboat. I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia etc. featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find the name of the series. Kumaros It's all Greek to me
|
|
#7
June 11th 04, 07:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pardon for the earlier triple post, connection was giving me fits...
airspeeds to break free of the water. The very high wing Catalina would allow for large, slow props which, being much more efficient, would allow lower HP for the same performance. Of course you have to deal with the water spray erosion of the blades but modern Kevlar-carbon blades might survive better than metal. Reversible props would allow the airplane to pivot on it's center for good water handling. Seaplane safety depends a lot on just how slowly the aircraft leaves and returns to the water. Your idea of Fowler flaps is a good one. The Catalina's big, high aspect ratio wing helps too. Bill Daniels Very good points. An extreme example of low speed thrust with a small motor is electric RC aircraft. You can have a direct drive motor spinning a small prop 15000 rpm or gear it down, put a big prop (propped to draw same amt of juice as the smaller) on running, say, 8000 rpm, and have 2x as much static thrust (although top end suffers). The large props and the large wing area (and flaps) is how it would deal with the lower power loading with smaller engines. Also, taking the old airframe and cleaning it up (including smaller than scale blisters) would greatly reduce drag, making the aircraft get away with smaller engines easier. My cruise speed goal was based on using the larger 200 hp engines. That way someone could put the big engines in if they wanted a fast plane, or put in smaller engines if they wanted economy. As far as prop erosion from spray, that could be minimized/eliminated with some careful attention to hull design You may want to consider revising some combination of horsepower, useful load, and gross weight, as 320hp would be a dog hauling around 4750lbs. -Nathan The 50% scale at 4750 lbs gross is based on the later models that had 38000 gross. Based on 35420 gross, it's 4427 lbs. The power loading with 2-160hp engines is more like that of a 172 at 4750. If you were at 4500 gross, 2-160hp engines would be more like the power loading on a cherokee 180. My dad has said that on a hot day that extra 20 hp sure made a difference (172 vs cherokee 180). Perhaps I'll revise gross weight to 4500 lbs. My goal in engineering the airframe is to achieve empty weight 55% of gross. so my goal at 4500 gross is 2475 empty and 2025 useful, which still meets my original useful load goal. In the early 1970's while stationed at the Pentagon a bunch of us worked on scaling various WWII aircraft. It became immediately obvious that there were were two things we could NOT scale: the pilot and the engines. -R.S.Hoover As far as pilot relative scaling, at 50% scale there shouldn't be much of a problem, and if it was close you could just fudge the size a bit to compensate, since it's generally to scale, not carbon copy to scale. At 50% we are looking externally at 5' wide and 4' tall, so inside would be a bit smaller. I was thinking of making the fuse a bit taller than scale. I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia etc. featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find the name of the series. Kumaros It's all Greek to me Oh shoot, can't find the bookmark. I know what you are talking about, the Explorer by Hubert de Chevigny and Dean Wilson (Dean did the Private Explorer that was like a single engine winnebago). It had a pair of 300hp O-540's , grossed 8000 or so, big and boxy, was huge inside. I think it topped out at 125 mph or kts, can't remember. The photo I saw it was painted yellow. Gihugic for a pair of O-540's! AhHa! didn't find the page I found way back when, but found a photo of it at the bottom of this page... http://fafagege.free.fr/html/eng/reves.htm I even approached one of Burt Rutan's test pilots and told him to get Burt working on the idea..?? Stu Fields If I can do half as well as what a thoeoretical Rutan "pby" could do, this thing would still be awsome! I hope everything goes well for the whole team at scaled composites on the 21st for their official 100km altitude space attempt with "SpaceShipOne". If I wern't so poor, I'd drive down to watch it live! Again, thanks for the comments! Much Appreciated! Tom-aka-Dieselfume
|
|
#8
June 11th 04, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom: In the outer Pacific islands you can get auto gas, diesel and if there
is a runway jet fuel. But NO avgas. BTW I know a guy that flew a Grumman something or other Goose? out in the Marshalls for awhile. He now is in Calif selling a strange fast outrigger sailboat. Stu Fields "Tom Osmundson" wrote in message om... Pardon for the earlier triple post, connection was giving me fits... airspeeds to break free of the water. The very high wing Catalina would allow for large, slow props which, being much more efficient, would allow lower HP for the same performance. Of course you have to deal with the water spray erosion of the blades but modern Kevlar-carbon blades might survive better than metal. Reversible props would allow the airplane to pivot on it's center for good water handling. Seaplane safety depends a lot on just how slowly the aircraft leaves and returns to the water. Your idea of Fowler flaps is a good one. The Catalina's big, high aspect ratio wing helps too. Bill Daniels Very good points. An extreme example of low speed thrust with a small motor is electric RC aircraft. You can have a direct drive motor spinning a small prop 15000 rpm or gear it down, put a big prop (propped to draw same amt of juice as the smaller) on running, say, 8000 rpm, and have 2x as much static thrust (although top end suffers). The large props and the large wing area (and flaps) is how it would deal with the lower power loading with smaller engines. Also, taking the old airframe and cleaning it up (including smaller than scale blisters) would greatly reduce drag, making the aircraft get away with smaller engines easier. My cruise speed goal was based on using the larger 200 hp engines. That way someone could put the big engines