Rutan Ski-gull

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

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Mar 15, 2015 #61

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,059
    Likes Received:
    3,327
    Location:
    Australian
    Staggermania and delta like this.
  2. Mar 15, 2015 #62

    Riggerrob

    Riggerrob

    Riggerrob

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Canada
    ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

    I stand corrected.
    According to wikipedia, the predeccesor to the Glass Goose was designed by Gary LeGare. Because shares several features (glass construction, blown bubble canopy, odd configuration, etc.) too many of us assumed that Rutan and LeGare colaborated on the design.
     
  3. Mar 24, 2015 #63

    aaronhowell

    aaronhowell

    aaronhowell

    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2015
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    [h=1]NEW DETAILS ABOUT SKIGULL - from the "Looking Up, Way Up! The Burt Rutan Story" documentary Kickstarter![/h]Quick note on our fundraiser for the film: We reached our original goal, which is the minimum we need to keep pace with Burt as he builds SkiGull. This film is a once in a life time opportunity to document the creation of a Burt Rutan plane and we are exited about the possibilities of what we can capture. Our campaign has 4 days left to make this the best film it can possibly be, become a member of the team and help tell Burt’s story.


    SkiGull’s Primary Engine: a Rotax
    “The design was recently changed to use a modified version of a certified Rotax engine (turbo, E- fuel injection, flight-adjustable prop, 130 max BHP).” says Rutan.


    Docking System — Two Electric Motors
    (estimated performance)


    “Its docking system is two, 5” diameter electric motors each driving a 27” diameter folding prop. These self-contained units (Off-the-shelf motor, controller, batteries used for giant RC models) mount on each wing. They provide forward or reverse thrust to allow backing up or rotating when docking/beaching in winds.” Rutan


    “Since the SkiGull has an L/D of 23 (it looks more like a motor glider than other seaplanes/floatplanes), its electric docking system can fly it about 8 miles, which greatly reduces the risk of an engine failure, particularly when operating out of small tree-lined lakes. Every other seaplane has to crash straight forward when an engine fails early in the climb, a SkiGull can fly back to downwind & land on the lake into the wind. The docking system also gives it an extra 150 lb thrust, for that over-gross water takeoff when heading for Hawaii,” Rutan added.

    Configuration
    (estimated performance)

    “Like the Icon A5, the SkiGull fits in a single-car garage, even though the SkiGull has a 44-ft wingspan (wings fold and 5-ft wingtip panels are removed). It requires just three, 25-inch components to allow it to self-trailer without needing a conventional boat trailer.” Rutan says.
     
    spaschke likes this.
  4. Apr 22, 2015 #64

    harrisonaero

    harrisonaero

    harrisonaero

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    265
    Location:
    Coeur d'Alene, ID
    More info with some testing pics....


    Burt Rutan’s latest project: The SkiGull — General Aviation News
    Burt Rutan
     
    Himat and etard like this.
  5. Apr 26, 2015 #65

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    632
    Location:
    Norway
    And from the article, I find these pictures very interesting:
    P1080450.jpeg
    P1070745.jpeg

    When compared to this:
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Apr 28, 2015 #66

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    632
    Location:
    Norway
    Looking once more at the pictures found here: Burt Rutan I did see another detail, mentioned but not pictured before. There is a ski, probably a retractable ski under the sponsoons:
    P1080437.jpeg

    If this ski is sprung and damped that probably make the hull perform better in high waves and double nicely as snow landing gear.
     
  7. Apr 28, 2015 #67

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,531
    Likes Received:
    865
    Location:
    Warren, VT USA
    That detail was in the video presentation at Oshkosh last year. The skis are damped and do retract meaning no drag from a step. The skis also have roller skate wheels for landing on runways.
     
  8. Apr 28, 2015 #68

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    632
    Location:
    Norway
    I remember it was stated that the Ski Gull should have retractable skis with damping, but where there any pictures?
     
  9. Apr 28, 2015 #69

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,531
    Likes Received:
    865
    Location:
    Warren, VT USA
    Not really but sort of. Rutan asked that the people that attended his seminar not take video or pictures but some glimpses were in the presentation video by accident. There is another thread with all that could be gleaned out of that montaged together.

    See post #41
    http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/f...cs-new-technology/15156-rutan-ski-gull-3.html
     
  10. Apr 28, 2015 #70

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    632
    Location:
    Norway
    It does look like the outriggers on the scale hull undergoing water tests extend further forward than in the image from the video.
    [​IMG]

    To me it also look like the keel on the central hull and outriggers are set close to the same depth with the extended skis protruding further down from the outriggers.
    Can we guess that the hull being tested is half scale?
     
  11. Apr 30, 2015 #71

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    402
    Location:
    Flint, Mi, USA
    Since rough water is such a huge hindrance to seaplanes taking off, the "suspension" is pretty much an inevitable necessity to making them truly viable.
     
  12. Apr 30, 2015 #72

    Retroflyer_S

    Retroflyer_S

    Retroflyer_S

    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Michigan
    Is the Sea Dart patent free now ?

    Why wasn't the Sea Dart a success ?

    I think I see a well executed system of an old idea.

    Another feather to the Burts head gear.
     
  13. Apr 30, 2015 #73

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    632
    Location:
    Norway
    I don't know and would have to look up the patent. Still, I have seen other later patents on skis for seaplanes. I think it is more about if these patents are broad or if they cover just almost similar cases.

    Some say because it's more prestige to be commander of a supercarrier than a seaplane tender...

    If it work out, that's true.
     
  14. Apr 30, 2015 #74

    Retroflyer_S

    Retroflyer_S

    Retroflyer_S

    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Michigan
    Exactly....just add the retractable skis to a skinny float body ac ( with a pusher prop ).
     
  15. Apr 30, 2015 #75

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,544
    Likes Received:
    417
    Location:
    krakow,poland
  16. Apr 30, 2015 #76

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,559
    Likes Received:
    4,583
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Generally, I think use by the military makes it a public domain item.



    Not sure if the Sea Dart had any water ingestion problems on rough seas, but I suspect the biggest reason for its failure was not the design itself, but the general path and doctrine that the Navy leaders chose to follow... that direction went away from seaplanes and toward bigger and better carriers.
     
  17. May 1, 2015 #77

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    8,880
    Likes Received:
    5,732
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    It was a poor solution looking for a problem that didn't exist, much like most of Burt's designs.


    BJC
     
    cheapracer and Joe Fisher like this.
  18. May 4, 2015 #78

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    632
    Location:
    Norway
    If I remember correct, water ingestion in rough seas was no big problem according to the text in this book:
    51XsAF30yWL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    But rough seas trials was then done in the pacific in fair weather.

    As I said, it's much more prestige in being a commander of a large aircraft carrier then a seaplane tender.
    Next, a large carrier battle group work much better to "project power" and is more impressive than some (submarine) seaplane tenders.
     
    bmcj likes this.
  19. May 4, 2015 #79

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    884
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    The Martin Seamaster was a bomber... that could not be called one, politically, since the Air Force has Bombers and the Navy and Army could not.

    So they called it a minelayer, and planned to use it as a bomber if they needed to, but meanwhile the fleet of Submarine seaplane tenders didn't yet exist, and Mines are not popular weapons, considered sneaky, so the whole sea plane thing went away.

    Like the Zero Launch systems for throwing a F-100 nuclear bomber into the air from a trailer, when the airfields of Europe got nuked in the first 15 minutes of WW3 going hot.
     
  20. May 9, 2015 #80

    harrisonaero

    harrisonaero

    harrisonaero

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    265
    Location:
    Coeur d'Alene, ID

Share This Page

arrow_white