I was wondering if anyone else was designing (or maybe even progressed
to building) a homebuilt aircraft based on the PBY Catalina? The
reason I ask is that I have been thinking of designing one for some
time. Now that I have 1 year to go before finishing my BS in ME, I
have decided to begin working on a conceptual design.
Hopefulley I'll get around to posting some of my newer PBY stuff on my
website before too long.

I'd like to see what you guys (and gals) think of my idea. Basically I
want an adventure/bush/recreational aircraft. There are a lot of
single engine amphibs out there around 100-200hp, so I'm not going to
design something that basically already exists. What I want these
aircraft wouldn't be able to do anyway. I am looking to build
something where there is nothing very similar to it. It would be
similar size to a Widgeon, but how many of those do you see around.
I'd like to see a C185 or Beaver owner consider buying one of these. I
also don't want to go through the nosebleed the seawind went through
(basically design/build it right the first time and no BS).

I won't be building everything exactly to scale, and it will be made
of mostly composite materials (glass, CF, some kevlar, foam/balsa,
epoxy). You could call it an evolution of a PBY-6A with the R-2600
conversion. I have narrowed down the size that I am going to build.
50% scale. This puts us at 52' WS and 4750 gross, and a pair of
160-200 hp engines. My minimum goals (on 200 hp) are 2000 lbs useful
load, stall w/flaps 49 mph, 75% cruise 167 mph, takeoff from water in
under 900 feet, and have a 1500 statute mile range. I want this
aircraft to be affordable to build and operate (not RV-4 affordable,
but affordable for its size). So far my powerplant of choice is the
deltahawk diesel (although one could put whatever they wanted in for
an engine, many choices around 160-200 hp). A pair of 200hp diesels
would give this PBY the same fuel burn that a 300hp lycoming would
(about 14-16 gph). That's it in a nutshell. Whatchya think? Sound
cool?

PBY was only US warplane (not counting single engine observation) that did
not have flaps!
"Tom Osmundson" > wrote in message
m...
> I was wondering if anyone else was designing (or maybe even progressed
> to building) a homebuilt aircraft based on the PBY Catalina? The
> reason I ask is that I have been thinking of designing one for some
> time. Now that I have 1 year to go before finishing my BS in ME, I
> have decided to begin working on a conceptual design.
> Hopefulley I'll get around to posting some of my newer PBY stuff on my
> website before too long.
>
> I'd like to see what you guys (and gals) think of my idea. Basically I
> want an adventure/bush/recreational aircraft. There are a lot of
> single engine amphibs out there around 100-200hp, so I'm not going to
> design something that basically already exists. What I want these
> aircraft wouldn't be able to do anyway. I am looking to build
> something where there is nothing very similar to it. It would be
> similar size to a Widgeon, but how many of those do you see around.
> I'd like to see a C185 or Beaver owner consider buying one of these. I
> also don't want to go through the nosebleed the seawind went through
> (basically design/build it right the first time and no BS).
>
> I won't be building everything exactly to scale, and it will be made
> of mostly composite materials (glass, CF, some kevlar, foam/balsa,
> epoxy). You could call it an evolution of a PBY-6A with the R-2600
> conversion. I have narrowed down the size that I am going to build.
> 50% scale. This puts us at 52' WS and 4750 gross, and a pair of
> 160-200 hp engines. My minimum goals (on 200 hp) are 2000 lbs useful
> load, stall w/flaps 49 mph, 75% cruise 167 mph, takeoff from water in
> under 900 feet, and have a 1500 statute mile range. I want this
> aircraft to be affordable to build and operate (not RV-4 affordable,
> but affordable for its size). So far my powerplant of choice is the
> deltahawk diesel (although one could put whatever they wanted in for
> an engine, many choices around 160-200 hp). A pair of 200hp diesels
> would give this PBY the same fuel burn that a 300hp lycoming would
> (about 14-16 gph). That's it in a nutshell. Whatchya think? Sound
> cool?

