# Is it a question of proportions? Water hull shape and water handling?

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
It seems to me like the lake buccaneer has a lot to offer , short field takeoff on the ground ,fairly high load ability and reasonable performance.

BUT And this is a huge butt in a seaplane, I have heard that it’s water handling shows a propensity for porpoising and a lack of ability in rough water.

Would the lengthening the hull one or two or a few feet change that?

Or is a whole new hull shape really needed?

Is there an experimental that one could build to get the same performance as the lake buccaneer with better water handling?

Better yet is there something out there with the same four seats, 600 foot takeoff roll at gross weight, and even higher useable load, and better water handling?

Sadly in my world what I really need is something that will let me load 1200 pounds and four seats, Carry a couple hundred pounds of camping gear and still load two or 300 pounds of fuel while boasting extraordinary water handling .

Is there anything like that I can build or buy?

#### blane.c

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
It's in Spanish, I translated with google or something but can't find the translated file.
pg 5 has flying hull.

The second one has the translations.

#### Attachments

• 286.4 KB Views: 10
• 4 MB Views: 14
Last edited:

#### blane.c

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
It seems to me like the lake buccaneer has a lot to offer , short field takeoff on the ground ,fairly high load ability and reasonable performance.

BUT And this is a huge butt in a seaplane, I have heard that it’s water handling shows a propensity for porpoising and a lack of ability in rough water.

Would the lengthening the hull one or two or a few feet change that?

Or is a whole new hull shape really needed?

Is there an experimental that one could build to get the same performance as the lake buccaneer with better water handling?

Better yet is there something out there with the same four seats, 600 foot takeoff roll at gross weight, and even higher useable load, and better water handling?

Sadly in my world what I really need is something that will let me load 1200 pounds and four seats, Carry a couple hundred pounds of camping gear and still load two or 300 pounds of fuel while boasting extraordinary water handling .

Is there anything like that I can build or buy?

Last edited:

HBA Supporter

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
I posted about the trident recently the ownership is apparently thinking about manufacturing them again but currently I think there’s only one flying example.
I love the space in the cabin but it’s a heavy plane for the Horsepower so yes it’s lacking general performance.
But it’s probably the closest to what I need and a lotta people want.
The spencer air car is even more lacking in capacity and performance.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Short take off in a seaplane is very possible, but water handling is likely even more important in real-world conditions.

There was a large Japanese seaplane, the Shin Meiwa PS-1, that was capable of operating in open ocean water conditions. Go to the 28 minute mark in this video:
and see the aircraft operating in reasonably heavy seas. It is also a very capable STOL aircraft.

So, although the PS-1 / US-2 is far larger than a homebuilder wants to have, several of the key design elements could be scaled down to the size of a two or four seat flying boat.

#### blane.c

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
The Air Car developed into the Seabee which developed into the Trident.

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
although the PS-1 / US-2 is far larger than a homebuilder wants to have, several of the key design elements could be scaled down to the size of a two or four seat flying boat.
I assume the Gweduck is well suited to water ops, IIRC its hull design was heavily influenced by many of the same studies that led to the US-2.

Still maybe a bit bigger than the OP was after.

#### blane.c

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I assume the Gweduck is well suited to water ops, IIRC its hull design was heavily influenced by many of the same studies that led to the US-2.

Still maybe a bit bigger than the OP was after.
If you scratch built a 180hp Super Cub on straight floats and kept it light, day vfr instruments, and really kept it light with no extra bs, you could come real close. Payload would be around 1000lb in experimental figuring around 2500lb gross weight. People fly them that heavy every hunting season so empirically it works. There is STC for Super Cub to put in extra seats and I have heard of people flying 5 total in a Cub but accommodations may cause some to complain. Probably the least expensive way to get the utility that I know of.
I had feeding a O-290 D2 (four) 12 1/2 gallon fuel tanks 2 in each wing hooked together as one tank in each wing as far as fuel selector was concerned, L/B/R/Off In B fuel would siphon out of port tank into starboard tank because of different pressure between the two wings. About 7hrs worth.

C185 on floats or C206 on floats, if you need amphibious, if you put amphibs on Cub you will lose payload.

