Norms flying Boat

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
12,821
Location
Port Townsend WA
Looks good Norm.
Must feel good flying your very own design.... For a fraction of the cost of a new overweight ICON.
Glad to hear you are now getting some actual dual instruction.
 

Norm Langlois

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
206
Location
Northwood NH USA
Pictures are hard to come by seen from out side. This photo taken during a fast taxi demonstration, at a local fly-in.
[Himatt] you may study this one and reflect on our earlier posts and now see what my change results are. this zero additional added attack config would have flown I did not wish to make a landing on such a small pond .grnlnd fast taxi.jpg
 

Himat

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
2,865
Location
Norway
Pictures are hard to come by seen from out side. This photo taken during a fast taxi demonstration, at a local fly-in.
[Himatt] you may study this one and reflect on our earlier posts and now see what my change results are. this zero additional added attack config would have flown I did not wish to make a landing on such a small pond .View attachment 25021
A late reply, I have been busy with a big old house I and my wife bought this summer. It does look like you are developing your plane to work very well. A remarkable effort!

I do think that your thoughts on modification were in line with what I tried to sketch. At least it look like that from the picture. Then one question, is the aft outriggers and hull the same in the picture in post 42 and in the movie in post 40?

If so, it look to me like the outriggers do drag slightly just before takeoff. At touch down the aft part of the outriggers appears to touch down first. Take of performance could then maybe be improved by making the wedge shape of the outriggers (in side view) sharper?
 

Norm Langlois

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
206
Location
Northwood NH USA
Sorry for the late reply as well.
To answer that yes Himatt the configurations are the same in 40 and 42,The only difference is permanence fiber glassed and painted.
I stopped flying Labor day week. I had an extremely fine outing with 0 to 3 mph wind conditions.Burned up 4 gallons and went home.
The point which you refer to touches the gravel or what ever is the lake bottom when the plane is turned for boarding. A sharpening would be improve but not survive. What is there is a blunt rounded being actual 3/4 tubing glassed over. and suffers from the abrasion.
pictures and video show splash and the bow wake obscuring as if touching ,But actual not anymore, since revisions. contact only when I effect rotation and on final flare when landing the effect then actual causes a straightening if the landing is crabbed.

I have at this time only one more revision to add to the design. This will be a flattening at about 3 degrees center hull upward from the CG going aft. With the chine sides unchanged. This will repair The gravel abrasions to the transom wall which have sheared at the apex of the bottom and transom wall. this may remove some drag and effect better rotation. I will fly it another year this way before maybe building a new plane with all the improvements.

Yes I am the designer builder and also a beginner pilot, but I could not be more pleased with the end results it is a real pleasure to fly in good weather and calm condition. Take off and landing so gentile . The climb rate has not been calculated I don't have a gauge. It is good but must take care to have plenty of safety margin . The winds around the lake tend to cause a sink rate you cant calculate.
Regards to all
 

scottperk

Active Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
25
Location
Atlanta, GA
Congratulations on a phenomenal seaplane project! the videos are fantastic !

Norm- Can you give us some total and component weights and how easy is might have been for you to make the legal 103 ultralight weights ? Also wondering if you might have created a photo gallery anywhere and uploaded lots of photos showing details of your design etc.
There is a yahoo group called SEABUILD that has lots of technical info in the FILES section governing development of boat and seaplane hulls and planes in general. Would love for you to create an album there in the PHOTOS section and upload your hi res images. You will be blown away by the photo collection of historical small and light seaplanes going way way back.

The only two plan sets in the modern era that I know of for small single seater seaplanes is for the French Hydroplum and the Italian Baganfibio. Perhaps the most attractive recent attempt ( successful) at a legal UL seaplane was the "Flying Fish" also featured in an album at YAHOO SEABUILD.
Scott Perkins
 
Last edited:

Jan Olieslagers

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
134
Location
Haacht, Belgium
Excuse the probably stupid question (I fly a European style ultralight, 2-seat 80 HP Rotax 450 kg MTOW, and am fascinated by seaplanes but do not know much about them really):

Time and again I see mention, in this thread and in others. of a "planning hull" - what is a planning hull, or what does it take to make a hull go planning?
 

akwrencher

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
1,149
Location
Gustavus, AK
A planning hull is a hull, boat or airplane, that rides "on top" of the water. A "displacement" hull rides IN the water. Any small high speed boat is planning. It's called being "on step" Take a look at seaplane hulls and you can see a break in the surface of the hull part way back. This is the "step". It is important because you would never get going fast enough to take off if you could not plane the hull, or get "on step". A sharp break at the back and a straight surface, V or flat is ok, from the break forward is needed for planning. Hulls that are not straight with a sharp break at the back will not plane, no matter how much power you give them. Google images will give you some visual references.
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
Power boats plane the entire hull. The step is the stern.