>From: (Tom Osmundson)
>Date: 6/10/2004 12:55 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I was wondering if anyone else was designing (or maybe even progressed
>to building) a homebuilt aircraft based on the PBY Catalina? The
>reason I ask is that I have been thinking of designing one for some
>time. Now that I have 1 year to go before finishing my BS in ME, I
>have decided to begin working on a conceptual design.
>Hopefulley I'll get around to posting some of my newer PBY stuff on my
>website before too long.
>
>I'd like to see what you guys (and gals) think of my idea. Basically I
>want an adventure/bush/recreational aircraft. There are a lot of
>single engine amphibs out there around 100-200hp, so I'm not going to
>design something that basically already exists. What I want these
>aircraft wouldn't be able to do anyway. I am looking to build
>something where there is nothing very similar to it. It would be
>similar size to a Widgeon, but how many of those do you see around.
>I'd like to see a C185 or Beaver owner consider buying one of these. I
>also don't want to go through the nosebleed the seawind went through
>(basically design/build it right the first time and no BS).
>
>I won't be building everything exactly to scale, and it will be made
>of mostly composite materials (glass, CF, some kevlar, foam/balsa,
>epoxy). You could call it an evolution of a PBY-6A with the R-2600
>conversion. I have narrowed down the size that I am going to build.
>50% scale. This puts us at 52' WS and 4750 gross, and a pair of
>160-200 hp engines. My minimum goals (on 200 hp) are 2000 lbs useful
>load, stall w/flaps 49 mph, 75% cruise 167 mph, takeoff from water in
>under 900 feet, and have a 1500 statute mile range. I want this
>aircraft to be affordable to build and operate (not RV-4 affordable,
>but affordable for its size). So far my powerplant of choice is the
>deltahawk diesel (although one could put whatever they wanted in for
>an engine, many choices around 160-200 hp). A pair of 200hp diesels
>would give this PBY the same fuel burn that a 300hp lycoming would
>(about 14-16 gph). That's it in a nutshell. Whatchya think? Sound
>cool?


I decided several years ago to design a half scale A-10 that would accomodate
someonne my size. After years of learning, drawing, calculating etc I have an
aircraft that will fly rather nicely except for that li'l ole ducted fan thing.

I use MicroStation for the drawings, trust me, you will need either CAD or a
room full of A size paper.

My point is I think you will find all kinds of neat stuff that will make you
work and rework your estimates.

If you make it amphibian as the original is the gear alone will weigh a bunch.
For the useful load you suggest I think you would have problems with 2x200 hp
engins if one flakes out on take off.

Having said that I think it's a neat idea, I did mention a scale PBY as an idea
a year or two ago in this NG, and I wish you all the luck.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 9 Jun 2004 22:55:41 -0700, (Tom Osmundson)
wrote:

>I was wondering if anyone else was designing (or maybe even progressed
>to building) a homebuilt aircraft based on the PBY Catalina? The
>reason I ask is that I have been thinking of designing one for some
>time. Now that I have 1 year to go before finishing my BS in ME, I
>have decided to begin working on a conceptual design.
>Hopefulley I'll get around to posting some of my newer PBY stuff on my
>website before too long.
>
>I'd like to see what you guys (and gals) think of my idea. Basically I
>want an adventure/bush/recreational aircraft. There are a lot of
>single engine amphibs out there around 100-200hp, so I'm not going to
>design something that basically already exists. What I want these
>aircraft wouldn't be able to do anyway. I am looking to build
>something where there is nothing very similar to it. It would be
>similar size to a Widgeon, but how many of those do you see around.
>I'd like to see a C185 or Beaver owner consider buying one of these. I
>also don't want to go through the nosebleed the seawind went through
>(basically design/build it right the first time and no BS).
>
>I won't be building everything exactly to scale, and it will be made
>of mostly composite materials (glass, CF, some kevlar, foam/balsa,
>epoxy). You could call it an evolution of a PBY-6A with the R-2600
>conversion. I have narrowed down the size that I am going to build.
>50% scale. This puts us at 52' WS and 4750 gross, and a pair of
>160-200 hp engines. My minimum goals (on 200 hp) are 2000 lbs useful
>load, stall w/flaps 49 mph, 75% cruise 167 mph, takeoff from water in
>under 900 feet, and have a 1500 statute mile range. I want this
>aircraft to be affordable to build and operate (not RV-4 affordable,
>but affordable for its size). So far my powerplant of choice is the
>deltahawk diesel (although one could put whatever they wanted in for
>an engine, many choices around 160-200 hp). A pair of 200hp diesels
>would give this PBY the same fuel burn that a 300hp lycoming would
>(about 14-16 gph). That's it in a nutshell. Whatchya think? Sound
>cool?

