# Paul Weston Sea-Era

Discussion in 'Bush / Float flying' started by billyvray, Dec 1, 2011.

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

1. Nov 17, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

I am glad to be to you useful

2. Nov 17, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

Holden you think, what the most important is to construct the good flying device (which it will be better than Cessna)?

it also - the main mistake of all designers...

the main problem - not to construct very good flying device...

and that this device was started in the sky (allowed its mass use officially)...

without creating artificial obstacles (in interests of a lobby of the leading companies of aircraft)

try to understand...

nobody will allow to use it - if it causes a financial damage to leaders of the market

3. Nov 17, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

I will give some examples

it is extremely good plane... high safety from accidents and fires...

and it is completely tested in the sky and on the earth

the super good airplane - permissions to use simply didn't give

4. Nov 17, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

Edgley EA7 Optica
1 x Avco Lycoming IO-360, 149кВт
Take-off weight of 1236 kg
Weight of empty 850 kg
Max. Speed of 203 km/h
Ceiling of 4265 m
range of 1046 km

the first flight on December 14, 1979 with 119кВт Avco Lycoming O-320 then 134кВт IO-360. the screw of five lopastny the fixed step to the ring channel. Optica, one of the most quiet planes in the world. Applied to take a place of easy police helicopters

The death of two constables at plane accident in 1985 led to company crash. In October, 1985 of Optica Industries it was created for activity continuation, and by the end of 1986 of 15 planes it was made. However in January, 1987 the factory was destroyed by an arson way together with all LA, except one Optica of the flight validity
Edgley EA7 Optica (

Edgley Optica handling display - Bicentennial Airshow - YouTube

it was the potential competitor for replacement of police helicopters of supervision.....

it simply burned with the criminal way cleaned from the market...

in this regard I have a question to Holden :

why you think, what by the plane the market someone will allow you (with your newSea-Era )?

You are a son-in-law of the American president?

5. Nov 17, 2012

### Holden

#### Banned

Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
Messages:
1,319
140
Location:
USA
qxev,

No, I am not son-in-law of Obama. Romney's son did a housing subdivision next to my house and I met his youngest son.

I guess you think making a good airplane will be quashed by "them" and the bankers. You may be right. At least I will have what I want.

Sounds like you have to have connections in Russia to do anything. Getting more so in the USA.

But, I am curious, what do YOU think would be good. You show all these airplanes, but don't really state what you think is the way to go. Hovercraft?

Holden

6. Nov 17, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

I try to direct your thought on the MAIN problem

1) in what market it is possible to start NEW type of flying devices?

2) what requirements are put forward by this market?
obviously, such market is poor countries of Africa. Asia. Oceania.

and most important requirement of this market:
1) that any monkey who слезла from a palm tree - could operate yesterday the new flying device quietly
2) that this device had cost of a second-hand of ordinary airplanes

we see the eyes that on Hoverving any monkey is capable to fly...

it is logical to alter this Hoverving so that it could fly at big height....

and to put there the cheap automobile engine, for depreciation of the new flying device

7. Nov 17, 2012

### henryk

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Mar 8, 2010
Messages:
4,785
468
Location:
krakow,poland
=for example=G13=\5l on h cruise\

#### Attached Files:

• ###### Obraz 0309+ 394.jpg
File size:
93.3 KB
Views:
409
8. Nov 17, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

I "think" nothing..., and simply I see the world as it is in reality

for the sake of sports pleasure it is not necessary such efforts, as development of new types of flying devices....

any designer hopes that his creation will serve many people

but it is initially necessary to use infallible LOGIC

1) aircraft of new types - never will manage to be lifted in the sky of the developed rich countries (if only you not the Boeing... Rothschild... or Obama)

2) the market of the poor countries dictates the MAIN requirement to new flying equipment - "super availability of using"

here proceeding from these axioms of life - it is necessary to begin search of a design of the flying device

9. Nov 17, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

the section "engine" deserves especially careful attention.

as the most suitable I consider rotor and piston engines Mazda...

