Quantcast

Are there plans for a scratch builable amphibious aircraft

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Bigshu

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
164
I haven't paid too much attention to amphibious aircraft, but now I'm curious. Is there some norm for the amount of travel allowed for by landing gear on amphibians? Is it different than for SEL aircraft? Other than meeting the spec for prop clearance and the amount needed for the weight of the aircraft, what other determinants go into that calculation? I've got a copy of Pazmany's design book, but I'm at work, and probably can't lay hands on it quickly anyway, but I know he discusses landing gear design specifically. I'm sure others do as well, but I think I'll get a reasonable answer here.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,685
Location
Fort Walton Beach, Florida, USA
Do You have more drawings of Shavrov? I have few somewhere too, in old comp.

 

simflyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
226
Location
Moravia
Thank You Mathew :)
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
614
The guy can buy that F250 and the boat and the sea-dos and go use them instantly. (In Canada we have to have a watercraft operator's card, which takes no serious study and is too easy to get.) The private pilot's ticket, on the other hand, takes a lot of study and effort, which discourages anybody in this lazy society unless they REALLY want to fly. I haven't seen student starts vs. completion numbers for a few years, but IIRC it's a lot less than half of those who start actually finish it.

It's not just money. You can't buy a pilot's license. Got to earn it.
lol you have to earn your drivers license too and look how bad some drivers are!
In fact the general public would be stunned to find you can get your violence license in 35 hours.
And honestly you can get the equivalent of many state’s teenage drivers license in about eight hours when your CFI lets you solo.

don’t tell the average non-flyer about that it simply horrifies them!
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,538
Location
Canada
I haven't paid too much attention to amphibious aircraft, but now I'm curious. Is there some norm for the amount of travel allowed for by landing gear on amphibians? Is it different than for SEL aircraft? Other than meeting the spec for prop clearance and the amount needed for the weight of the aircraft, what other determinants go into that calculation? I've got a copy of Pazmany's design book, but I'm at work, and probably can't lay hands on it quickly anyway, but I know he discusses landing gear design specifically. I'm sure others do as well, but I think I'll get a reasonable answer here.
Landing gear travel is defined by the roughness of the worst airstrip you plan to fly from.
On one hand, a smooth concrete runway (think international airport) requires only enough LG travel to absorb landing impact.
At the other end of the scale, stalling a STOL airplane onto a rough gravel bar requires much longer LG travel to absorb impact before bending the airframe. Look at Valdez STOL competitors for extreme examples of LG travel. Note that STOL competitors frequently install extra-long LG so that the wing is at a stalled angle (17 degrees or steeper) while sitting on the ground.

Some amphibians have comparatively flimsy LG because any "out" landings will be on lakes. In the extreme, some larger flying boats are only fitted with beaching gear that is barely strong enough to taxi up a gentle concrete ramp.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,472
lol you have to earn your drivers license too and look how bad some drivers are!
In fact the general public would be stunned to find you can get your violence license in 35 hours.
And honestly you can get the equivalent of many state’s teenage drivers license in about eight hours when your CFI lets you solo.

don’t tell the average non-flyer about that it simply horrifies them!
Getting a pilot's license is a totally different affair from getting a driver's license, which, I agree, is too easy to get and keep. Piloting requires knowledge of a whole lot more theory and a lot more training than just driving around with a licensed driver sitting next to you. It involves a lot more than a simple 40 hours of flight (45 in Canada). There are far more ways to kill yourself in an airplane than in a car. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)

I was a flight instructor, by the way.
 
Last edited:

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
614
Getting a pilot's license is a totally different affair from getting a driver's license, which, I agree, is too easy to get and keep. Piloting requires knowledge of a whole lot more theory and a lot more training than just driving around with a licensed driver sitting next to you. It involves a lot more than a simple 40 hours of flight (45 in Canada). There are far more ways to kill yourself in an airplane than in a car. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)

I was a flight instructor, by the way.
Getting a drivers license is more than just riding around with a licensed driver next to you.
Consider a drivers license to be X squared, then a pilots license is X cubed.
Essentially the process is the same which is probably why John Q citizen is apalled to find out that someone is allowed to fly a plane by them selves after eight hours.
And then when they discover you can get a commercial pilots license in less time then most people get a commercial drivers license they are stunned.
I try not to let the secret get out that they can begin teaching the day they get that commercial license.