Cool idea!

You may want to consider revising some combination of horsepower,
useful load, and gross weight, as 320hp would be a dog hauling around
4750lbs.

For a few reference points: the 160hp Twin Comanche has a gross
weight of 3700lbs and is a much cleaner airplane than a PBY. A Piper
Seneca with 200hp/side has a gross of about 4500. The final version
of the PBY had 1700hp engines, pushing around 40,000lbs.

Weight/HP ratios:
TwinComanche: 11.56
Seneca II: 11.25
PBY: 11.76
Your scale PBY: 14.384-11.875 (320-400hp)

-Nathan

In the early 1970's while stationed at the Pentagon a bunch of us worked on
scaling various WWII aircraft.

It became immediately obvious that there were were two things we could NOT
scale: the pilot and the engines.

Pilot-relative scaling was the most productive in that designing an airframe
just large enough to accomodate the pilot usually afforded a wider range of
engine options.

The PBY was among several pilot-relative designs. With the pilots head in the
pylon, the thing came out with a span of about 34' and, at least on paper,
could fly with a pair of C-85's.

The C-130 (with four VW engines!) came out looking pretty good... on paper.

I don't think any of the scaled designs ever flew although. The
engine-relative P-38 may have done so. All of Kelly Johnson's designs
scaled-down rather well.

-R.S.Hoover

Nathan: Several of us including a P.E have set around the table talking
about the same thing. Diesel engines great for the lagoon hopping out in
the So. Pacific. I even approached one of Burt Rutan's test pilots and told
him to get Burt working on the idea..??
I think the idea is neat.. We spent 8 years out in the Pacific in the
Marshall islands and the type of ship you are playing with would be the
thing to have. Better than a sailboat.
Stu Fields
"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Jun 2004 22:55:41 -0700, (Tom Osmundson)
> wrote:
>
> >I was wondering if anyone else was designing (or maybe even progressed
> >to building) a homebuilt aircraft based on the PBY Catalina? The
> >reason I ask is that I have been thinking of designing one for some
> >time. Now that I have 1 year to go before finishing my BS in ME, I
> >have decided to begin working on a conceptual design.
> >Hopefulley I'll get around to posting some of my newer PBY stuff on my
> >website before too long.
> >
> >I'd like to see what you guys (and gals) think of my idea. Basically I
> >want an adventure/bush/recreational aircraft. There are a lot of
> >single engine amphibs out there around 100-200hp, so I'm not going to
> >design something that basically already exists. What I want these
> >aircraft wouldn't be able to do anyway. I am looking to build
> >something where there is nothing very similar to it. It would be
> >similar size to a Widgeon, but how many of those do you see around.
> >I'd like to see a C185 or Beaver owner consider buying one of these. I
> >also don't want to go through the nosebleed the seawind went through
> >(basically design/build it right the first time and no BS).
> >
> >I won't be building everything exactly to scale, and it will be made
> >of mostly composite materials (glass, CF, some kevlar, foam/balsa,
> >epoxy). You could call it an evolution of a PBY-6A with the R-2600
> >conversion. I have narrowed down the size that I am going to build.
> >50% scale. This puts us at 52' WS and 4750 gross, and a pair of
> >160-200 hp engines. My minimum goals (on 200 hp) are 2000 lbs useful
> >load, stall w/flaps 49 mph, 75% cruise 167 mph, takeoff from water in
> >under 900 feet, and have a 1500 statute mile range. I want this
> >aircraft to be affordable to build and operate (not RV-4 affordable,
> >but affordable for its size). So far my powerplant of choice is the
> >deltahawk diesel (although one could put whatever they wanted in for
> >an engine, many choices around 160-200 hp). A pair of 200hp diesels
> >would give this PBY the same fuel burn that a 300hp lycoming would
> >(about 14-16 gph). That's it in a nutshell. Whatchya think? Sound
> >cool?
>
> Cool idea!
>
> You may want to consider revising some combination of horsepower,
> useful load, and gross weight, as 320hp would be a dog hauling around
> 4750lbs.
>
> For a few reference points: the 160hp Twin Comanche has a gross
> weight of 3700lbs and is a much cleaner airplane than a PBY. A Piper
> Seneca with 200hp/side has a gross of about 4500. The final version
> of the PBY had 1700hp engines, pushing around 40,000lbs.
>
> Weight/HP ratios:
> TwinComanche: 11.56
> Seneca II: 11.25
> PBY: 11.76
> Your scale PBY: 14.384-11.875 (320-400hp)
>
> -Nathan

