Rutan Ski-gull

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by lear999wa, Mar 31, 2013.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Feb 18, 2016 #181

    cowlove

    cowlove

    cowlove

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2014
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Intrigued by the scant info on the Skigull "sustainer/docking" engines, I just purchased the ~10HP little brother of this motor, and a 27" prop. Not sure what exactly I'm going to do with it, other than hopefully not hurt myself.

    jeaRn2l.jpg

    I wonder if the Skigull with her docking engines require a multi-engine rating?

    Jim
     
    smoothwaterman and delta like this.
  2. Mar 22, 2016 #182

    narfi

    narfi

    narfi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    285
    Location:
    Alaska
    What are you guys thoughts on the skis, the idea fascinates me but I am sure I do not know all the advantages and disadvantages that they hold. (except that one of them broke in testing)

    The idea itself seems simple enough though I am sure there are lots of specifics involved in their implementation. Without any real info yet on the skigull (that I have found) it seems the fuselage is much more aerodynamic than a typical flying boat.

    What do you guys think about the topic?
     
  3. Mar 22, 2016 #183

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,414
    Likes Received:
    5,088
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    I'm not qualified really (seaplanes aren't my thing, and I've not studied them much), but I think this may be one of Rutan's ideas that doesn't really work out. I mean, the notion is great - land on anything - but everyone else that tried them has had trouble with hydro-skis, and the ones on the Ski-Gull look awfully fragile in what photos I've seen. I suspect breaking them is going to be a common-enough occurrence that they'll at least need to be redesigned. Not really fond of the small wheels. For an airplane designed to "land anywhere", it seems, again, to be something prone to rock damage on an unpaved strip. Or is he only going to land on pavement, water, or snow?

    Maybe I'm completely wrong, but that's my "thinks" on the subject.
     
  4. Mar 22, 2016 #184

    narfi

    narfi

    narfi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    285
    Location:
    Alaska
    I was thinking more for just water applications as a means of keeping the fuselage 'cleaner' as an alternative to the stepped hull.

    I am not a fan of the tiny wheels either.... but for pure water it seems interesting, and for out of water I would want something capable of gravel.
     
  5. Mar 22, 2016 #185

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,414
    Likes Received:
    5,088
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    All the aero primes who worked in seaplanes in the 1950's - especially Convair - seemed to have had a passionate love-affair with hydro-skis during that period. While there was some successful testing, none of the designs ever made it to production. Seems like there was always some problem or other that kept it from being a practical solution.

    If Rutan can pull it off, great. He'll be the first.
     
  6. Mar 22, 2016 #186

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    4,529
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    I tend to agree with you, but if anyone has a history of pulling off unlikely firsts, it would be Burt Rutan.
     
    delta, Joe Fisher and Topaz like this.
  7. Mar 22, 2016 #187

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,525
    Likes Received:
    861
    Location:
    Warren, VT USA
    Rutan will make it work. He already stated that the skis were not made the way they will be done in the final version and that they need to be toughened. The wheels I think were not meant to be for day to day ops. This is a seaplane. If it needs to be landed in the grass next to the runway the idea is that you can get around at an airport if you need to and the wheels are cheap and easy to replace and you keep a box of them onboard. It was always a compromise. At least that is from my monitoring of what's been available. Skis provide great damping in rough water. Not sure if I remember anyone doing a taildragger with front skis before. They will be robust enough for water. Land we shall wait and see. I suppose you could put some bigger wheels and tires on the back of those skis as well later if that proves necessary. Overall the thing seems to be doing quite well as a prototype. Not many mods being talked about yet. But it doesn't have much time on it yet either.
     
    Topaz likes this.
  8. Mar 22, 2016 #188

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    879
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    The Sea Dart was sorta a taildragger with skis. Had serious vibration issues but modern smart magno fluid shocks would help.

    Riveted metal skis on a heavily built jet fighter ( very dense packed mass ) vs. Composite skis on a light plane.

    Definitely a work in progress. Best of luck.
     
  9. Mar 22, 2016 #189

    Pops

    Pops

    Pops

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    6,586
    Likes Received:
    5,493
    Location:
    USA.
    My neighbor worked last winter at Lakeland, FL in restoring the Sea Dart for display at Sun-in -Fun. It was in very bad shape.

    Dan
     
  10. Mar 23, 2016 #190

    narfi

    narfi

    narfi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    285
    Location:
    Alaska
    ski1.jpg

    With a larger wheel like this(not suggesting nose gear necessarily... tailwheel/skid maybe) but forward hinged into the sponsors.... one switch to land regardless of sea or land or snow sounds like a safe idea..... no flipping on water landing because you screwed up and put the wrong gear down. Heck even if you forget to put it down at all it should be 'safeish' on land or sea. (At least able to walk away from it)
     
  11. Mar 23, 2016 #191

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,414
    Likes Received:
    5,088
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Just don't slow down on water. ;)
     
  12. Mar 23, 2016 #192

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,738
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    L/D (of the hull) is the metric. Orion was rather taken by them and discussed them at length on HBA. Turns out L/D of a ski is in the same neighbourhood as L/D of a planing hull.