Most nonflyers don’t even believe that. Honestly rules in the flying community about licensing pilots and airplanes are just absolutely nutty
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,656
Location
Memphis, TN
They have to have a CFI and a commercial license to which most have also gotten their IFR and Twin along the way. Remember it’s not hours. There is a minimum. If you are not capable, doesn’t matter the total number. 1000 to a PPL for someone who just doesn’t get it is possible. I have known of people who were told they did not have it. Also remember ground hours are not counted. Personally most will spend 100s studying. Most take 60 hours to get so they can do enough to pass a PPL. The first 20 are learning to walk. They count but ability is paramount. The best people I have seen learn are kids who grew up on farms running big equipment. Feet and both hands doing different things is prime to making it easy.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,472
They have to have a CFI and a commercial license to which most have also gotten their IFR and Twin along the way. Remember it’s not hours. There is a minimum. If you are not capable, doesn’t matter the total number. 1000 to a PPL for someone who just doesn’t get it is possible. I have known of people who were told they did not have it. Also remember ground hours are not counted. Personally most will spend 100s studying. Most take 60 hours to get so they can do enough to pass a PPL. The first 20 are learning to walk. They count but ability is paramount. The best people I have seen learn are kids who grew up on farms running big equipment. Feet and both hands doing different things is prime to making it easy.
Exactly. The published minima are just that: the minimum required. Very few solo in 8 hours. More like twice that, and I've seen some still not soloing after 50 hours. Very few get a ppl at 40 hours or the commercial at 200. It can take a year to go from ab initio to the CPL. Good schools assign homework to be completed before the next lesson; that forces the student's mind to be much more ready to absorb the next instruction and can save a lot of stumbling and repeating of lessons. Those that get an hour once a week or two weeks can take two years to get a private ticket. They forget most of what they learned in the interim.
I learned much about the Seven Learning Factors and other stuff like The Curve of Remembering, and saw it all at work when I was instructing. There is FAR MORE involved than the dude off the street realizes. In fact, the students that had the most difficulty were the ones that knew it all already. They could waste weeks finding out that they knew nearly nothing.
 

speedracer

Active Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
38
Talk about thread drift from "Are there plans for a scratch buildable amphibious aircraft". Kingfisher plans used to be available, not sure about now. I built one using two dilapidated ones for parts. It was a good for water flying, fair for ground handling. The gear retracts right alongside the fuselage so a pretty narrow stance but has a locking tailwheel which helps for landing on pavement. Mine had a 290 G (it came out of a LongEZ which in 1993 captured the World Altitude record of 30,000 + feet) which I rebuilt with 290 D 2 pistons for 135 HP. It had (just) enough power to pull it out of the water with two full size adults on board. It would cruise at 105 MPH at 2600 RPM, can't remember the prop size. It's a tractor configuration with the prop swinging down in front of the windshield. Unlike a Lake with the high thrustline that pushes the nose down when adding power it was neutral, didn't go up or down. If I could afford two airplanes (and two hangers) I'd still own it.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,538
Location
Canada
Talk about thread drift from "Are there plans for a scratch buildable amphibious aircraft". Kingfisher plans used to be available, not sure about now. I built one using two dilapidated ones for parts. It was a good for water flying, fair for ground handling. The gear retracts right alongside the fuselage so a pretty narrow stance but has a locking tailwheel which helps for landing on pavement. Mine had a 290 G (it came out of a LongEZ which in 1993 captured the World Altitude record of 30,000 + feet) which I rebuilt with 290 D 2 pistons for 135 HP. It had (just) enough power to pull it out of the water with two full size adults on board. It would cruise at 105 MPH at 2600 RPM, can't remember the prop size. It's a tractor configuration with the prop swinging down in front of the windshield. Unlike a Lake with the high thrustline that pushes the nose down when adding power it was neutral, didn't go up or down. If I could afford two airplanes (and two hangers) I'd still own it.
Dear speedracer,
Thanks for that Kingfisher pilot report.
How was visibility?
How well did it taxi up onto a beach? ... boat-loading ramp?
How well did it handle cross-wind landings?
How easy was it to dock?
 

speedracer

Active Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
38
I'm not a great taildragger pilot (never ground looped one though) so any time I had to do a cross wind landing or if the wind was over 20 MPH I landed on the grass strip alongside the paved runway at Hood River OR. and had no problems. Never taxied up a boat ramp, but did all the local beaches with no problems. When you taxi up onto a beach you get a lot of ride requests and I gave lots of rides. I never docked it. Not sure how I'd do that with the wingtip floats. Visibility is fine as it doesn't sit very nose high like a Cub. The downside is that you have to wheel land it. Try to land slow, the tail wheel touches first. kingfisher.jpg first. kingfisher.jpg
 

speedracer

Active Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
38
This is my favorite Kingfisher pic. My neighbor took it from his deck with a telephoto lens and it appears as if it's about to fly under the interstate bridge. It's not. It's on final approach about to fly OVER the bridge. It's not! I swear!
 
Top