Norms flying Boat

Discussion in 'Bush / Float flying' started by Norm Langlois, Feb 20, 2013.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Feb 20, 2013 #1

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    Hello everyone
    Its been a while. I posted an introduction some time ago. For now lets just update to today. 8 years ago I began to build and design, with no aeronautical engineering skills. Please refrain from asking me to give any kind of equation. In spite of all that I have been successful. The plane flew last summer and was taken through a few hours by a qualified test pilot. Also after instruction I have been flying till the cold weather ended my efforts to enjoy the fruit of my 8 year effort.

    A blog like thread in the EAA forums fallowed my efforts. Also a long association with Mark Stull .Until his death in Nov. 2011 a tribute to his help

    I have been reserved from posting here.The level of education being short of the many who post here. Aside from that I would like to find comfort here and share my success. The plane flies well but needs some tweaking, mostly in the floatation system. A Seaplane only configuration a legal part 103. I am 65 soon to be 66 I doubt now that it will be anything but a one of kind.
    There is much about the plane that is unique and deserves exploration. being very UL friendly.and allowing for exploration into many other designs that resemble a more general aviation acceptable venue. I get extreme enthusiasm from people at the lake and boat launch .

    Is there any interested here that might want to get involved improving .Or building on my construction technique?
    I am a NH resident. I will be back flying mid May I suppose. airplane 010.jpg

    I have no available full Photo at this time .there all on my old PC. I have not moved any over here. Seen here wing rotated for road transit.
     
    bmcj and Autodidact like this.
  2. Feb 20, 2013 #2

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    799
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Very nice, Norm. Hope you take more pictures in the spring, we'd all love to see them, I'm sure. :)
     
  3. Feb 21, 2013 #3

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    I have an extensive archive of pictures and video. Much of which is a log of trial and error creations. here are three of the most relevant to the story the V tail never flew and and was good that it didn't I probably would have been hurt at the very least. Most likely killed. The winter of 2012 was spent building the mid stabilator tail configuration.
    Although the first trial proved fruitless. After the addition of the tail float. things changed . with the CG corrected and the angles of incidence between the hull and the wing . The plane flew for the first time in early Aug. with straight ahead landing and take off till the incidence was optimized. It was time to have it test flown by an experienced pilot. That happened on the labor day week end last year. these pictures Starting with the V-tail and the final with myself in the cockpit returning to the launch. The Finished Airplane 003.jpg new tail finished plane 030.jpg hull modification 013.jpg
     
  4. Feb 21, 2013 #4

    RJW

    RJW

    RJW

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    195
    Location:
    Wisconsin and Kansas
    Hi Norm. Very cool plane. Looks like you are having a lot of fun building, testing, etc. Thanks for the posts and pictures. Keep us up to date.

    Rob
     
  5. Feb 22, 2013 #5

    jedi

    jedi

    jedi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,780
    Likes Received:
    402
    Location:
    Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
    Welcome aboard Norm! Anybody wanting to build a light strong all metal fabric covered ultralight wing, Norm is the one to talk to. :)
     
  6. Feb 24, 2013 #6

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    Been trying to get to some of the video.Please excuse the poor quality . These are my first U tube uploads. They are from the labor day week end flown by my test pilot. I will try to find a way to upload the best I have but only if he gives me permission. These shot by my pocket kodak aren't very good. video #10 is the best I have. The boat owner shot better and had [posted to Picasa but seem not to be available anymore.[video]http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC87ctKrNiJ5vqgbP3gkdajA?feature=watch[/video]
     
  7. Feb 28, 2013 #7

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    A few more pictures that represent the differences My plane VS others. Dihedral wing  and plane 014.jpg new rib style 011.jpg The tail is the latest development has encapsulated styrene ribs.The are much stronger than the wing style. The main spar or single spar is an 60 degree triangle . The wing a USA 35 modified is thicker than most allowing for a tall spar needing only single flying wire of 1/8 S/S per side. for a 4G + rating with out the flying wire 2G + or -. Originally intended target was a cantilevered wing it failed to meet that . It has been suggested to me that if I inverted the spar it would . If so the possibilities would extend to low wing or mid wing designs and still meet the UL requirements.
    A new Utube upload with much better definition all flying labor day about 20 min. enjoy same link as above.
     
  8. Mar 1, 2013 #8

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    Himat likes this.
  9. Mar 1, 2013 #9

    9aplus

    9aplus

    9aplus

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    HR 9A
    Nice design Norm, congrats....
     
  10. Mar 1, 2013 #10

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Location:
    Corona CA
    Interesting structure. I concur that if you inverted the spar, it might end up stronger, or at least could be designed to be a little more efficient for the same weight, since you'd be sharing the compression loads between two members and have the single lower member take the tension.
     