"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nathan: Several of us including a P.E have set around the table talking
> about the same thing. Diesel engines great for the lagoon hopping out in
> the So. Pacific. I even approached one of Burt Rutan's test pilots and
told
> him to get Burt working on the idea..??
> I think the idea is neat.. We spent 8 years out in the Pacific in the
> Marshall islands and the type of ship you are playing with would be the
> thing to have. Better than a sailboat.

I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia etc.
featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying
combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find the
name of the series.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

Yes, the PBY never had flaps, but I'm going to put some 30% chord
fowler flaps over about 70% of the span. Should be pretty close to
STOL then with a good power to weight ratio.

I've got access to Catia V5, so I'm ok there. I have more experience
using ProE wildfire, but that's what I got. :-)

The gear will weigh a lot, and I want to make sure it is up to rough
fields. I think it can be reasonable in weight if one puts enough time
into it.

I've been looking at safety issues right off the bat with this
concept. I've already went through NTSB stuff on the Catalina as well
as other types, like the seawind. So I've been documenting problems
such as the nose wheel doors on the catalina collapsing causing a
nose-over in the water. You mention loosing an engine might be a
problem with 2x200 hp. I had been looking at the power loading of
several twins and have noticed many with similar power loading. In
fact a 1997 PA-34 Seneca V has 2 engines rated 200 hp continuous (220
for TO) with a gross of 4750 lbs, but a stall speed of 70 mph. But you
do bring up a good point about SE performance, and that's one thing I
will keep an eye on.

Thanks for your comments! Keep em coming!
Tom


>
> I decided several years ago to design a half scale A-10 that would accomodate
> someonne my size. After years of learning, drawing, calculating etc I have an
> aircraft that will fly rather nicely except for that li'l ole ducted fan thing.
>
> I use MicroStation for the drawings, trust me, you will need either CAD or a
> room full of A size paper.
>
> My point is I think you will find all kinds of neat stuff that will make you
> work and rework your estimates.
>
> If you make it amphibian as the original is the gear alone will weigh a bunch.
> For the useful load you suggest I think you would have problems with 2x200 hp
> engins if one flakes out on take off.
>
> Having said that I think it's a neat idea, I did mention a scale PBY as an idea
> a year or two ago in this NG, and I wish you all the luck.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yes, the PBY never had flaps, but I'm going to put some 30% chord
fowler flaps over about 70% of the span. Should be pretty close to
STOL then with a good power to weight ratio.

I've got access to Catia V5, so I'm ok there. I have more experience
using ProE wildfire, but that's what I got. :-)

The gear will weigh a lot, and I want to make sure it is up to rough
fields. I think it can be reasonable in weight if one puts enough time
into it.

I've been looking at safety issues right off the bat with this
concept. I've already went through NTSB stuff on the Catalina as well
as other types, like the seawind. So I've been documenting problems
such as the nose wheel doors on the catalina collapsing causing a
nose-over in the water. You mention loosing an engine might be a
problem with 2x200 hp. I had been looking at the power loading of
several twins and have noticed many with similar power loading. In
fact a 1997 PA-34 Seneca V has 2 engines rated 200 hp continuous (220
for TO) with a gross of 4750 lbs, but a stall speed of 70 mph. But you
do bring up a good point about SE performance, and that's one thing I
will keep an eye on.

