• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

Design Discussion: Dornier Seastar

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

justifidejoe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
55
Location
Piqua, OH
The Dornier Seastar is, to me, a very intriguing configuration.
Dornier_Seastar_In-Flight.jpg

Ultimately, my question is: Do you think such a configuration could be made more efficient (in terms of drag) than the Rutan Boomerang configuration? Let's remove the sponsons and streamline the fuselage for a non-amphibian design.

My comments:
  • Like the Boomerang, this configuration has only 2 nacelles (1 for engines, 1 fuselage). A 'conventional' twin has 3. I think this is one of the major contributors to the Boomerang's efficiency.
  • According to this thread, a pylon wing could significantly reduce the induced drag of the fuselage/wing intersection. A mid-wing design (a la Boomerang) has significant induced drag, according to this thesis.
  • Don't have to worry about spar carry-through with regards to fuselage arrangement.
  • A SeaStar-like configuration could have laminar flow over a vast majority of the wing.
  • Furthermore, the fuselage would be out of the prop wash, meaning laminar flow on at least a portion of the fuselage. And much less turbulent flow over the remaining non-laminar portion, right?
  • The tail would still be in the prop wash, beneficial for avoiding deep stall, flight control.
  • Fantastic visibility
  • Probably pretty quiet (rear prop may be noisy)
  • If FIKI is a concern, avoid the need for icing protection on the props, as the rear prop would be in the heat wash from the engines.

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top