Anyone done it? Is it true that it can be just a weekend thing? It's
on my list of "something I always want to try", but I'm having trouble
finding anywhere to do it.

Kenmore Air in Seattle or Sheble Aviation in Kingman AZ.

Read the PTS. There isn't much to it for the checkride except takeoffs,
landings, taxing etc.


"Rachel" > wrote in message
. ..
> Anyone done it? Is it true that it can be just a weekend thing? It's on
> my list of "something I always want to try", but I'm having trouble
> finding anywhere to do it.
>

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2616134C

And afer you've done it, Rachel, you will have a heck of a time trying to
find a rental. But it is a weekend thing.

Bob Gardner

"Rachel" > wrote in message
. ..
> Anyone done it? Is it true that it can be just a weekend thing? It's on
> my list of "something I always want to try", but I'm having trouble
> finding anywhere to do it.

see http://www.seaplanes.org/


"Rachel" > wrote in message
. ..
| Anyone done it? Is it true that it can be just a weekend
thing? It's
| on my list of "something I always want to try", but I'm
having trouble
| finding anywhere to do it.

"Rachel" > wrote in message
. ..
> Anyone done it? Is it true that it can be just a weekend thing? It's on
> my list of "something I always want to try", but I'm having trouble
> finding anywhere to do it.

http://www.gate.net/~seaplane/

If you do it as a weekend thing Bob's comment is very true. I was
forutnate enough to do it over a period of time (similar to how we get
all our other licenses) and had no problem renting one whenever I
wanted after my check ride.

I honestly believe I learned a heck of alot more than I would have in
a weekend course.

Depending on where you live and how you want to proceed both options
I'm sure are available. Some of the links previously provided should
be of help.

z

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:59:30 -0800, "Bob Gardner"
> wrote:

>And afer you've done it, Rachel, you will have a heck of a time trying to
>find a rental. But it is a weekend thing.
>
>Bob Gardner
>
>"Rachel" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Anyone done it? Is it true that it can be just a weekend thing? It's on
>> my list of "something I always want to try", but I'm having trouble
>> finding anywhere to do it.
>

Kenmore Air in Seattle does training in Super Cubs, a C-180, and the
DeHavilland Beaver. I was in town for a weekend over the Summer and
took a lesson in the Beaver just to get to fly one. It was a great
experience, although it's a bit expensive to be flying an 8 passenger
450hp plane for dual instruction. If/when I go back I'll try to do the
rating in one of their Super Cubs. I'd highly recommend them to anyone
wanting to fly a seaplane.

http://www.kenmoreair.com/sub_content.php?content_type=24

Eric

I've done it and it was the most fun I've ever had in an airplane. You can
do it in a weekend, but why rush it? I did it in about 10 hours over about a
week, and got to fly in a variety of weather conditions. The flying part is
easy; water handling and docking are the challenge, especially if you
haven't done any sailing. And once you have the rating, it's very tough to
rent for solo flight -- insurance rates are almost prohibitive because a
sunken floatplane requires a complete A&E overhaul.

Seth

> "Rachel" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Anyone done it? Is it true that it can be just a weekend thing? It's on
>> my list of "something I always want to try", but I'm having trouble
>> finding anywhere to do it.
>
> http://www.gate.net/~seaplane/
>
>

I had a relative in the insurance business. One summer among other
things, he insured four seaplanes & had major claims on all of them.
He is no longer in the A/C insurance business.

Its a blast. If the flight school is good with scheduling (DE,
airplane, CFI, etc) you can do it in a weekend no problem. Its a great
rating to have (because its fun). However, it not likly that you'll
find rentals, insurance is through the roof for buying, and there
aren't a lot of good sea ports in most areas. However, the experience
of the training is great.

-Robert

Gerry wrote:

> http://www.gate.net/~seaplane/

Got my CSES a few years ago at Norcal Aviation
(http://www.norcalaviation.com) - took 1.5 days. Absolutely loved it.

I just did my CMES at Jack Brown's Seaplane Base right after AOPA's Expo
2005 in Tampa. Also finished it in 1.5 days. Seemed like I knew Jon Brown
before meeting him since I had watched their seaplane videos. His
questioning on the Twin Bee's systems was extremely thorough; some of the
Twin Bee's systems are a little 'different'.

My suggestion, buy the books and watch the videos.

