Paul Weston Sea-Era

there are three Wing-in-ground options
1) only over water (class A)
2) over water and to 150 meters heights (class B)
3) over water and 150 meters of height (a class C) are higher


the license of the pilot is required only on a class C


question


where there will be more buyers?
1) there where the license of the pilot is necessary
2) there where the license isn't necessary

 

Answer: 1)

I cannot use a hover craft to fly long distances over mountains etc. I can with my roadable airplane. I can also drive the body to a store and get great fuel economy. I cannot land on a street and drive it down a road, but with mine you can. The LSA is easy to get. As a pilot gets more experience he can get the Private license. The hover craft is a dead end.

Holden

 

Nice, but how do I drive it down the road and use it on a daily basis? I don't need a bus, I need a car that can fly. Time is the issue. A bus is not good on time because I have to go by a schedule. Life does not happen on a government schedule.

Holden

 

Won't fit in my garage. Very expensive. Looks nice.

 

qxev,

They all look nice, but what is the purpose of them? Can they be used daily? Show me a 737, what should I say? Nice, but not something I need.

Holden

 

logic chain... it is necessary for us


1) home plane
2) but not "the car with wings"
3) on the highway it is necessary to go on the ordinary car

what is "the home plane"?


1) it to be stored in garage at the house
2) the airfield isn't necessary to it, there is enough river or a field


http://www.airconsult.com.tr/Shark.htm

it flies only over water...
has the motor 240лс and is on sale for $200 000...
if it flies on 150 meters of height and cost of $70 000... that it will be bought by thousands people

 

qxev,

Nice hover craft, but it does not serve a daily function and therefore few will buy it. It is only a toy, not a serious transportation machine. If you have to trailer it, then it is a toy that cannot be used for daily life.

Who makes these?
How many do they sell?
Why so few?

Holden

 

Very well said. So are we dealing with Paul Weston here or the guy responsible for the design of the Sea-Era or both? I really like the design of the Sea-Era.

 

Jay,

I am NOT Paul Weston. I worked with Paul on the high wing. I did the structural design, built part of the high wing prototype and did the wing tunnel test on the high wing. Paul built the scale models and I did the computer work, analysis, aero computer model, etc. We basically were taking the low wing and moving it up and adding in a 2-3 place "theater" seating.

I pulled work on the project because it would be a $140,000 airplane or about what an ICON would cost. I did not see a viable market at that price. I also found an aero issue I was not comfortable, which amounted to having the wing moved forward about 1 foot among other things. This movement made it not practical to put the struts into the delta as planed due to landing gear issues. During this analysis I came up with some better ways to achieve design goals so I moved on. Paul wants to build the high wing still.

Holden

 

we again come back to elementary logic...


1) it is the device which is safe on landing more competitors?
... yes...
2) this device can be changed so that it was capable to fly of height of 150 meters, but nevertheless - remained is also safe on landing?
. yes...
3) this device can be made essentially cheaper in production (from $200 000 to lower the price to $70 000)?
... yes...


further I will explain - how the price decreases

1) don't deceive itself...


the biggest mistake of the designer - to lay down to itself initially impracticable aim....


it is impossible to create the device which at the same time there will be "a good airplane + the good car" rolled into one...


it will be "the bad airplane + the bad car"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo0MEQSGW8w&feature=related


your Sea-Era even is incapable to leave independently on the coast from the river...


it will be pulled out by the crane (or specially equipped departure-slip is necessary)


- it is possible to speak about what convenience of using?


2) the home plane needs to be built for those people which house stands near the river. lakes.


who lives far from the river, simply leave the "home plane" on parking (as well as the ordinary boat).


but by no means, won't go for 100 miles, on the same device...


simply because no administration will allow to go on highways of the general using - by a self-made hybrid of a vehicle


it is elementary truth

 

I used to love Thunderbird 2, often wondered what had happened to it.

 

First off, the old Sea-Era does have a lot of limitations, I agree. This is why I did not continue development of the concept. It did not do things you mention. It was not roadable, or very useful. I get it. Please stop using the Sea-Era to beat me over the head.

Second, the new design is a better car without the front engine and wing, and is a better airplane, in my view. But it is not a better car when the front engine and wing is installed due to the top heavy nature of the design. This is analogous to a Porsche pulling a trailer. Without the trailer it is a lot of fun, but with the trailer it is not as fun. Such an approach could be successful. This is my view.

My new design can go off road into very muddy places and more places than any hover craft can go. It can go up mountains which no hover craft can. Hover craft are good only for flat surfaces, water, but fail in the real world.

Holden

 

First, you keep using the old low wing Sea-Era design as my optimal design. Stop it. It is not. I don't claim it is, or say it is. I stated clearly that I stopped the design because does not meet my goals, yet you still try to use it to club me over the head.

Sea-Era low wing failing: 1) not good at being roadable., 2) no way to store wings, 3) cannot go into muddy areas and needs docks and ramps or trailer, 4) low wing can catch, 5) one person, 6) costly, 7) limited down visibility, 8) not useful on a daily basis (key)....lots of things wrong with the Sea-Era. I understand...

Hover craft failings: 1) good only on flat surfaces. Hovering by nature is flat. World is not flat, except for water. 2) not good flying machine, lots of drag 3) Not able to do IFR flying, LSA or private pilot, 4) costly, 5) not useful on a daily basis (key).... Do you get it? Do you understand? A hover craft is a toy, like a jet ski is a toy. Sure, knock yourself out, have a blast, likely more fun than other toys, but it is NOT useful on a daily basis.

As for highway, no, if you make it road worthy and safer than a regular car, then the government will promote it. I made a presentation the the largest airbag manufacturer in the world. I showed them how my technology made their airbag inflators obsolete and how they can save 30,000 lives each year with my technology. I use to work for them years ago. They were not interested, just like all corporations are not interested in new ideas UNLESS you can show it and it threatens their cash flow. This is life. I get it.

Most people don't live near water so a hover craft is not useful.

Can you state why you post all these pictures? Is there a design point you want me to see that I seem to not understand? Please be direct and state what you want my thick head to get. Sorry, I don't understand.

Holden

 

dear Holden, don't take to heart my critical statements...


we here simply exchange opinions


you like one type of flying devices (quite perspective, in comparison with ordinary airplanes)


but my right - to have the opinion, and to bring arguments into its advantage

 

besides, there is also colloquial barrier...


I will try to set an example, what flying device I consider an optimum (not on design, and on a priority of "an availability principle")

Pou-Guide - Le projet "GROUND EFFECT" MICA (Michel D'ESCATHA)
The principle should be clear to you.


1) not simply flying device which is a little better than the ordinary airplane


2) and the flying device which has enormous advantage (for example, a combination of simplicity of manufacturing + the small price + the license of the pilot) isn't necessary


why enormous superiority over modern competitors is required?


because only in this case the private designer can ignore "leading producers of airbags", build the production and extend (as the flying car of "super quality of simplicity" many people are ready to buy... already today)

 

yes, there are interesting subjects of original flying devices

Spratt Control Wing Flying Boat - YouTube

 

I am curious what you opinion is, but I am having a hard time understanding.

Can you just spell it out? Maybe someone can translate this into simple terms so that I can see what you are after. You seem to be onto something, but I don't see it.

Holden