7d05a64df06cea3f31b2ee1d8d987ac0.jpg

Some modern boats have steps amidship but they are so that the hull can plane flat and not lift the bow. Flying boats and floatplanes have steps mid way because the need relatively little buoyancy relative to the overall length needed for the tail control surfaces.

Then you have hydrofoils which lift the hull completely out of the water, avoiding the whole issue.
 

Norm Langlois

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
206
Location
Northwood NH USA
its been A while sorry I dropped of the face of the planet for a while. I didn't mean not to reply to anyone. I have been very busy with building a new house and had grounded myself for the duration.
As for the photo gallery I do have a lot of pictures but not a very well documented process. I had always intended to clean that up after I got things perfected.

I have I be leave finalized. and do plan a test flight before the season ends. For all the other comments I made concerning my plane and its hull . Or the three part system main hull and rear floats.
I have perfected the combination and the angles of incidence to perfection and as for the the need for step there is or the is not depending on how you view the arrangement.
I view things differently than most. an ultra light has not the same needs as heavy general aviation. the lift off being at such a low speed most of you are missing the point as water multiplies the drag ratio much faster than air general aviation must use the step. I believe I have proven that.My plane is truly a planing hull with no step. and I am allowed to fly off the water.with little or no rotation. using a fixed angle of incidence of 3 degrees positive to the hulls mean level at planing speed. It was just this I searched for for so long the best angle of incidence.
For those who do not believe this to be so then the stern is the step and the elevation difference between the main hull and the rear floats is to be viewed as the step.
For the rest of you it flies like a dream and handles the same I could not be more pleased .
I need help to project this design forward I have burned myself out . as well aged my brain to exhaustion it no longer gives up the secrets I take to much pain meds.
 

Himat

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
2,865
Location
Norway
Nice to hear from you again Norm.
A patient follower wait for the next flight report and pictures.
 

fredoyster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
333
Location
Monterey Bay, CA
Norm, good to hear from you again. I think there is good potential for a recreational seaplane as you have demonstrated, it does not have to be an amphibious station wagon like so many people seem to want. Frankly I would rather have a flying canoe than a Cessna that lands on the water. If one is limited to 103 speeds, there's every reason to use a high lift wing design that gets the weight off the floats ASAP and never goes very fast, therefore the floats don't need to have a step at all. This is a different concept than most seaplane designers use, good to see someone challenging the usual. There are a bunch of new electric propulsion ideas that are nearly practical that would help with this -- being able to make 2-300% power for 30 seconds would be a great help for this kind of vehicle, and that's easy to do. In a few years the batteries will be light enough, so it bears some thought in advance. I have a bunch of questions about the powerplant, flaperons, the wing and tail airfoils and angles, and of course the final design of the hull. You don't need fancy 3D drawings but it would be really helpful to have some dimensions to get an idea of what's going on. Not everyone is as skilled as you are in metal work, it will take some time for people to pick up on the skills needed to reach the same point you have. Any chance of some dimensioned sketches of what you built?
 

Norm Langlois

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
206
Location
Northwood NH USA
I would like to share. the problem is that there is a lot of pictures and so much that was trial and error. weeding and wading through all that is to much with out a specific target.
Dimensions even harder much of the final was modified to the as built. without documentation. Something only an ultralight can get away with. If this were to become an experimental build it would have to be done all over documenting every step.
the secret to this whole thing is there is no real plan left, it all got changed as it went along only the fuselage boom exist as the original part and even that was chopped back. the wing was without dihedral. But after testing destroyed the first 2, I made it into 5 degree . the airfoil is a USA 35 Modified. put into a program called Profilie II I then made it tapered and exported it to auto cad in DXF file format then changed them to cad files I was able to plot them in full scale . That is basicly how the wing came to be. the hull is a photo extrapolation from Seamax then also using auto cad I assimilated what I thought it was.It is no longer any thing resembiling the Seamax it was the starting point. The tail is another airfoil I just picked out and made inverted selecting on that fit my boom tube of choice. You see none of this is anything more than an assemblage of existing parts and put together using my skills with metal working. The hull is made from high density styrene using a stress skin and epoxy resin.