Thanks for your comments! Keep em coming!
Tom


>
> I decided several years ago to design a half scale A-10 that would accomodate
> someonne my size. After years of learning, drawing, calculating etc I have an
> aircraft that will fly rather nicely except for that li'l ole ducted fan thing.
>
> I use MicroStation for the drawings, trust me, you will need either CAD or a
> room full of A size paper.
>
> My point is I think you will find all kinds of neat stuff that will make you
> work and rework your estimates.
>
> If you make it amphibian as the original is the gear alone will weigh a bunch.
> For the useful load you suggest I think you would have problems with 2x200 hp
> engins if one flakes out on take off.
>
> Having said that I think it's a neat idea, I did mention a scale PBY as an idea
> a year or two ago in this NG, and I wish you all the luck.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yes, the PBY never had flaps, but I'm going to put some 30% chord
fowler flaps over about 70% of the span. Should be pretty close to
STOL then with a good power to weight ratio.

I've got access to Catia V5, so I'm ok there. I have more experience
using ProE wildfire, but that's what I got. :-)

The gear will weigh a lot, and I want to make sure it is up to rough
fields. I think it can be reasonable in weight if one puts enough time
into it.

I've been looking at safety issues right off the bat with this
concept. I've already went through NTSB stuff on the Catalina as well
as other types, like the seawind. So I've been documenting problems
such as the nose wheel doors on the catalina collapsing causing a
nose-over in the water. You mention loosing an engine might be a
problem with 2x200 hp. I had been looking at the power loading of
several twins and have noticed many with similar power loading. In
fact a 1997 PA-34 Seneca V has 2 engines rated 200 hp continuous (220
for TO) with a gross of 4750 lbs, but a stall speed of 70 mph. But you
do bring up a good point about SE performance, and that's one thing I
will keep an eye on.

Thanks for your comments! Keep em coming!
Tom


>
> I decided several years ago to design a half scale A-10 that would accomodate
> someonne my size. After years of learning, drawing, calculating etc I have an
> aircraft that will fly rather nicely except for that li'l ole ducted fan thing.
>
> I use MicroStation for the drawings, trust me, you will need either CAD or a
> room full of A size paper.
>
> My point is I think you will find all kinds of neat stuff that will make you
> work and rework your estimates.
>
> If you make it amphibian as the original is the gear alone will weigh a bunch.
> For the useful load you suggest I think you would have problems with 2x200 hp
> engins if one flakes out on take off.
>
> Having said that I think it's a neat idea, I did mention a scale PBY as an idea
> a year or two ago in this NG, and I wish you all the luck.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Instead of designing and building something that may or may not work
and taking years in the process why don't you just go out and
buy the closest equivalent and have a certified airplane in the process.

The Canadair CL-215.

Big, roomy, radial engines, certified, you can redo the interior to
your own specs, and if you want the big bulgy widows on the sides....
why not.

Available now...... You could be actually flying throughout those
Pacific Islands within months.

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

> Instead of designing and building something that may or may not work
> and taking years in the process why don't you just go out and
> buy the closest equivalent and have a certified airplane in the process.
>
> The Canadair CL-215.
>
> Big, roomy, radial engines, certified, you can redo the interior to
> your own specs, and if you want the big bulgy widows on the sides....
> why not.

CL-415 would be better with enhanced performance and more dependable
engines...

Course if you want the real thing:

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?mode=usersearch&user=sales%40cs-ent.ca

And cost a fraction of what a new CL-415 geauxs for...