in if they wanted a fast plane, or put in smaller engines if they wanted economy. As far as prop erosion from spray, that could be minimized/eliminated with some careful attention to hull design You may want to consider revising some combination of horsepower, useful load, and gross weight, as 320hp would be a dog hauling around 4750lbs. -Nathan The 50% scale at 4750 lbs gross is based on the later models that had 38000 gross. Based on 35420 gross, it's 4427 lbs. The power loading with 2-160hp engines is more like that of a 172 at 4750. If you were at 4500 gross, 2-160hp engines would be more like the power loading on a cherokee 180. My dad has said that on a hot day that extra 20 hp sure made a difference (172 vs cherokee 180). Perhaps I'll revise gross weight to 4500 lbs. My goal in engineering the airframe is to achieve empty weight 55% of gross. so my goal at 4500 gross is 2475 empty and 2025 useful, which still meets my original useful load goal. In the early 1970's while stationed at the Pentagon a bunch of us worked on scaling various WWII aircraft. It became immediately obvious that there were were two things we could NOT scale: the pilot and the engines. -R.S.Hoover As far as pilot relative scaling, at 50% scale there shouldn't be much of a problem, and if it was close you could just fudge the size a bit to compensate, since it's generally to scale, not carbon copy to scale. At 50% we are looking externally at 5' wide and 4' tall, so inside would be a bit smaller. I was thinking of making the fuse a bit taller than scale. I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia etc. featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find the name of the series. Kumaros It's all Greek to me Oh shoot, can't find the bookmark. I know what you are talking about, the Explorer by Hubert de Chevigny and Dean Wilson (Dean did the Private Explorer that was like a single engine winnebago). It had a pair of 300hp O-540's , grossed 8000 or so, big and boxy, was huge inside. I think it topped out at 125 mph or kts, can't remember. The photo I saw it was painted yellow. Gihugic for a pair of O-540's! AhHa! didn't find the page I found way back when, but found a photo of it at the bottom of this page... http://fafagege.free.fr/html/eng/reves.htm I even approached one of Burt Rutan's test pilots and told him to get Burt working on the idea..?? Stu Fields If I can do half as well as what a thoeoretical Rutan "pby" could do, this thing would still be awsome! I hope everything goes well for the whole team at scaled composites on the 21st for their official 100km altitude space attempt with "SpaceShipOne". If I wern't so poor, I'd drive down to watch it live! Again, thanks for the comments! Much Appreciated! Tom-aka-Dieselfume
|
|
#9
June 11th 04, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom Osmundson" wrote in message om... Pardon for the earlier triple post, connection was giving me fits... snipped kumaros wrote I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia etc. featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find the name of the series. Kumaros It's all Greek to me Oh shoot, can't find the bookmark. I know what you are talking about, the Explorer by Hubert de Chevigny and Dean Wilson (Dean did the Private Explorer that was like a single engine winnebago). It had a pair of 300hp O-540's , grossed 8000 or so, big and boxy, was huge inside. I think it topped out at 125 mph or kts, can't remember. The photo I saw it was painted yellow. Gihugic for a pair of O-540's! AhHa! didn't find the page I found way back when, but found a photo of it at the bottom of this page... http://fafagege.free.fr/html/eng/reves.htm That's it!!! That's the yellow monster of a sea-plane that was featured in the series. In a couple of "interior" (he, he) shots you could see the tube fuselage and the insulation as well as the bamboo furniture. Now if I could only remember the name of the series :-( So, to come to your original post. Why could you not replicate or even scale down this one instead of a Catalina? Kumaros It's all Greek to me It's all Greek to me
|
|
#10
June 12th 04, 06:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's it!!! That's the yellow monster of a sea-plane that was featured in
the series. In a couple of "interior" (he, he) shots you could see the tube fuselage and the insulation as well as the bamboo furniture. Now if I could only remember the name of the series :-( So, to come to your original post. Why could you not replicate or even scale down this one instead of a Catalina? Kumaros It's all Greek to me It's all Greek to me I suppose one could duplicate it but it's kinda draggy with many external braces and slow (although one could clean up the design). I'm sure it works great, but lacks that classic look a catilina has. I believe when I had some specs of it, the empty to gross ratio wasn't the greatest. I think it was 5000 empty 8000 gross. It is metal, I'm looking at composite for corrosion resistance. But you could make a composite version of it (and get a better empty to gross ratio), like I want to do to the PBY. Some advantages of the PBY design is having the wing on a pylon. This gets the same wing area (with same aspect ratio) in a shorter span. It gets the engines up higher, out of the spray. The engines are close enough together SE operation is relatively easy. You can stand on top of the fuse to open a cowling and check the oil or whatever. The retractable floats add cool factor but also adds weight. But outrigger floats can be smaller than inboard sponsons to do the same job. Tom: In the outer Pacific islands you can get auto gas, diesel and if there is a runway jet fuel. But NO avgas. BTW I know a guy that flew a Grumman something or other Goose? out in the Marshalls for awhile. He now is in Calif selling a strange fast outrigger sailboat. Stu Fields Thank you for that post, I would have never thought of fuel availability to that extent. That is definitely an advantage for using 200 hp deltahawk diesels(can use diesel or Jet A).
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Anyone recommend a source for designing hinged wings? | Tim Schoenfelder | Home Built | 8 | August 28th 03 02:07 AM |
Hybrid Mode
