Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seaplane question?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seaplane question?

    On luxury yachts like Ferretti yachts they fit an ARG (Anti Rolling Gyro) from Mitshibushi Heavy Industries to improve the
    seaworthiness. Is it possible to use it on larger seaplanes as well? Smallest wieghs 130kilo,
    MSM-500.
    "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

  • #2
    Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
    On luxury yachts like Ferretti yachts they fit an ARG (Anti Rolling Gyro) from Mitshibushi Heavy Industries to improve the
    seaworthiness. Is it possible to use it on larger seaplanes as well? Smallest wieghs 130kilo,
    MSM-500.
    It's probably possible, but what for? To make it more stable during taxiing?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Spad13 View Post
      It's probably possible, but what for? To make it more stable during taxiing?
      And while anchored. http://www.promaxmarine.com/ARG/
      I been looking at the Beriev Be-103 today again and if flown with one pilot (2 pilot seats
      availble) then ballast is needed, I wonder if an ARG system would eliminate this?
      "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
        And while anchored. http://www.promaxmarine.com/ARG/
        I been looking at the Beriev Be-103 today again and if flown with one pilot (2 pilot seats
        availble) then ballast is needed, I wonder if an ARG system would eliminate this?
        The ARG system would not benefit a sea plane. The system would become part of the aircraft's empty weight. Ballast is usually only needed for operating the aircraft at less than ideal loads. Max loads would be reduced by the systems weight.

        A Sea plane really doesn't care about eliminating roll in the water. It's more important to keep the wings level with the sea during takeoff and landing. Otherwise the aircraft would tend to turn and the increased drag would lengthen the T/O run.

        In flight, the system would have to be deactivated because the system would tend to fight the normal flight controls.
        Don
        Standard practice for managers around the world:
        Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dmmoore View Post
          The ARG system would not benefit a sea plane. The system would become part of the aircraft's empty weight. Ballast is usually only needed for operating the aircraft at less than ideal loads. Max loads would be reduced by the systems weight.

          A Sea plane really doesn't care about eliminating roll in the water. It's more important to keep the wings level with the sea during takeoff and landing. Otherwise the aircraft would tend to turn and the increased drag would lengthen the T/O run.