"Tom Osmundson" > wrote in message
om...
> Yes, the PBY never had flaps, but I'm going to put some 30% chord
> fowler flaps over about 70% of the span. Should be pretty close to
> STOL then with a good power to weight ratio.
>
> I've got access to Catia V5, so I'm ok there. I have more experience
> using ProE wildfire, but that's what I got. :-)
>
> The gear will weigh a lot, and I want to make sure it is up to rough
> fields. I think it can be reasonable in weight if one puts enough time
> into it.
>
> I've been looking at safety issues right off the bat with this
> concept. I've already went through NTSB stuff on the Catalina as well
> as other types, like the seawind. So I've been documenting problems
> such as the nose wheel doors on the catalina collapsing causing a
> nose-over in the water. You mention loosing an engine might be a
> problem with 2x200 hp. I had been looking at the power loading of
> several twins and have noticed many with similar power loading. In
> fact a 1997 PA-34 Seneca V has 2 engines rated 200 hp continuous (220
> for TO) with a gross of 4750 lbs, but a stall speed of 70 mph. But you
> do bring up a good point about SE performance, and that's one thing I
> will keep an eye on.
>
> Thanks for your comments! Keep em coming!
> Tom
>

Look carefully at the props. A seaplane needs a lot of thrust at low
airspeeds to break free of the water. The very high wing Catalina would
allow for large, slow props which, being much more efficient, would allow
lower HP for the same performance. Of course you have to deal with the
water spray erosion of the blades but modern Kevlar-carbon blades might
survive better than metal. Reversible props would allow the airplane to
pivot on it's center for good water handling.

Seaplane safety depends a lot on just how slowly the aircraft leaves and
returns to the water. Your idea of Fowler flaps is a good one. The
Catalina's big, high aspect ratio wing helps too.

Bill Daniels

> Darrel Toepfer > wrote:

> CL-415 would be better with enhanced performance and more dependable
> engines...

True.... But a Catalina has those big round engines
and so does the CL-215.

Some of those will be on the used market for a whole lot less than a
turbine model.

> Course if you want the real thing:
>
> http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?mode=usersearch&user=sales%40cs-ent.ca
>
> And cost a fraction of what a new CL-415 geauxs for...

Parts, parts, parts.

With a Canadair CL-215 you can phone, fax, or e-mail Bombardier
and have brand new parts delivered overnight.

If you want to cruise the islands of the Pacific do you want to be
flying a sixty year old plane with no factory support or an airplane
that is still being made with one hundred percent factory support.

"kumaros" > wrote in message >...
to have. Better than a sailboat.
>
> I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia etc.
> featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying
> combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find the
> name of the series.

Maybe something involving Jaques Cousteau? He had a converted Catalina.

Veeduber - "pilot's head in the pylon" - the shoulders are in the hull, then?

>From: "John Oliveira"

>
>PBY was only US warplane (not counting single engine observation) that did
>not have flaps!
>"Tom Osmundson"

The running gag at the tim was that the Cat had a take off speed of 100 kt,
cruise speed of 100kt and a stall speed of 100kt.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

> Maybe something involving Jaques Cousteau? He had a converted Catalina.
>
> Veeduber - "pilot's head in the pylon" - the shoulders are in the hull, then?


Yes, but his son died in the crash....

I watched the series on PBS a while back (probably a couple years) it was
very interesting. Completely purpose built. But alas, sorry I have no other
info on it!
John



kumaros wrote:

> "Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Nathan: Several of us including a P.E have set around the table talking
>> about the same thing. Diesel engines great for the lagoon hopping out in
>> the So. Pacific. I even approached one of Burt Rutan's test pilots and
> told
>> him to get Burt working on the idea..??
>> I think the idea is neat.. We spent 8 years out in the Pacific in the
>> Marshall islands and the type of ship you are playing with would be the
>> thing to have. Better than a sailboat.
>
> I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia etc.
> featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying
> combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find the
> name of the series.
> Kumaros
> It's all Greek to me
>
>
>

Hey maybe he is as interested in designing as he is building and flying!
Go for it.
John
Dibs on shotgun on first passenger flight! ;-)


Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

> Instead of designing and building something that may or may not work
> and taking years in the process why don't you just go out and
> buy the closest equivalent and have a certified airplane in the process.
>
> The Canadair CL-215.
>
> Big, roomy, radial engines, certified, you can redo the interior to
> your own specs, and if you want the big bulgy widows on the sides....
> why not.
>
> Available now...... You could be actually flying throughout those
> Pacific Islands within months.
>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:28:59 +0000, John Oliveira wrote:

> PBY was only US warplane (not counting single engine observation) that did
> not have flaps!