  11. Mar 2, 2013 #11
  12. Mar 16, 2013 #12

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    A few questions for anyone and all. Seaplanes and airplanes. The aircraft deals with the one environment while the seaplane deals with both. From the unknowing point of view.(mine).
    It seems to me that hull designs aren't what they should be. While heavy general aircraft can enjoy a power upgrade to get a stable hull airborne. For an U/L. Efficiency is the correct choice .Sometime sacrificing stability for weight . But what is the correct choice?
    The dynamics of the water would say streamline cutting hull low drag.
    Or Should we be using a flying hull .like a hydroplane? I looked at many attempts to turn U/L into seaplanes before I made my choices. Frankly I didn't succeed there. My plane sucks in the water literally.It works but only barely. My plane[Norms flying boat] for those that may read this only.
    I am redesigning the hull and looking for a better way to get it done.
    Question why do you think the weight shift Zodiac float plane gets airborne at all???
    Is it by Power alone or is there something else at work here? A tunnel hull effect maybe?
    If a person can ski on there bare feet at X miles per hour behind a boat.
    Then there must be a factor out there that says exactly what amount of square ft of surface. For a given speed, for a given weight.
    Is there a chart or calculation table out there some where?
    I studied A boat called the Talon a pickle fork tunnel hull.This boat fly's over the water not in it. it lifts on the air trap between the hulls and rides on very small surface .70 mph with a 1/8th inch of ice was a cold but short ride to the oyster beds. 1 and only ride in it.
    I plan something to transfer this effect to my plane with a like configuration skiing on narrow outboard hull with a proper concave tunnel rather than a boat hull.
    Your comments and contributions to the problem will be well appreciated .confirming or descending views.
    Regards Norm
     
  13. Mar 17, 2013 #13
  14. Mar 17, 2013 #14

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,793
    Likes Received:
    644
    Location:
    Norway
    A few questions for anyone and all. Seaplanes and airplanes. The aircraft deals with the one environment while the seaplane deals with both. From the unknowing point of view.(mine).
    It seems to me that hull designs aren't what they should be. While heavy general aircraft can enjoy a power upgrade to get a stable hull airborne. For an U/L. Efficiency is the correct choice .Sometime sacrificing stability for weight . But what is the correct choice?

    An efficient hull can be stable; the real compromise I think is sea keeping ability. An easy planning hull will only tolerate a slight chop.

    The dynamics of the water would say streamline cutting hull low drag.
    Or Should we be using a flying hull .like a hydroplane?

    I would opt for a hull with low water drag and not a very pronounced “hump” speed. That translates to a relative long, narrow planning hull.

    I looked at many attempts to turn U/L into seaplanes before I made my choices. Frankly I didn't succeed there. My plane sucks in the water literally.It works but only barely. My plane[Norms flying boat] for those that may read this only.
    I am redesigning the hull and looking for a better way to get it done.
    Question why do you think the weight shift Zodiac float plane gets airborne at all???
    Is it by Power alone or is there something else at work here? A tunnel hull effect maybe?

    To me it look like the Zodiac float plane have a hull with a large, rather flat hull that need little power to get up and planning. The arrangement might provide favourable CG placement on the hull and the possibility to adjust both hull-water and wing-airflow AOA to optimum when taking off.

    If a person can ski on there bare feet at X miles per hour behind a boat.
    Then there must be a factor out there that says exactly what amount of square ft of surface. For a given speed, for a given weight.
    Is there a chart or calculation table out there some where?

    See the Orion’s Hull.pdf document. I think he cites the original reference too. An internet search and this is mentioned in notes on planning hull lectures in universities.

    I studied A boat called the Talon a pickle fork tunnel hull.This boat fly's over the water not in it. it lifts on the air trap between the hulls and rides on very small surface .70 mph with a 1/8th inch of ice was a cold but short ride to the oyster beds. 1 and only ride in it.

    A picture of the boat? That would help to evaluate the idea.

    I plan something to transfer this effect to my plane with a like configuration skiing on narrow outboard hull with a proper concave tunnel rather than a boat hull.

    A sketch and it would be easier to evaluate for all us airmchair designers:).

    Your comments and contributions to the problem will be well appreciated .confirming or descending views.
    Regards Norm
     
  15. Mar 17, 2013 #15

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    Better still here is a boat like the one I rode in maybe even the same one it was white and had a big merc on it Talon 18 ft pickle fork ther is another utube video of a 21 ft having a bad day.
    tunnel hull boat talon 18 - YouTube
     
  16. Mar 17, 2013 #16

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    Speed is always relevant. Size and weight may make this configuration applicable to the light weight character of the U/L. I have always contended any thing will fly with enough power . Likewise a lighter object could fly better with the correct ratio for same.

    As for a sketch that I can draw in cad but it will take some time I have no scanner. I began drawing what I thought may work and it began to look like a zodiac though I intended flat surfaces not round inflated ones.with a concave underside to create the tunnel hull effect.
    The parallels intrigue me.
     
