Check out this weird seaplane

... not a trace of doubt in my mind. <- enjoying @eman1200 Monkey's reference. Monkey reference. Hmmmm?
 
Oh yeah? Check out THIS weird seaplane!
Lun_Ekranoplan.jpg
 
Actually pretty cool, I can think of a few jobs thatd to quite well, only issue I see is docking might be a little more tricky than say a U206
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Needless to say it crashed on its first solo... only made it ~60 feet into the air.
Click to expand...

Not really "needless to say".


According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60, the Ca.60 crashed on the 2nd flight, not the first flight. Accounts indicate that the first flight (a short test hop) was successful and that the plane flew well.

There are a several theories as to why the 2nd flight ended in a crash: shifting ballast, trying to takeoff before flying speed was reached in order to avoid collision with a boat, being thrown into the air before flying speed was reached when hitting a boat wake (I've had this happen to me in a Lake Buccaneer). In the later several cases, prompt action by the pilot would have prevented a stall. The pilot was very experienced, which is why the more recent theories are that the ballast shifted aft causing an uncontrolable situation, similar to what happened in the 747 crash in Afghanistan several years ago when it is believed the cargo straps broke, and the heavy equipment shifted aft when the plane pitched up .

A number of Radio Control models of the Ca.60 have been built and successfully flown. The design itself, although very unusual, is not inherently flawed.

Lots of interesting designs from that period. The John's Multiplane had 7 wings.




01b001700d5446af87d5bad4264d040b.jpg




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
jimhorner said:
Not really "needless to say".


According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60, the Ca.60 crashed on the 2nd flight, not the first flight. Accounts indicate that the first flight (a short test hop) was successful and that the plane flew well.

There are a several theories as to why the 2nd flight ended in a crash: shifting ballast, trying to takeoff before flying speed was reached in order to avoid collision with a boat, being thrown into the air before flying speed was reached when hitting a boat wake (I've had this happen to me in a Lake Buccaneer). In the later several cases, prompt action by the pilot would have prevented a stall. The pilot was very experienced, which is why the more recent theories are that the ballast shifted aft causing an uncontrolable situation, similar to what happened in the 747 crash in Afghanistan several years ago when it is believed the cargo straps broke, and the heavy equipment shifted aft when the plane pitched up .

A number of Radio Control models of the Ca.60 have been built and successfully flown. The design itself, although very unusual, is not inherently flawed.

Lots of interesting designs from that period. The John's Multiplane had 7 wings.




01b001700d5446af87d5bad4264d040b.jpg




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If you go through the list of "Caproni" designs, it is fascinating. I wish we still had those types of mad inventors around these days. When we look back on it now we laugh and scoff at them but they had very little understanding or care about the hows and whys, they just knew that is one was good then fourteen must be better!
 
that which is either obvious or needless is always biased. ;)
 
James331 said:
Actually pretty cool, I can think of a few jobs thatd to quite well, only issue I see is docking might be a little more tricky than say a U206
Click to expand...

Docking does look problematic. I don't think it would work without at least a short pier sticking out.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Docking does look problematic. I don't think it would work without at least a short pier sticking out.
Click to expand...

Or maybe more of a nose in beaching setup, with those reversing props probably would work well

Also for the price, and hours, you'd have to look into it a bit more, but man that's a ton of plane.

It would suck the ding a float on a dock, but with this plane the first thing that would likley hit would be your wing!
 
Acrodustertoo said:
If you go through the list of "Caproni" designs, it is fascinating. I wish we still had those types of mad inventors around these days. When we look back on it now we laugh and scoff at them but they had very little understanding or care about the hows and whys, they just knew that is one was good then fourteen must be better!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's very interesting the designs those folks came up with at the dawn of aviation. Caproni was actually a very talented designer. His Ca.4 triplane bomber was fairly successful.

I've got a couple of books about triplanes and multiplanes, and it's amazing how many different triplane and multiplane designs there were. A real eye-opener to those who think only of the Red Baron's Fokker triplane.

ec853d8ebc2a2f45207bacf3d823b1a2.jpg


500de32039f6a44f5f817915392dcb3e.jpg


I'm a bit of a triplane nut. Used to be involved in RC models a lot. Below is a picture of my triplanes. The Sopwith and Fokker were from Dare kits; I created the plans for the Albatros from a three-view.

260718591912f1f30236fdef40049b01.jpg


I've got the Ron Sands plans for a full size Fokker triplane. One day, maybe after I retire...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I had an RC S.E.5a and Dr.1. I tried the Fokker but it was very touchy and close coupled. Biplane flew like a dream!

291808_2261433908649_695503731_n.jpg
 
overdrive148 said:
I had an RC S.E.5a and Dr.1. I tried the Fokker but it was very touchy and close coupled. Biplane flew like a dream!
Click to expand...

Interesting. My Dr1 flies extremely well. It is very manuevrable like the fighter it is, but it never felt out of control. Maybe move your CG forward a bit?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
jimhorner said:
Interesting. My Dr1 flies extremely well. It is very manuevrable like the fighter it is, but it never felt out of control. Maybe move your CG forward a bit?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I did some tweaking with the leading edges of the wings to align them a bit better back when I had it which seemed to help. Added a bit of nose weight and it helped a bit but dropped hard with power off.
 
Let's buy it. Everyone kicks in a few thou. It'll have to be based somewhere. I know an A&P who's worked on these things and knows them so it should be based at my place
 
I know a guy that owns one of these. It's an EXP Seawind 300c amphib. Always thought it's a pretty neat machine.
1575661.jpg
 
Cool! I remember reading about this many years ago and watching some neat YouTube videos on it.. cool little machine. I never thought I would see one for sale in the US! The specs make it seem somewhat underpowered though and it's relatively slow
 
Ryanb said:
I know a guy that owns one of these. It's an EXP Seawind 300c amphib. Always thought it's a pretty neat machine.
1575661.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh I wish I could afford that.
That just looks perfect.
 
nauga said:
It doesn't count unless you're supersonic :D

images


Nauga,
and his water injection
Click to expand...

This one supposedly broke the barrier too, which is amazing for a huge flying boat...

Martin_P6M_Seamaster_in_flight_c1955.jpg
 
Ryanb said:
It's an EXP Seawind 300c amphib
Click to expand...
Wow, that checks almost all the boxes! I always thought these amphibs were slow and small, but based on their website you will get 165 knots TAS at 75% power and 8K, that's fast, and with a 52 inch wide cabin and over 1,100# useful that's actually a proper cross country machine contender!
 
You know how they say, "If it looks good, it'll probably fly good..." ???

Yeah... um...
 
Tantalum said:
Wow, that checks almost all the boxes! I always thought these amphibs were slow and small, but based on their website you will get 165 knots TAS at 75% power and 8K, that's fast, and with a 52 inch wide cabin and over 1,100# useful that's actually a proper cross country machine contender!
Click to expand...

And seriously.. If you have an engine failure, aim for water.
 
Seaplanes are by necessity compromises between boats and airplanes ...

Great boat, lousy airplane (Republic Seabee):

Screen Shot 2017-05-11 at 8.17.07 PM.png


Great airplane, lousy boat (SIAI-Marchetti Riviera):

Screen Shot 2017-05-11 at 8.17.28 PM.png


So-so airplane, so-so boat (Lake LA-4):

Screen Shot 2017-05-11 at 8.18.18 PM.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top