You're kidding right? Many of the pre-WWII US warplanes did not have
flaps.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

Shiver Me Timbers > wrote in message >...
> > Course if you want the real thing:
> >
> > http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?mode=usersearch&user=sales%40cs-ent.ca
> >
> > And cost a fraction of what a new CL-415 geauxs for...
> If you want to cruise the islands of the Pacific do you want to be
> flying a sixty year old plane with no factory support or an airplane
> that is still being made with one hundred percent factory support.

I don't want a huge old 60 year old plane, I want a small one, hence
designing a HALF SCALE version of one... Geeze, you know how much fuel
those suck down per hour?

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:
>>Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>
>>CL-415 would be better with enhanced performance and more dependable
>>engines...
>
> True.... But a Catalina has those big round engines
> and so does the CL-215.

http://www.geversaircraft.com

Nice concept...

Darrel Toepfer wrote:

> Nice concept...

Another... http://www.centaurseaplane.com

> Darrel Toepfer > wrote:

> Another... http://www.centaurseaplane.com

Well if your going to suggest coceptual planes then how about
one that's already in production.

My memory fails me.... So what's the name of that Russian built plane
that was at Sun n Fun and Oshkosh.

Low wing like the Lake aircraft, it seats six and has a twin pod at the
back for the engines.

The Naval Air Museum at NAS Pensacola they have a cutaway PBY fuselage.

It's made for midgets so a half scale may not do as much as you hope for.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

>>Darrel Toepfer > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Another... http://www.centaurseaplane.com
>
>
> Well if your going to suggest coceptual planes then how about
> one that's already in production.

http://www.alaskaseaplanes.com/NC9084.html

> My memory fails me.... So what's the name of that Russian built plane
> that was at Sun n Fun and Oshkosh.
>
> Low wing like the Lake aircraft, it seats six and has a twin pod at the
> back for the engines.

http://www.beriev-usa.com

Pardon for the earlier triple post, connection was giving me fits...

> airspeeds to break free of the water. The very high wing Catalina would
> allow for large, slow props which, being much more efficient, would allow
> lower HP for the same performance. Of course you have to deal with the
> water spray erosion of the blades but modern Kevlar-carbon blades might
> survive better than metal. Reversible props would allow the airplane to
> pivot on it's center for good water handling.
>
> Seaplane safety depends a lot on just how slowly the aircraft leaves and
> returns to the water. Your idea of Fowler flaps is a good one. The
> Catalina's big, high aspect ratio wing helps too.
>
> Bill Daniels

Very good points. An extreme example of low speed thrust with a small
motor is electric RC aircraft. You can have a direct drive motor
spinning a small prop 15000 rpm or gear it down, put a big prop
(propped to draw same amt of juice as the smaller) on running, say,
8000 rpm, and have 2x as much static thrust (although top end
suffers).

The large props and the large wing area (and flaps) is how it would
deal with the lower power loading with smaller engines. Also, taking
the old airframe and cleaning it up (including smaller than scale
blisters) would greatly reduce drag, making the aircraft get away with
smaller engines easier. My cruise speed goal was based on using the
larger 200 hp engines. That way someone could put the big engines in
if they wanted a fast plane, or put in smaller engines if they wanted
economy.

As far as prop erosion from spray, that could be minimized/eliminated
with some careful attention to hull design

>You may want to consider revising some combination of horsepower,
>useful load, and gross weight, as 320hp would be a dog hauling around
>4750lbs.
>-Nathan

The 50% scale at 4750 lbs gross is based on the later models that had
38000 gross. Based on 35420 gross, it's 4427 lbs. The power loading
with 2-160hp engines is more like that of a 172 at 4750. If you were
at 4500 gross, 2-160hp engines would be more like the power loading on
a cherokee 180. My dad has said that on a hot day that extra 20 hp
sure made a difference (172 vs cherokee 180).