What really makes the whole plane is all the incidence and balance placement. You could make a sheet of plywood fly if you dared to sit on it.
The engine is a 440 Kawasaki turning a 68", 2 blade ground adjustable IVO composite prop with a 2.7 to 1 redrive the flaperons are not being used as flaperons just ailerons. they also reduce wing loading with there addition . The plane is a bit high on drag making top speed at 55 MPH .I don't mind. Those are the generals I would have to do some drawings to provide the weights and balances as with the incidence's
 

Norm Langlois

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
206
Location
Northwood NH USA
I was going over all my photo log. There is no written log. If I were to post it as is. There would be only confusion as a result. The beginning is so different than the end result.
Yet it takes the whole set to explain my story so I never deleted photos . I will try to do something about showing parts somewhere.I just do not have time.

In the above post I was trying to say that all the internet access and info .As well the computer age has made it possible for me and others to do what would not be.
I am no aeronautical engineer . I can not speak to you in those terms. Or direct you in anyway. What I have done is for only the daring and self responsible individuals, that realize they are responsible for there on actions and creativity.
I also found direct help scarce .In the beginning there was only one that came forth directly telling me he would help with what ever he could. [Mark Stull ] may he rest in peace.
Later another stepped to the plate and did in fact get me into the air safely (Grant Smith ) contact him if you need assistance to get flying .
Grant helped me fine tune the end results, and much more.I owe a great debt to him. I do not mean monetarily.
There were others that contributed as well by there posts , Even a negative post is useful to someone like myself looking for answers. I found people would tell you what not to do more than what to do.

If you are working a project or want to create I will help. I will also provide components of my design ,I have machinery to recreate wing ribs of many airfoils as well access to that to make other parts.
I may be contacted by E-mail to answer more direct questions the forums here are useful but not for a conversation between one another. ( pjlucky@metrocast.net )
 

larr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
157
Location
markham, ontario, canada
Well, no. For flying boats the step is located just aft of the CG. Roughly the same location as the main gear on a nosewheeler and for the same reasons - it has to rotate in order to take off. Buoyancy determines where the waterline will be and is controlled by the width (beam), not the step location.
Also keep in mind that as a flying boat starts to move it begins to weigh less, unlike an actual boat.
 

Norm Langlois

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
206
Location
Northwood NH USA
I realize the views of others ,will be unyielding. mostly because of the way the step and it function is perceived. Remember the step was not always included on airplanes of long past it is an improvement invention. Because it is always to be placed just aft of the CG. It is also the point of rotation. Its original intent I believe is to provide an aeration to allow separation from the unyielding viscosity of the water. One could design a hull that had no step only an angle change. This would not provide the aeration but would provide rotation. As I have been putting to all of you Ultra light aircraft do not need aeration only the provision to rotate and even that is very minimal ,Especialy in the case my three hull. the rear floats provide VIA elevation difference a rotation . That with the incidence being what they are makes it all work. The stern of the main hull is a bit further aft than a step would be so there is no step. I am providing pictures of the latest change .I have not flown with this yet. they show how I cut down the V hull termination and flattened the terminus out .this is done as much to reduce launch rash as much as anything.
 

Norm Langlois

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
206
Location
Northwood NH USA
The above photo's show a change . I did not need this to fly I needed to repair damage to the glass at the the point where the wall meets the bottom launch rash had broken through here allowing water to infiltrate I had perceived it to be structural compromise as well I will repaint if its final. This actualy may work against me that amount of V hull could have been providing me with additional hull elevations needed to provide me the rotation. It could also have been just a drag point now removed allowing for a smoothing of the wake reducing turbulence to the aft hulls.
 
2
Group Builder
Top