          In flight, the system would have to be deactivated because the system would tend to fight the normal flight controls.
          Well, my thought would be to decrease the fueltanks and keep the initial TOW, making -SR versions. Seaplane would certainly benefit since it can be anchored in higher swells and
          improve preformance.
          Sure the use of ballast perhaps is still needed during flight of the Be-103 with a single pilot.
          "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
            Seaplane would certainly benefit since it can be anchored in higher swells and improve preformance.
            How would it improve performance?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Spad13 View Post
              How would it improve performance?
              No ballast with singlepilots like the Be-103 as example, steadier take-off and landing.
              "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
                Well, my thought would be to decrease the fueltanks and keep the initial TOW, making -SR versions. Seaplane would certainly benefit since it can be anchored in higher swells and
                improve preformance.
                Sure the use of ballast perhaps is still needed during flight of the Be-103 with a single pilot.
                An SR version of an aircraft that needs range? No benefit.
                You never anchor in high swells! Even if this system allowed anchoring in swells, it would require power to operate. If it's powered from shore, you are at a dock and swells are not an issue. If it's powered from an on board source, you have added more weight.
                In order to improve performance the system would have to do something positive. The system causes the aircraft to roll less. The action of reducing roll increases water drag during takeoff.
                Unless you are living aboard the aircraft and wish to make life aboard more comfortable this device is of no benefit to a sea plane.
                Don
                Standard practice for managers around the world:
                Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Dmmoore View Post
                  An SR version of an aircraft that needs range? No benefit.
                  You never anchor in high swells! Even if this system allowed anchoring in swells, it would require power to operate. If it's powered from shore, you are at a dock and swells are not an issue. If it's powered from an on board source, you have added more weight.
                  In order to improve performance the system would have to do something positive. The system causes the aircraft to roll less. The action of reducing roll increases water drag during takeoff.
                  Unless you are living aboard the aircraft and wish to make life aboard more comfortable this device is of no benefit to a sea plane.
                  Yes, it would use electricity, how common are RAT on a seaplane and can it be used while
                  parked on water? I would prefer to locate the RAT on top of the T-tail like on the Be-40 and -200. Since swells often occur when itīs windy and highest location would be
                  something I would prefer, downside would be use in flight would affect the drag on the T-tail?
                  Seaplanes arenīt common today, but in some places they are useful, like in Maldives or other island countries. Or in remote areas like in Russian Far East.
                  Thanks for the input Dmmoore, since it hasnīt been done AFAIK, itīs has to be reasons, probably more economically reasons than technically.
                  "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
                    Yes, it would use electricity, how common are RAT on a seaplane and can it be used while
                    parked on water? I would prefer to locate the RAT on top of the T-tail like on the Be-40 and -200. Since swells often occur when itīs windy and highest location would be
                    something I would prefer, downside would be use in flight would affect the drag on the T-tail?
                    Seaplanes arenīt common today, but in some places they are useful, like in Maldives or other island countries. Or in remote areas like in Russian Far East.
                    Thanks for the input Dmmoore, since it hasnīt been done AFAIK, itīs has to be reasons, probably more economically reasons than technically.
                    I have flown several land planes equipped with floats as PIC:
                    PA-18-150 (Super Cub), 7GCBC (Citabria), C-180, C-185, C-206, DHC-2 (Beaver), DHC-3 (Otter).
                    And several flying boats as PIC:
                    Republic RC-3 (Seabee), LA-4 (Lake), G-44 (Wigeon), G-21 (Goose) and in the R/H seat of the PBY-5 (Catalina).
                    There is no performance benefit from an anti roll system. Such a system would cause an increase in drag because the attempt to keep the wings level would cause one of the wing floats to drag the water. When taking off in a rolling sea, you keep the wings level with the ocean surface, you want the aircraft to roll with the swell. The system must be disabled before becoming airborne because in flight, the system would try to eliminate pilot aileron inputs making the aircraft difficult to turn.

                    In other words, the system is adds nothing to performance and is 100% useless for any type of sea plane.
                    Don
                    Standard practice for managers around the world:
                    Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Dmmoore View Post
                      I have flown several land planes equipped with floats as PIC:
                      PA-18-150 (Super Cub), 7GCBC (Citabria), C-180, C-185, C-206, DHC-2 (Beaver), DHC-3 (Otter).
                      And several flying boats as PIC:
                      Republic RC-3 (Seabee), LA-4 (Lake), G-44 (Wigeon), G-21 (Goose) and in the R/H seat of the PBY-5 (Catalina).
                      There is no performance benefit from an anti roll system. Such a system would cause an increase in drag because the attempt to keep the wings level would cause one of the wing floats to drag the water. When taking off in a rolling sea, you keep the wings level with the ocean surface, you want the aircraft to roll with the swell. The system must be disabled before becoming airborne because in flight, the system would try to eliminate pilot aileron inputs making the aircraft difficult to turn.

                      In other words, the system is adds nothing to performance and is 100% useless for any type of sea plane.
                      Impressive merits, so let say that youīre flying over an intense fire on a firefighting mission
                      on a steady cruise altitude, ready to drop liquid at the fire, as all fires the air above is turbulent and best effect is to drop it as low as you dare, would the ARG be useful in this case?
                      My merits is that I been onboard a CL-215 at the Sinsheim museum, it was in diving mode
                      on top of the roof of the museum....
                      "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
                        Impressive merits, so let say that youīre flying over an intense fire on a firefighting mission
                        on a steady cruise altitude, ready to drop liquid at the fire, as all fires the air above is turbulent and best effect is to drop it as low as you dare, would the ARG be useful in this case?
                        It would be of no use whatsoever, furthermore it would be a detriment as it would reduce the amount of retardant the aircraft could carry.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Or less range, well, since it hasnīt been tested we donīt know.
                          "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X