Hilton

If you tell us where you are, maybe we can help you. I own an Amphib
Husky. I received my initial training at Schebles in Arizona on the
Colorado River (Bullhead City, although Schebles is actually in Kingman
AZ). I had 4 hours of instruction and a checkride all in one day!
Probably efficient moneywise, but I wouldn't recommend doing it that
way. The last hour, I don't think I learned anything. But most other
places are more money becuase they break it up and it takes longer. It
IS difficult to rent a Seaplane (a couple of places let you solo IF you
take instruction there and only on the lakes you learned on). Schebles
does not. The high accident rate (and most of the accidents aren't too
serious, just expensive), is due to taxiing, beaching and docking,
which are problematic. (Taxi over a sharp rock, run the plane up onto
rocks, punch a hole in the floats with a nail sticking out of a dock,
drift into a boat while trying to get started, land on waves that are
too big and break a strut, that sort of thing). Also, picking landing
zones is not easy. There are no runway numbers on the end of lakes!
Essentially it is "bush" flying. You have to be adept and like the
water. It is great fun though, and I have had a blast flying my Husky
into many lakes in Canada, the Pacific Northwest, Maine. Florida is
good too, as is Minnesota. Actually most states have at least a few
lakes where you can do it.

www.seaplanes.org is the website where the most information is. Great
organization. They have a list of instruction areas on their website.
Good luck, it is a great experience.

Doug wrote:
> If you tell us where you are, maybe we can help you.

I live in North Texas, and it looks like there are a few possibilities,
but I'm reconsidering the idea after reading the next part....

>The high accident rate (and most of the accidents aren't too
> serious, just expensive), is due to taxiing, beaching and docking,
> which are problematic. (Taxi over a sharp rock, run the plane up onto
> rocks, punch a hole in the floats with a nail sticking out of a dock,
> drift into a boat while trying to get started, land on waves that are
> too big and break a strut, that sort of thing).

I just don't need an accident on my record.

Doug wrote:
>The high accident rate (and most of the accidents aren't too
>serious, just expensive), is due to taxiing, beaching and docking,
>which are problematic. (Taxi over a sharp rock, run the plane up onto
>rocks, punch a hole in the floats with a nail sticking out of a dock,
>drift into a boat while trying to get started, land on waves that are
>too big and break a strut, that sort of thing).

....and landing in water w/ gears down. Remember that one?

You aren't likely to have an accident if you stick with an instructor.
They land and take off in the same place. They have it figured out.
Seaplane instruction is fairly accident free. It is Seaplane adventure
flying that has the high accident rate.

Yes gear UP for water and DOWN for runway, but very few give
instruction in Amphibs.

BTW, most of the accidents listed above don't result in FAA
notification. They aren't that serious and are actually INCIDENTS. They
just taxi back to the base (or sometimes even fly) , or fly the parts
in and repair it. Never seems to get reported. It's because they aren't
seriouis. But even simple screw ups can be several thousand dollars.
And like I said, it almost never haoppens with the instructor .This is
why they don't allow solos.

The accident rate for dual is not bad, it is when pilots go
into the wild and have trouble on unmarked waterways,
wilderness rivers and lakes that the accident rates go up.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Rachel" > wrote in message
...
| Doug wrote:
| > If you tell us where you are, maybe we can help you.
|
| I live in North Texas, and it looks like there are a few
possibilities,
| but I'm reconsidering the idea after reading the next
part....
|
| >The high accident rate (and most of the accidents aren't
too
| > serious, just expensive), is due to taxiing, beaching
and docking,
| > which are problematic. (Taxi over a sharp rock, run the
plane up onto
| > rocks, punch a hole in the floats with a nail sticking
out of a dock,
| > drift into a boat while trying to get started, land on
waves that are
| > too big and break a strut, that sort of thing).
|
| I just don't need an accident on my record.

Yes the accident rate with an instructor, in the instruction
environment, is quite low. Not a lot of problems there.

> The accident rate for dual is not bad, it is when pilots go
> into the wild and have trouble on unmarked waterways,
> wilderness rivers and lakes that the accident rates go up.

What are the typical kinds of accidents and incidents that seaplanes get
into?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> The accident rate for dual is not bad, it is when pilots go into the
>> wild and have trouble on unmarked waterways, wilderness rivers and
>> lakes that the accident rates go up.
>
>
> What are the typical kinds of accidents and incidents that seaplanes get
> into?
>
> Jose
My instructor was adamant about flying the glassy-water approach and not
looking down. Everytime we heard about a seaplane accident he'd say
something like, "See. That's what happens if you don't use the
glass-water technique."