which are used for a long time by planes, and have a set of accessories

Simple Digital System EM-5

http://www.rotaryeng.net/VTOL.html

http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/16x/

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2012
10. Nov 17, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

[TD="width: 100%"]The AR682R aero-engine has been developed to power UAVs which require up to 120 bhp. It is based on the proven AR642 core engine which was designed to meet UK CAA / European JAR-E and US FAA FAR-33 certifications for manned flight. [/TD]
::UAV Engines Ltd: AR682R - 95 bhp::

http://4wings.com.phtemp.com/crafts/a2con/ppb13.html

http://www.atkinsrotary.com/index.php?pag=9

http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/index.php

the general list of the planes flying on rotarye
http://www.flyrotary.com/

1) if it is possible to receive the engine of 150-180 horsepowers at cost of $15-20 000.... that is a quite good basis for creation of the flying device by an overall cost of$70 000

2) possibility to apply engines which have no certificate for installation aboard the plane is a useful option of the market of the poor countries

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2012
11. Nov 17, 2012

### Holden

Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
Messages:
1,319
140
Location:
USA

qxev,

That is, namely, a $25,000 pod that can be used on a daily basis to take kids to school, grocery store. The wing is removed and the wing has an engine it it up front. The pod has an engine in it that has a transmission (Motorcycle engine, suzuki 650, for example). That engine drives a small prop and the rear wheel. The pod can run on water or snow and road without the wing and the "airplane" engine up front. The controls are like a motorcycle with throttle in right hand for rear engine and left hand for front engine. Rudder pedals steer the training wheels, and the handle bar steers the front wheel just like a motorcycle does. Pod can get 100 mpg fuel economy because it is 1/4 the weight and drag of a Buick which gets 25 mpg. People buy the pod without the wing because it is MORE fun than a car and has 4 times the fuel economy for the same number of kids. Most cars do not allow a child to sit in the front seat because of the airbag and therefore can only hold 3 in back. The pod can hold 5 children and one adult up front. This is what a minivan can do. The pod can drive flat like a car, counter-steer like a motorcycle, or use the training wheels and bank like an airplane. This way a person then learns how to "fly" on the ground by using bank angle to steer, yet can still use flat or counter-steering in heavy traffic until they learn to fly on the ground. Later when they get money they buy the wing with the airplane engine for$25,000. Total set up $50,000. Since they use it daily and the "fly" on the ground, it becomes second nature. If they want to go flying they install the wing (10 minutes), and they drive to an airport of farmer's field or to a gasoline station for fuel in the wing for a long trip. They bank it like an airplane on the road which best deals with the high weight of the wing and engine. During the trip the engine warms up the coolant of the airplane engine so that it is warm and ready for take off. They start the airplane engine and warm it up depending on where they are. Wing swings back, pull onto runway and off in 100 feet. The two engine then back each other up. If one fails, they land and drive. The engines are cheap because you can land on a road rather well if need be, and if one fails you land. I think this would sell 100,000 Pods/year or more and maybe 5,000 wings/year. Now you have volume. Costs met. That is what I think will work. What do you think? 12. Nov 17, 2012 ### henryk ### henryk #### Well-Known Member Joined: Mar 8, 2010 Messages: 4,785 Likes Received: 468 Location: krakow,poland -the pod part is +/- clar...and explored ... -can you write moore about upper part=wings+propeller/engin complex? =summary =very promissing principe! -pardon=many aspects are cleared at=Roadable Aircraft DESIGN =nase angle? and airfoil? Last edited: Nov 17, 2012 13. Nov 17, 2012 ### qxev ### qxev #### Guest I will in detail study this idea before I can draw conclusions... 14. Nov 17, 2012 ### Holden ### Holden #### Banned Joined: Jan 19, 2003 Messages: 1,319 Likes Received: 140 Location: USA Qvex, Comparison: Option 1:$70,000 airplane,
$20,000 floats$30,000 minivan/car,
$20,000 boat,$10,000 (min) Pick-up truck to tow boat.
Total capital: $150,000 Four insurance policies, hangar rent, annuals, storage, parking space for three vehicles at home, no way to get to destination, need pick-up truck to pull boat to lake, more time in travel, not easy to use because of time and lack of access to remote places. Not a pretty cost situation… Option 2:$25,000 pod that can function as a boat
$25,000 airplane engine and wing that can land on water. Total$50,000
Don’t need: boat, Pick-up truck, hangar, three more insurance policies, space at home for three vehicles, taxi from airport to final destination….
A complete analysis would shock you and take a lot of space (best for another time).

