Paul Weston Sea-Era

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,360
Location
Fresno, California
Re: Paul Weston Sea-Era Incident 03 04 2013

Fox 13 News said:
The 86-year-old has logged more than 86 hours of flight time on the plane. He has only crashed twice."
Only twice? Sounds pretty nonchalant. ;)

Glad to hear that he is OK.
 

captarmour

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
368
Location
Roseau, Dominica.
im trying to get my head around the flap 0 being better. one negative is that if it did ground loop it would have been at a higher speed. quick question, does it normally pitch up with flap extension? anyhow we are all glad he was unhurt.

from the first time i saw it i thought boy she needs bigger wingtip pontoons, not realizing it they are tip skis not pontoons. same thing with the Beriev 103, which suffered damage in Miami on a water landing with gear partially extended.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
2,102
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
Takeoff flap considerations.

im trying to get my head around the flap 0 being better. One negative is that if it did ground loop it would have been at a higher speed. quick question, does it normally pitch up with flap extension?
I thought the 0 flap comment would be questioned. The biggest issue with regard to take off and flaps is that it is difficult to rotate the aircraft enough for the lifting body to have any effect on the take off run. The greater the flap setting the lower the wing incidence and therefore wing lift on the takeoff run may be less and the wave impact greater with the flaps ten versus flaps 0. In rough water the wave action will pitch the aircraft into the air and the lifting body now is effective to keep the aircraft flying. Although stall speed is slightly higher overall drag is less and the aircraft accelerates more quickly. I find the shortest take off is accomplished by making the takeoff run with flaps 0 and applying flaps 10 and rotating at the same time.

The thing that got Paul was the wing tip contact in waves large enough that the tip ski penetrated the water sufficient to allow the wing lower curved surface to contact the water and suck the wing down. At flaps zero the increased wing incidence makes the tip ski more effective. At flaps 30 the tip ski is noticeably much less effective.

Had Paul been successful in keeping the wings level the incident most likely would not have happened. I guess that is one reason for a high wing version. Not having seen the conditions, I do not know if I could have done any better or if I have operated in the same or larger waves.

Judging from the damage I suspect this impact was somewhat more severe that the infamous video of the second flight. I find it difficult to imagine that. Both instances were with a flap 10 position.

Does it pitch up with flap extension? Not much.
 
Last edited:

captarmour

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
368
Location
Roseau, Dominica.
Thanks Jedi, I understand.

The reason I asked about the pitch with flap extention is to figure out what effect the flap has on the AC. Without a tail flap will induce a pitch down. With a tail contributing to lift the AC is farther back so with increased lift on the wing with flap extension, extending flap tends to lift the nose as that increased lift is felt ahead of the AC. That may cause the aircraft to rotate easier which is good but also decreases stability as the static margin is reduced, which is not good.

however if she normally does not pitch up much at all with flap extension, then the tail may not be lifting as much, so there is less forward AC movement with flap extension, so she should remain more stable.

this makes your observations and comments right on the money.

At the risk of sounding like I'm giving advice, my 2 cents for the least expensive fix would be bigger skis or pontoons and fixed slats on the outer LEs.
 

captarmour

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
368
Location
Roseau, Dominica.
If I may I would like to comment. Please don't see this as an effort to dilute or disagree with what you or anyone has said.

Re "The thing that got Paul was the wing tip contact in waves large enough that the tip ski penetrated the water sufficient to allow the wing lower curved surface to contact the water and suck the wing down."

It may be that at very low clearances, what may be termed extreme GE, airflow on the upper wing surface tends to separates which may aggravate this situation. That may be the reason why the Berieve B103 has fixed slats. Their website says the reason is to increase aileron effectiveness, which may be saying the same thing.

in a real world scenario a wave reduces the clearance under one wing the wing starts to drop due to flow separation, the aileron is moved down to increase lift, but instead increases the wing drop, what you described then happens...

Re " Judging from the damage I suspect this impact was somewhat more severe that the infamous video of the second flight. I find it difficult to imagine that. Both instances were with a flap 10 position."
In his interview Paul said take off is at about 60 mph. In the video we saw of the first incident he may have been quite a bit slower judging from his pitch attitude. The wingtip strike and subsequent spin would have dissipated more speed. The spin may also have relieved some of the stress on the left wing as well as reducing the wingtips forward speed to almost dead slow.

in the second incident if the hull was still in the water when the wingtip dug in, the force is trying to turn the aircraft while the hull and water rudder is trying to keep the aircraft straight creating high load acting through the wing junction.

lets hope she is easily repairable and that we don't have too much stress from the FAA.
 
Q

qxev

Guest
Very nice video for another thread, not Sea-Era.
1)these planes use the same principle, as Sea-Era

2) this information can seem to other people quite pertinent here

3) it isn't necessary to pose as the president... nobody appointed you to this role
 

Holden

Banned
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
1,319
Location
USA
1)these planes use the same principle, as Sea-Era

2) this information can seem to other people quite pertinent here

3) it isn't necessary to pose as the president... nobody appointed you to this role
qxev,

I don't see how they are the "same" principle. Please explain.

The information is by way of comparison, as the hull designs are very different than a Sea-Era. The twin hull has issues that would have killed Paul on his first crash... The ground effect is not a primary consideration of the Sea-Era, just a possibility if desired.

Thanks for the link.

Holden
 
Q

qxev

Guest
qxev,

I don't see how they are the "same" principle. Please explain.
Sea-Era:
bearing fuselage + plane wings

Bartini's plane:
bearing fuselage + plane wings

distinction in that Bartini's plane has lateral floats
 

captarmour

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
368
Location
Roseau, Dominica.
Qxev, do you have video with the first two models in the video actually in ground effect? The second orange model looked like it was touching the ground before its abrupt climb.
 

captarmour

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
368
Location
Roseau, Dominica.
Qxev, when you said" it isn't necessary to pose as the president... nobody appointed you to this role" I said to myself "yes he is right", so I said nothing...but asked an honest question to find out more about these fine flying machines that interest me, thinking that this would say loud and clear that i don't want to be president. So what are you saying? are you now appointing me as president by agreeing that this is not the thread?
 
Q

qxev

Guest
Qxev, when you said" it isn't necessary to pose as the president... nobody appointed you to this role" I said to myself "yes he is right", so I said nothing...but asked an honest question to find out more about these fine flying machines that interest me, thinking that this would say loud and clear that i don't want to be president. So what are you saying? are you now appointing me as president by agreeing that this is not the thread?
I don't accept master's tone, from other people

therefore I will solve - that it is necessary to tell here


don't try to manipulate me, it won't turn out
 

Holden

Banned
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
1,319
Location
USA
testing low flying like sea era

SquareLEX - YouTube
Captarmour,

The Sea-Era has patented technology Patent US6264136 - High efficiency combination wing aircraft - Google Patents

The concept is the body AC forward of the wing panel AC with the wing panel rotating while deploying flaps. This allows the wing to remain below stall and the body to pitch to high AOA.

The problem is the same problem found on delta wing craft, namely, high AOA. Basically the panel wing and body is about half way between a conventional wing and delta in pitch.

The other innovation is the hull design that saved Paul behind twice so far. This was covered in Paul's first patent.

Holden
 
2
Top