Last edited:

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
I assume the Gweduck is well suited to water ops, IIRC its hull design was heavily influenced by many of the same studies that led to the US-2.

Still maybe a bit bigger than the OP was after.
Kinda It’s payload put it close to the bottom of acceptability but it’s overall size is simply ridiculous it’s hard for me to take any vehicle seriously when the payload is a third of its gross weight in a 6000 pound aircraft the most impressive part of that aircraft to me is its price tag.
At that price and gross weight it would need to have a 3500 pound payload to impress me and kind of think there’s a lot of other people that feel that way.

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
I think when it comes to heavy duty workouts, Alaskan bush pilots don’t like how the Buccaneer acts different with different loads and rough water. A lot has to do with incidences at different levels. A Cub or 180 acts the same all the time. The Buccaneer is stuck. An Alaskan friend told me there are only about 5 in the whole state; that’s voting with your money, because there are probably 2000 Cubs with floats.

I just lost a friend who has a Buc. He was not a a high time pilot. He would go fly to the reservoir do some landings, taxi around and go home. Sometimes go to the a Mississippi River and do the same. Sadly it’s for sale or will be soon. There was a business man who would fly his Buc to a marina in the Mississippi, do his work, and fly it home the next day.

It might not be reasonable for you, but the cheapest new homebuilt that will be close is a Bearhawk. Just is. There is the Backcountry Boss. No clue on cost, but I know a BC Cub custom assembled is around $300k. A C180 on floats bought in Ohio will be cheaper than one bought in Alaska. Take it to Alaska and you will be constantly hit up on the the new blood to see if it’s up for sale. You could be Buc owner #6. You never know, you might escape from that island. If you don’t wreck it and it does not work for you, sell it and try again. #### Pilot-34 ##### Well-Known Member Think of it this way in a 200 hp lake buccaneer for$80,000 I can get 1100 pounds Of load off the ground in 600 feet or off water.

what’s out there that can get 1600 pounds off land in 600 feet and off the water too for \$120,000 ?

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Lol
I think there’s just one but it moves around a lot.
You’re probably right about the 2000 cubs thing.
Here’s the thing people don’t make logical decisions based on rational requirements
People buy cubs because their dad had one or they saw one on the lake sometime are they dreamed about having one are they saw one in a movie.
No question about it nothing can do what a super cub can do like it does.
That certainly doesn’t make it up first choice for four people and some camping gear
My irrational choice is that I like a seaplane whole over a plane on floats
But I do still want that ability to operate into and out of short sandbars short fields etc.

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
I think the choices are very rational in Alaska. They pick planes that can survive, be fixed by locals, and can get there. Sea planes like open water. A Cub on floats can handle a curving stream. I only have a one hand experience in Alaska, but it was all aircraft related. They know what works. To two different people I brought up the Buc and one admonished me and the other guy shuttered. These guys know what they are doing. They also don’t care about looks; just guarantees of getting out where they got in. I think it’s also why these guys travel in packs. Two cubs, not one 185. Safety in numbers. You might like sea planes better. Are you going to buck up against the Alaskan rationale or be the Hollywood guy? You could be the famous Buccaneer guy in Alaska. You just don’t want to be the notorious one. My friends will probably be up for sale soon. Not fancy but clean, before he bought it, it was owned by one guy for 25 years in Wisconsin; he only sold it because a better one fell in his lap.

#### blane.c

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
It is hard to keep a 180hp Cub on straight floats under 1400lbs some people get them under a little but most people want a lot of electrical stuff and widgets so weight keeps piling on, reality sucks. I think basic vfr minimal electric or no electric and they could weigh 1250lbs if you are careful and strict on the build maybe under 1200lbs and you are a magician. So a Lake seems like a good idea I agree but never having flown one, well I would definitely get some time in one before I bought it.

#### Riggerrob

##### Well-Known Member
We
I posted about the trident recently the ownership is apparently thinking about manufacturing them again but currently I think there’s only one flying example.
I love the space in the cabin but it’s a heavy plane for the Horsepower so yes it’s lacking general performance.
But it’s probably the closest to what I need and a lotta people want.
The spencer air car is even more lacking in capacity and performance.
Welcome to the seaplane world!
That hull is heavy, typically doubling the empty weigh for the same useful load.