There are lots of things seaplanes are vulnerable to. Hitting a wave
and catching a float tip. Clipping a tree top trying to get out of a
small pond somewhere. And then there are always problems with the
idiots that try to race the plane during high speed taxi or worse, play
"chicken" with it.

Also if you flip a seaplane, all the electronics will be ruined. That
adds to the price of your insurance.

Then there is the corrosion problem if somebody takes the plane to salt
water, even if he does wash it off.

There is another class of accident where you fail to pick up a mooring
and drift down the river and over the dam (damn!?). It helps to have
some sailboat experience in this case. And if you are flying it from
the right seat solo, you might fall out off the float.

And if you don't "rake" a new landing area before landing, you can hit a
rock and puncture a float.

Bottom line: Seaplanes insurance should be more expensive!

Submerged objects, unmarked powerlines, weather related
forced landings.


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
|> The accident rate for dual is not bad, it is when pilots
go
| > into the wild and have trouble on unmarked waterways,
| > wilderness rivers and lakes that the accident rates go
up.
|
| What are the typical kinds of accidents and incidents that
seaplanes get
| into?
|
| Jose
| --
| You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose
whom to love.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Most seaplane accidents are really boating accidents. Dumbest ones are easy:
trying to take off with the anchor out. Not checking the floats for leaks
and coming back in the morning to find your moored plane sunk to the wings.
Drifting backward into the dam while trying to start the engine. Trying to
turn upwind during a high-speed taxi (the wind can get under the inside wing
and flip you). Sailing backward in rough seas and burying the elevator.
Misjudging current near the dock and drifting into the Beaver at the next
bollard. Landing on a high-elevation lake and not having enough power to
unstick on take-off -- or worse, having just enough power to collect trees
on the far side of lake. Hitting a log floating just below the surface.
Hitting a duck (unlikely -- they hear you coming). Hitting a drunken
jetskier (they don't hear anything).

But the single most common accident is landing on your butt on the mossy
ramp because your deck shoes didn't hold. The guy with the wet spot on his
jeans from ass to knee is the floatplane pilot.

Seth



"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> The accident rate for dual is not bad, it is when pilots go into the wild
>> and have trouble on unmarked waterways, wilderness rivers and lakes that
>> the accident rates go up.
>
> What are the typical kinds of accidents and incidents that seaplanes get
> into?
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Letting the front of the floats get water over them resulting in a nose
over. We had two in NorCal last year. You gotta keep the yoke all the
way back, just like in a taildragger.

-Robert

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:59:30 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote in >::

>Rachel, you will have a heck of a time trying to find a rental.

Of course, one can always purchase one:
http://www.cubcrafters.com/cci/airplanedetails.asp?Action=ShowPictures&PartID=17496

Don't forget Legend Aircraft for the Legend Cub.



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:59:30 -0800, "Bob Gardner"
>
| wrote in >::
|
| >Rachel, you will have a heck of a time trying to find a
rental.
|
| Of course, one can always purchase one:
|
http://www.cubcrafters.com/cci/airplanedetails.asp?Action=ShowPictures&PartID=17496

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:58:05 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<tKQkf.11646$QW2.11307@dukeread08>::

>Don't forget Legend Aircraft for the Legend Cub.

http://www.legend.aero/index.cfm
Base price configuration of $74,000,

The American Legend Cub is a LSA, so a pilot won't need a medical to
fly it, but it's only 100 HP, and lacks the performance of the
Cubcrafters 180 HP product (base price about double the Legend).
There's a good Legend Cub article here:
http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=13&article_id=590&page_number=1

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:58:05 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote in
> <tKQkf.11646$QW2.11307@dukeread08>::
>
>>Don't forget Legend Aircraft for the Legend Cub.
>
> http://www.legend.aero/index.cfm
> Base price configuration of $74,000,
>
> The American Legend Cub is a LSA, so a pilot won't need a medical to
> fly it, but it's only 100 HP, and lacks the performance of the
> Cubcrafters 180 HP product (base price about double the Legend).
> There's a good Legend Cub article here:
> http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=13&article_id=590&page_number=1


The only one worth considering
http://www.seawind.biz/

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> The American Legend Cub is a LSA, so a pilot won't need a medical to
> fly it, ...