  17. Mar 17, 2013 #17

    jedi

    jedi

    jedi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,780
    Likes Received:
    402
    Location:
    Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
    Norm,
    I have flown the Flying Inflatable Boat (FIB) that I think is the zodiac you refer to. The inflatable tubes are attached to a conventional fiberglass boat hull. The boat needs to be specially designed for the FIB application or it does not work well. Even then there have been serious problems with stability. The tunnel hull you are planning will work but does not have a great advantage. The video shows boat going 70 and 150 plus MPH. You will be flying at 25 mph. The wing has a much greater effect than the hull lift.
    The important thing is to not have a curved surface in the water at high speed. The plaining surfaces should be flat planes not curved (displacement) type hull curves.
     
  18. Mar 18, 2013 #18

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    Exactly Jedi
    I have seen the Talon hull up close its hull is shear vertical inside and out, has flat angled outward bottom rather sharp.the ram air tunnel is weight and proportional the boat has no wing assisting to fly. I understand what you mean about the speed of the boat that is maybe all relevant to weight the boat is much larger mass. it would need more speed .I contend that a smaller version for the 550# gross weight shared by the wing near flying speed would be complimentary to each other. and the design of the tunnel hulls are very low drag lending speed to the equation with both lifting at the same time separation would be a none entity while all other hulls have bow drag and do not break away with out rotation.If you are producing a bow wave there must be unwanted drag.

    It would be nice to just fly the U/L off the water with out the need for rotation. I think a different style of hull like the Talon may work. If so flight would be gentle and calculating as the pilot intends even in glassy conditions.

    As a note to all One of the problems with my airplane design is the limited rotation ability. there is some but not enough to accommodate the traditional boat shaped hull with step.which on my plane exhibits a great deal of speed limiting drag.

    That is the reason for this search into alternatives even if they are not yet tried and proven.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2013
  19. Mar 19, 2013 #19

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,793
    Likes Received:
    644
    Location:
    Norway
    I did watch the YouTube videos of your plane a few times more, and correct me if I am wrong in these observations:

    -Take of run from full power to lift off is 12 to 14 second.
    -The airplane does not rotate significant to lift off.
    -The hull maintains the same trim angle from stationary to lift of speed.
    -On the last part of the take of run it look like the rear part of the planning surface is lifted out of the water increasing hull drag.

    The only other YouTube with an ultralight on floats I found was a Quiksilver. That one used 11 seconds to lift off. To me your plane performs pretty well. That might be because the hull is not an “orthodox” stepped seaplane hull. If the video “labor day boat launch to beach” is representative, the “step” is by the “standard” to far aft. The forward CG and aft “sponsoons” prevent the hull to trim bow up. This might cut “hump” drag and make the plane accelerate quicker the first part of the take of run. As the speed build, the acceleration is slowed due to a large wetted are and unfavourable hull trim. (Nose down.) The goal must then be to keep the initial quick acceleration and speed up the later part.

    You do suggest a “tunnel” type hull lay out. That might work, but like jedi I don’t think you get any lift from the air trapped in the tunnel at the speed this airplane have. The “pro” on this hull is that you get long slender hull’s that don’t have a pronounced “hump” before planning. With twin hull’s you also get a stable platform when waterborne if the spacing is sufficient. There might be a weight penalty, but that might be offset with discarding the outriggers. As for untested ideas, here is another picture of my avatar:


    Project.jpg
     
  20. Mar 20, 2013 #20

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Norm Langlois

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Northwood NH USA
    Your observations were right on from the video. There is more to why the hull performs poorly. I stated in the beginning I needed to redo it.first is the incidence at the high speed taxi /just before lift off. there is a portion of the bow that is humped and rounded pushing down into the water actual sucking the plane in even when there is actual another 10% throttle to apply but all I get for that is nose down drag. t

    The existing hull to wing incidence is 3 degree off. A 2 inch spacer has been applied to present the wing at an optimum attack. A 3 inch spacer would and does fly right off the water and all this conversation would seem mute. I do not like adding in the spacers that would require the removal of the hull and reattaching to fix . I don't like the bump on the bow its part of the problem. the hull has a weakness that needs repair.

    I think I can lift off in 5 seconds if corrected on step in 2 flying speed in 3 more its that fast. the bump just sucks me down I would not give up the rearward sponson's they do exactly what intended and actual need to be lengthened

    Your observation of the step is correct its 14 inches to far aft and needs to be cut away this occurred during final balancing. The hull was already attached [ its on with a permanent adhesive]. placing the removed displacement on the sponson would increase static stability.
    What I am now telling you is that the hull needs to be removed and reapplied anyway .

    Let me say this I have been thinking how my comments about the tunnel hull are perceived. lets look at that differently the shape of such a hull would be more like a ski design. with flat bottoms and the tunnel it would come up on plane as on skis. the air even though small being rammed into the concave hull would assist going up on step and the step in the correct place .[In my case the step is the transom] since the is no after hull. the sponsons are out of the water all but the ruder portion . only a slight rotation would be required now and all that bow drag is eliminated. this of course depends that the reattachment of the new hull is 3 degrees up plane from the existing hull. And i would not need to put spacers under my leading wing mounts.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white