If you consider that the better land planes can lift their own weight in useful load (e.g. 1,000 pound empty weight plus 1,000 pounds useful load = 2,000 gross weight.
OTOH Seaplane hulls and floats are heavy so you need a 2,000 pound empty weight to haul 1,000 pounds of useful load.

If you plan to land on rough sand bars, then those large tires and long-stroke landing gear legs will weight extra. That is why wheels on many seaplanes are little more than "beaching gear" meaning that can taxi out of the water on a gently-sloped beach or ramp. But they need a long, smooth runway to land on their wheels. Some of the biggest military flying boats (Shin Maywa) may carry wheels all the time, but they are not strong enough for landing.

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
We

Welcome to the seaplane world!
That hull is heavy, typically doubling the empty weigh for the same useful load.

If you consider that the better land planes can lift their own weight in useful load (e.g. 1,000 pound empty weight plus 1,000 pounds useful load = 2,000 gross weight.
OTOH Seaplane hulls and floats are heavy so you need a 2,000 pound empty weight to haul 1,000 pounds of useful load.

If you plan to land on rough sand bars, then those large tires and long-stroke landing gear legs will weight extra. That is why wheels on many seaplanes are little more than "beaching gear" meaning that can taxi out of the water on a gently-sloped beach or ramp. But they need a long, smooth runway to land on their wheels. Some of the biggest military flying boats (Shin Maywa) may carry wheels all the time, but they are not strong enough for landing.
Lol I think you’re right but I also think it’s an excuse to look at it this way if the lake buccaneer can pull 1050 off the water with1350 empty weight or 1135 off water or land with 1555 empty weight.
All that with 1940s tech.
Surely in the last 80 years we have advanced somewhat?
Surely with the advantages that homebuilders can exert we can do better.
And lastly the advantage of scale by moving up to a 3600 pound plane should help the Payload to gross weight ratio?

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Anyway back to the original question what seaplane or float hull is generally considered to be the best handling among the what are pilots here?

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
I think the choices are very rational in Alaska. They pick planes that can survive, be fixed by locals, and can get there. Sea planes like open water. A Cub on floats can handle a curving stream. I only have a one hand experience in Alaska, but it was all aircraft related. They know what works. To two different people I brought up the Buc and one admonished me and the other guy shuttered. These guys know what they are doing. They also don’t care about looks; just guarantees of getting out where they got in. I think it’s also why these guys travel in packs. Two cubs, not one 185. Safety in numbers. You might like sea planes better. Are you going to buck up against the Alaskan rationale or be the Hollywood guy? You could be the famous Buccaneer guy in Alaska. You just don’t want to be the notorious one. My friends will probably be up for sale soon. Not fancy but clean, before he bought it, it was owned by one guy for 25 years in Wisconsin; he only sold it because a better one fell in his lap.
I have spent some time in Alaska and I think three things really work hard against the lake number one it’s not common .
if you add that too it wasn’t until recently that the specialized training for the lake configuration was available anywhere at all It’s left a lot of people scared of it
And perhaps the most important thing is it’s really an inconvenient airplane.
The idea of loading a 55 gallon barrel in the backseat is a nightmare the difficulty of strapping a canoe to the side is almost infinite fishing rods tent poles camp stoves etc. are all difficult to carry in the lake and that is the ultimate sin.

#### blane.c

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Russ Williams was over 80 years old so his wife made him take somebody flying when he went, I was lucky to fly with Russ numerous times. I liked to fish with Russ, his idea of fishing was to fly out between Rampart and Tanana and look for a fish wheel operating on the Yukon, He would land the 1960 180 on straight floats on the river taxi up to the fishwheel operator and politely ask if they wanted to sell some fish. Sure was a good fishing machine the 180. The stretch of river mentioned is some of the fastest flowing water on the Yukon river in the USA portion. 236 feet elevation in Tanana, 306 feet elevation in Rampart and 60 miles apart.

It would be better the 185 on amphibs.