Question: Is it a LSA or an LSA?

I can see "a" ...for a Light Sport Aircraft

But here, is it "an" ...for an (L)SA as in elephant?

Curious. My eyes see it one way, my ears hear it another.


Montblack
Never met a comma I didn't like.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>> The American Legend Cub is a LSA, so a pilot won't need a medical to
>> fly it, ...
>
>
> Question: Is it a LSA or an LSA?
>
> I can see "a" ...for a Light Sport Aircraft
>
> But here, is it "an" ...for an (L)SA as in elephant?
>
> Curious. My eyes see it one way, my ears hear it another.
>
>
> Montblack
> Never met a comma I didn't like.

I believe it would be an "a" because of how the first word that is
abbreviated is actually pronounced.

A Light ... and not An Light ...

Jay Beckman
I Are An College Graduate

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>> The American Legend Cub is a LSA, so a pilot won't need a medical to
>> fly it, ...
>
>
> Question: Is it a LSA or an LSA?
>
> I can see "a" ...for a Light Sport Aircraft
>
> But here, is it "an" ...for an (L)SA as in elephant?
>
> Curious. My eyes see it one way, my ears hear it another.
>
>
> Montblack
> Never met a comma I didn't like.

It is the sound that matters.

A or An.
Use an in place of a when it precedes a vowel sound, not just a vowel. That
means it's "an honor" (the h is silent), but "a UFO" (because it's
pronounced yoo eff oh). This confuses people most often with acronyms and
other abbreviations: some people think it's wrong to use "an" in front of an
abbreviation (like "MRI") because "an" can only go before vowels. Poppycock:
the sound is what matters. It's "an MRI," assuming you pronounce it "em ar
eye."

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/a.html

I always found preflight to be an acrobatic routine. There is a lot of
rigging all over the place on a float plane.

-Robert

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:05:19 GMT, "Steph" >
wrote in <zj%kf.47416$ki.307@pd7tw2no>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:58:05 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
>> > wrote in
>> <tKQkf.11646$QW2.11307@dukeread08>::
>>
>>>Don't forget Legend Aircraft for the Legend Cub.
>>
>> http://www.legend.aero/index.cfm
>> Base price configuration of $74,000,
>>
>> The American Legend Cub is a LSA, so a pilot won't need a medical to
>> fly it, but it's only 100 HP, and lacks the performance of the
>> Cubcrafters 180 HP product (base price about double the Legend).
>> There's a good Legend Cub article here:
>> http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=13&article_id=590&page_number=1
>
>
>The only one worth considering
>http://www.seawind.biz/
>

I always thought a high-wing would permit landing in rougher water,
because of the added height of the wing above the waves. Perhaps
someone with some seaplane experience can comment on that aspect.

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> The high accident rate (and most of the accidents aren't too
>> serious, just expensive), is due to taxiing, beaching and docking,
>> which are problematic. (Taxi over a sharp rock, run the plane up onto
>> rocks, punch a hole in the floats with a nail sticking out of a dock,
>> drift into a boat while trying to get started, land on waves that are
>> too big and break a strut, that sort of thing).
>
> ...and landing in water w/ gears down. Remember that one?

Superfloats are able to do it...

http://www.aerocompinc.com/floats/floats2.htm

<paste>
4. SAFETY -- in addition to the enhanced performance capabilities,
strength and weight savings offered by SUPER FLOATS, pilot also enjoy
the distinct advantages of a "conventional gear" configuration for the
amphibious models. By opting to replace complex nosewheel systems with
simpler, lighter, less complex tailwheels (fully steerable), the risk of
nose-over in the event of an inadvertent "wheels-down" landing in water
is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced. Test flight have been conducted successfully
with several different Super Float-equipped airplanes that demonstrated
it is possible (although ill-advised) to land in water with the wheels
accidentally extended WITHOUT HARM!
</paste>

Larry Dighera wrote:

> I always thought a high-wing would permit landing in rougher water,
> because of the added height of the wing above the waves. Perhaps
> someone with some seaplane experience can comment on that aspect.

Getting your prop into the water is considered bad thing...

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>The only one worth considering
>>http://www.seawind.biz/
>>
>
> I always thought a high-wing would permit landing in rougher water,
> because of the added height of the wing above the waves. Perhaps
> someone with some seaplane experience can comment on that aspect.

