Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Speedboat100, Aug 9, 2019.
Dudes here fly R/C models with self made floats.
The reality of it is that you’ll likely want some sort of proper boat hull type design on your float so that it is easier to sail (operate on water while taxiing, etc.). Otherwise it’ll be a bear to maneuver, me thinks.
Yeah, floats like Full Lotus are closer to the model floats than a more traditional hull design. But I think I’d rather be able to maneuver my plane more easily.
Experimenting may reveal suitable results, though.
Here is a pair I got. They could use a new, good home. "Some Repair Required" and more pictures available.
The secret of easy sailing (IMHO) is adequate rudders. The guys I have cry out for drag placed on the inside of the turn.
Flat bottom floats work fine in every way on calm water. The v bottom is only needed for crashing through larger waves (high speed impacts). Ultralights fly slow. The early Pietenpol floats and others were flat bottom (Plans in Flying and Glider Manual from EAA)
Also, you can shave the sides of the nose so it tapers a bit.
Yes, but that will make it less directionally stable on the water until the fore body is clear of the water.
Those simple ones could be extremely easy to build from wood ( plywood and foam ) for instance.
Water seems to need more rudder power:
If you add some small hydroplanes the shape doesn’t even matter. It only determines whether you sink or float. They are WAY better than most people would assume.
Even a small hydroplane the size of your arm can support well over 1000lbs at under 20mph.
Something as light as an UL will hydroplane around 10-15mph if that. A human powered hydroplane can lift 200lbs at below 10mph with a fraction of 1 HP.
So as far as water performance goes, they are extremely simple and effective.
If more people were familiar with them I think they would have more widespread use.
Anyway the Hansa Brandenburg ( W.29-33 ) floats seem to be most simple yet aerodynamic enough.
Y’all got me there. I only have experience with heavier planes on floats. Thanks for filling in the blanks fir the lighter stuff.
"If you add some small hydroplanes the shape doesn’t even matter."
I've noodled hydrofoils for floats a bit. I would grant that getting off the water at a Much Lower Speed is a signal advantage. Would they have to be retracted for landing? Worried about dig-in.
That is a good question.
Im fairly certain they would skim the water until speed was reduced to the point that they went under. This could be tested gradually by skimming the water at gradually increasing speeds and forcing the hydroplane down to see at what point it becomes unstable.
But Im fairly certain there wont be an issue because of how minor the drag is, as even sailboats using wind power can go 50mph without digging in.
But only testing will tell. Some unforeseen problem may occur.
Lake tried hydrofoils. It works, but structurally and other issues.
Problem could be also that hydrofoils don't float.
"...hydrofoils don't float."
`Greed, Speed. They would have to have flotation of some form; Hull as in
Or some other method. Would like to know how the Lake `foil worked.
Probably a lot easier on a tube frame where load paths are simple. Trying to add one to an existing aluminum hull sounds like a nightmare unless it can be attached closely to the landing gear assembly.
Yes..but the 20 cm clearance from the water at any kinda wind won't keep the cockpit dry.
I would also like to see video of the people getting in and out of the Lisa.
Imho a major reason hyrofoils are not common on aircraft floats is they are easily damaged by debris. Lots of sticks branches & logs lurking just under the surface that a float hull may run over with various amounts of damage. But a hydrofoil would be destroyed.
I have it on good authority that a tunnel hull is the best thing to use.
Separate names with a comma.