    Displacement hulls can be made to work for an amphibian, but only if it's pretty slow and really long. Outside that realm, you're into extremely narrow hulls (say 30 ft long, 5" wide), planing or skis.

    By then skis make a lot of sense. A huge fraction of the weight of boats/amphibians is in the skin construction that has to be sturdy. Ridiculous if you have simply raise it above the water so it only has to survive big impacts at low speeds (say 10 kts), instead of going mighty fast (say 60 kts).


    '
     
  13. Mar 23, 2016 #193

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,414
    Likes Received:
    5,088
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Bringing this back to the SkiGull (I still think it all fits, but we're starting to drift), does anyone have any illustration and design description of the skis used on that aircraft in particular? I'm sure it's probably in the long video of Rutan describing the design near the beginning of this thread, and in that case, does someone have the timestamp for the beginning of that discussion?
     
  14. Mar 24, 2016 #194

    justifidejoe

    justifidejoe

    justifidejoe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Piqua, OH
    I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that the Navy lost all interest in hydroski/hydrofoil research once aircraft carriers for jet-powered aircraft came into being? I think the Navy was the primary funding source for these projects.This video says the sponsors that came to observe flight trials barely paid attention to the flights.
    The video also makes it seem like both hydroskis and hydrofoils improved takeoff performance of the Grumman Goose. Of course these tests were done with a flying boat that retained its original hull, so you can't say a smooth fuselage with a foil/ski would outperform the hull alone.
    Lake also did a bit of testing, with an apparently favorable opinion of the hydrofoil.
     
  15. Mar 24, 2016 #195

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,414
    Likes Received:
    5,088
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    I'm no expert, either, but from what I've read of the period, the Navy of the 1950's was interested in blue-water operations, and how do you get a reasonably-sized seaplane of any kind to operate in 5+ foot swells? A ski can help, but isn't going to enable those kind of operations either.

    With regard to a hydrofoil, I can only say what Orion had to say about it, which was, basically, "fine, until you hit a log." A planing hull might get a dent, but 'foils will be ripped clean off. A planing ski would probably survive a light hit, but snagging something as the aircraft was coming up onto the ski might get ugly.

    In short, these are nice ideas if you can operate in an ideal world with smooth water and no debris. Real-world tends to be a little more messy.
     
  16. Mar 24, 2016 #196

    Riggerrob

    Riggerrob

    Riggerrob

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    301
    Location:
    Canada
    ...................................................................

    Agreed. Folding (high) wings are primarily for docking.
    A friend used to use his Volmer Sportsman to pick up chicks, but grumbled that he could not dock at the marinas with the best restaurants.
    So the challenge is to build a flying boat, with a large cabin, that is as easy to dock as a Cessna floatplane.
    Skigull and the Dornier SRay are among the few small flying boats that meet both those criteria.
    Skigull's folding wings allow it to dock at most docks and marina slips.
    In the long run, I envision a marina with a row of Skigull's parked along the fence. A customer phones (e-mails?) ahead to reserve one. A fork lift launches it down the ramp. Dock hands refuel, pre-flight, warm-up the engine, etc. The wealthy playboy flies off for a romantic weekend.
     
  17. Mar 24, 2016 #197

    narfi

    narfi

    narfi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    285
    Location:
    Alaska
    largeCabin.JPG

    Large cabin?......
    I am excited to see more about the skigull and how it performs, but I think it is a pretty big stretch to call that a 'Large Cabin'.....
     
  18. Mar 24, 2016 #198

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,575
    Likes Received:
    322
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Compared to what? Most aircraft are built for midgets. Do the controls dig into your knees like a Cessna? No? Then its large enough.

    The quickie was actually known for being pretty roomy compared to the sub 6 foot competition.
     
  19. Mar 24, 2016 #199

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,738
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    5+ ft waves are easy with either a planing hull or a ski. The US2 routinely operates in 10 ft significant and 15 ft peak...
    Most planes get on the step (planing) at pretty low speeds, even with floats or hulls. With a ski, the planing area and thus the planing speed can be lowered quite a bit.
    At a given speed; a ski will always fare much better than a planing hull; it has way more "give", since they're sprung and given the small area you can afford to make them extremely sturdy. Unlike hydrofoils which indeed have a catastrophic failure, a ski with a bit of give will simply bump over anything hard, even logs that are catastrophic to both hulls and hydrofoils.
     
    narfi likes this.
  20. Mar 24, 2016 #200

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,414
    Likes Received:
    5,088
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    "US2"?
     
    nucleus likes this.

Share This Page

arrow_white