The position of the wing doesn't affect the water conditions limiting the
airplane so much, as does the hull design, whether it's the entire fuselage
as the hull or attached floats (a "steeper" hull generally gives better
rough-water performance).

Note the the new Russian seaplane that has a low-wing design (not even
mid-wing, like the Seawind or similar airplanes). It appears to be able to
handle waves of roughly the same height as any similarly sized airplane,
from the pilot reports I've read.

As far as protecting the prop goes...

Engine on top may protect the prop in some situations. However, because
top-mounted engines are generally pusher engines, they actually are more
susceptible in other situations, because spray comes off the hull and heads
backwards over the wing and into the prop. At the high angles of attack
when the spray is at its greatest, a front-mounted prop may be reasonably
away from the spray. In the end, neither design is necessarily better than
the other; prop erosion is a fact of life for any seaplane.

IMHO, two genuinely important questions with respect to wing position are
where and how you interface with land, and stability during turns on the
water. A low wing position allows for a lower center of gravity and better
stability (though mitigated somewhat by having the engine up high). A high
wing position gives the airplane more clearance around solid objects, like
docks, rocks, and the like.

Finally, you can always be assured, practically anytime someone precedes a
statement with a phrase like "the only one worth considering", they are
either intentionally engaging in hyperbole, or they are an idiot. It is
exceedingly rare for a single airplane to be THE ONLY viable choice for a
given application, even when the application is defined narrowly (like "you
need to be able to transport a 747 fuselage in one piece"). When the
application is defined as broadly as "seaplane", there's no such thing as
"the only".

Pete

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Doug wrote:
>>The high accident rate (and most of the accidents aren't too
>>serious, just expensive), is due to taxiing, beaching and docking,
>>which are problematic. (Taxi over a sharp rock, run the plane up onto
>>rocks, punch a hole in the floats with a nail sticking out of a dock,
>>drift into a boat while trying to get started, land on waves that are
>>too big and break a strut, that sort of thing).
>
> ...and landing in water w/ gears down. Remember that one?
>

http://media.putfile.com/Wheels-down

Jay Honeck:
>I Are An College Graduate

What a QouinkyDink so is I...

My guess: a LSA, a white elephant and an electric eel.

The Monk

Sorry, that shouldda been Jay Beckman. Sorry Jay.

Ouch! is all I can say.

Daryl wrote:
>Superfloats are able to do it... ...less complex tailwheels (fully steerable),

I wonder if one has to get a tail wheel check out for this thing. :<)

Gig:
>It is the sound that matters.

>A or An.
>Use an in place of a when it precedes a vowel sound, not just a vowel. That
>means it's "an honor" (the h is silent), but "a UFO" (because it's
>pronounced yoo eff oh).


This was what I was taught also: a UFO, an Unidentified Flying Object.

The ability to land in rough water is limited by the hull strength.
Pontoon type floats have struts and the struts can break. Hull type
aircraft such as a Lake use the hull itself to land on, no struts.
Although you CAN break anything, usually hull type aircraft can land on
the incoming wave's backside (the worst spot), hit and not breakup
HARDER than can pontoon aircraft. Of course it depends on the plane.
Larger planes tend to do better. But even the Beavers and such can
break a strut. Usually when the waves start whitecapping, 15knot winds
or so, small GA planes can no longer land safely on whitecapping waves.
But there are waves and there are other waves, it all depends.

Like Pete said, high wings tend to be able to get into docks better
because their wings clear the docks. Low wing planes usually wont
clear, so you can't get the fuselage up next to the dock.

Yeah, the part I liked best was climbing over the cowl to the right float
when the pax seats were full.

Seth

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I always found preflight to be an acrobatic routine. There is a lot of
> rigging all over the place on a float plane.
>
> -Robert
>

On 6 Dec 2005 02:58:43 -0800, "Doug" >
wrote in om>::

>Usually when the waves start whitecapping, 15knot winds
>or so, small GA planes can no longer land safely on whitecapping waves.
>But there are waves and there are other waves, it all depends.

In the channel between Santa Barbara and the Channel Islands the
swells can often be 20' to 30' feet without whitecaps!

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The ability to land in rough water is limited by the hull strength.

Yes, that too. But control on the water surface is at least as important as
not breaking something. The hull design also affects the forces
experienced; a shallow hull decelerates more quickly, transmitting higher
forces to the airframe.