Which do you think would be best?

I would say Option 2 is 3-4 times better, if not 10 times if you are into business and have to travel around where there are no airports close by.

This pod airplane (option 2) would get people into aviation.

With Option 1 the airplane is left out in favor of the boat and pick-up truck due to cost to benefit.

Aviation competes with boat and loses. This is the status quo.

The old Sea-Era was just a little better than Option 1.

The new design is a much better vision and value and can fit within a middle class income. Option 1 is out of reach of most people by 3 times.

How do you see it?

Holden

Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
15. Nov 17, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

I will give my arguments a little later

16. Nov 18, 2012

### Holden

#### Banned

Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
Messages:
1,319
140
Location:
USA

The Sea-Era delta part would be on top instead of on the bottom. Some parts of the Sea-Era bottom will remain on the bottom for water interface, along with a ski so that the hull will not sink it if it hit a rock. The rear prop is 4 ft and is below the upper wing so that flow is not disturbed by long delta wing chord. Delta wing (center part) has a tractor engine up on the tip of the delta. The front pilot sits on the front tire, second row is on CG, and third row is aft, just forward of the rear engine. Most is plexiglass and not "composite" that cannot be seen out of. I am still looking at several ways to do the rear prop so that the flow into the rear prop is excellent. Remember, the rear prop is for backup in case the front engine quits and boundary layer sucking and it runs only at 30 hp during cruise so that an off the shelf engine can be used (\$2500). It can run at 65 hp to get you safely on the ground if the front engine quits and it helps on takeoff a lot and allows high power high drag landing with the front engine.

The point is that the basic configuration gives the needed safety, roadability, power on landing over the large delta with large flaps, and the landing gear allows it to land where no other airplane can. This is what I want, just need to get it into a good looking design, which is not easy.

Holden

17. Nov 18, 2012

### henryk

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Mar 8, 2010
Messages:
4,785
468
Location:
krakow,poland
=in case of water operation=rear propeller is safe for water abrazive?

=2+2 wheels=exellent sollution! I like them...\in fly they are retracted=enclosed?\

PS=MAGNETIC COUPLING and GEAR can solve many problems\efficiancy,vibration,noncoaxial ...\

Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
18. Nov 18, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

1) how many money it will be necessary to enclose, on Crash Test that the administration officially allowed transportation of children on this device?
(at a rate of similar expenses of automobile concerns as Ford... or it is even more)

2) what will be device weight taking into account providing the necessary degree of durability of a design.... at level safe Crash Test of collision of cars on the highway?

(weight it will be much bigger, than at a usual design of the plane of which don't give durability to bear blow of the counter car on the highway)

3) what laws authorize operation of such device (the car + the airplane rolled into one)

4) how many money and time is required for creation of such laws (a lobby in the senate. and other)?

5) how many money is required on expansion of a network of services for service "the car + the plane"?

6) how many money is required for creation of schools of training on "the car + the plane"?

conclusion:

idea the in itself interesting... but its embodiment will need enormous expenses of money and efforts...

with very ambiguous result...

besides, to explain thought to people - it is necessary to show, at least, the most primitive drawing (image) your option "the plane car"

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2012
19. Nov 18, 2012

### henryk

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Mar 8, 2010
Messages:
4,785
468
Location:
krakow,poland
20. Nov 18, 2012

### qxev

#### Guest

I expect the main obstacle in combining quality "durability from blow" (an automobile standard) with quality "an easy design" (the airplane a standard)

I believe that it is possible only on the basis of high technologies and expensive materials... that will demand very considerable financial expenses