Sheer strength is always a factor, of course...but that's true of every
aspect of aircraft design. It's often not primary, and I disagree that it
is here. Hulls intended for rough water operation are designed with a
steeper "V".

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> In the channel between Santa Barbara and the Channel Islands the
> swells can often be 20' to 30' feet without whitecaps!

Swells are given that name specifically because they are different from what
is generally considered a wave. In particular, they are usually farther
apart (and often higher).

Not that I have personal experience -- I try to stay away from waterways
with swells -- but my understanding is that landing a seaplane in swells is
similar to ditching procedures. That is, try to land parallel to the swell,
not across it.

It's an entirely different technique from normal landings on waves.

Pete

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:03:22 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> In the channel between Santa Barbara and the Channel Islands the
>> swells can often be 20' to 30' feet without whitecaps!
>
>Swells are given that name specifically because they are different from what
>is generally considered a wave. In particular, they are usually farther
>apart (and often higher).

It was the early '70s when one of my father's partners invited me for
a cruise on his 24' sail boat to Anacapa Island off the Ventura,
California coast. The trip over was pleasant, but the next morning on
the way back was really something. It was foggy with visibility about
1/4 mile. The sea was like I had never experienced before, and I had
recently crewed on a Newport Beach to Encinada race in which several
boats were dismasted/run aground, and we were healed over so far that
the Genoa was dragging in the water, but no one could get on deck to
reef it in. The swells in the channel were so high, that one moment
you were on the crest and couldn't see the water around the boat, and
the next moment you were in a trough so deep that you could only see
the sky directly overhead. I couldn't believe it! If one had broken
over us, that would have been it for sure. I have a much healthier
respect for the sea now.

>Not that I have personal experience -- I try to stay away from waterways
>with swells -- but my understanding is that landing a seaplane in swells is
>similar to ditching procedures. That is, try to land parallel to the swell,
>not across it.

That would have been the only practical way to land, but I doubt the
swells were far enough apart to prevent digging a wing in.

>It's an entirely different technique from normal landings on waves.

Would you aim for a trough or a crest?

Yes, deep and sharp (highly angled) V's tend to cushion the landing
somewhat. Also helps if the are concave. On my plane and all the other
pontoon type aircraft that I know of, the first thing that will break
is a strut. The breakpoint varies, sometimes it's the vertical strut,
sometimes the horizontal (on my plane it is known to be the vertical
strut). The Lakes don't have struts and since the fuselage is also the
hull, it IS stronger and can take more. But.... when Lakes breakup
(there is a video), it is CATASTROPHIC, they really come apart. On my
aiplane, usually if one strut breaks you can limp in to shore. If both
front struts break, and the broken part doesn't settle on the fitting
(they break at the lower fitting), you are hosed. You will go over
frontwards, maybe not capsize, but the plane can no longer taxi, the
prop cuts the floats etc. Bad scene. But sometimes the broken piece
settles on the fitting and you can limp to shore even with 2 or more
struts broken. The biggest problem is judging just how big and steep a
wave you can land on, also depends on how close together they are.
There isn't any helpful info in the POH, that I've ever seen. And it IS
a problem. Especially with straight floats. They can't circle forever
and have to go ahead and land. In this respect the amphib gives you the
option of landing on land. So then pilots try and land close to shore
to take advantage of the lee of the trees and run into the associated
hazards of wind shear and landing close to shore, running into rocks
etc. If those waves look too big, and if in doubt, don't. Pretty easy
to break a strut. The hulls themselves seem to take it fine, seldom
dent a hull from landing on a wave, at least not that I have heard of
or seen. Probably possible though. You might just loosen rivets, I
suspect.

Landing on big swells in another matter altogether. I am talking about
waves that you see on a typical lake, maybe one foot high and 20 to 75'
apart. Ocean swells are MUCH further apart and can be much larger. But
even the big planes made to land on the ocean, Grummans and the other
Navy WWII one (can't remember its id), can get into waves and swells
they can't handle.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Would you aim for a trough or a crest?

I would aim for the crest, for the same issue you already mentioned: the
risk of catching a wing.

I hope never to have to test the knowledge. Landing on swells seems
unreasonably tricky to me. :)

Pete

Doug wrote:

> But
> even the big planes made to land on the ocean, Grummans and the other
> Navy WWII one (can't remember its id), can get into waves and swells
> they can't handle.

Grumman, Martin, and Consolidated all made seaplanes for the Navy at that time.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.