Perhaps I'll revise gross weight to 4500 lbs. My goal in engineering
the airframe is to achieve empty weight 55% of gross. so my goal at
4500 gross is 2475 empty and 2025 useful, which still meets my
original useful load goal.

>In the early 1970's while stationed at the Pentagon a bunch of us
worked on
>scaling various WWII aircraft.
>It became immediately obvious that there were were two things we
could NOT
>scale: the pilot and the engines.
>-R.S.Hoover

As far as pilot relative scaling, at 50% scale there shouldn't be much
of a problem, and if it was close you could just fudge the size a bit
to compensate, since it's generally to scale, not carbon copy to
scale. At 50% we are looking externally at 5' wide and 4' tall, so
inside would be a bit smaller. I was thinking of making the fuse a bit
taller than scale.

>I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia
etc.
>featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying
>combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find
the
>name of the series.
>Kumaros
>It's all Greek to me

Oh shoot, can't find the bookmark. I know what you are talking about,
the Explorer by Hubert de Chevigny and Dean Wilson (Dean did the
Private Explorer that was like a single engine winnebago). It had a
pair of 300hp O-540's , grossed 8000 or so, big and boxy, was huge
inside. I think it topped out at 125 mph or kts, can't remember. The
photo I saw it was painted yellow. Gihugic for a pair of O-540's!

AhHa! didn't find the page I found way back when, but found a photo of
it at the bottom of this page...
http://fafagege.free.fr/html/eng/reves.htm

>I even approached one of Burt Rutan's test pilots and told
>him to get Burt working on the idea..??
>Stu Fields

If I can do half as well as what a thoeoretical Rutan "pby" could do,
this thing would still be awsome! I hope everything goes well for the
whole team at scaled composites on the 21st for their official 100km
altitude space attempt with "SpaceShipOne". If I wern't so poor, I'd
drive down to watch it live!



Again, thanks for the comments! Much Appreciated!
Tom-aka-Dieselfume

>
> http://www.beriev-usa.com

Anybody concerned about dropping a wing?

Darrel Toepfer > wrote:

>> Low wing like the Lake aircraft, it seats six and has a twin pod at the
>> back for the engines.
>
>http://www.beriev-usa.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmmm.
A veritable bargain?

The price for each aircraft is slightly less than 1 million dollars
after a negotiated BULK discount that the Chinese requested.

Tom: In the outer Pacific islands you can get auto gas, diesel and if there
is a runway jet fuel. But NO avgas.
BTW I know a guy that flew a Grumman something or other Goose? out in the
Marshalls for awhile. He now is in Calif selling a strange fast outrigger
sailboat.

Stu Fields
"Tom Osmundson" > wrote in message
om...
> Pardon for the earlier triple post, connection was giving me fits...
>
> > airspeeds to break free of the water. The very high wing Catalina would
> > allow for large, slow props which, being much more efficient, would
allow
> > lower HP for the same performance. Of course you have to deal with the
> > water spray erosion of the blades but modern Kevlar-carbon blades might
> > survive better than metal. Reversible props would allow the airplane to
> > pivot on it's center for good water handling.
> >
> > Seaplane safety depends a lot on just how slowly the aircraft leaves and
> > returns to the water. Your idea of Fowler flaps is a good one. The
> > Catalina's big, high aspect ratio wing helps too.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
>
> Very good points. An extreme example of low speed thrust with a small
> motor is electric RC aircraft. You can have a direct drive motor
> spinning a small prop 15000 rpm or gear it down, put a big prop
> (propped to draw same amt of juice as the smaller) on running, say,
> 8000 rpm, and have 2x as much static thrust (although top end
> suffers).
>
> The large props and the large wing area (and flaps) is how it would
> deal with the lower power loading with smaller engines. Also, taking
> the old airframe and cleaning it up (including smaller than scale
> blisters) would greatly reduce drag, making the aircraft get away with
> smaller engines easier. My cruise speed goal was based on using the
> larger 200 hp engines. That way someone could put the big engines in
> if they wanted a fast plane, or put in smaller engines if they wanted
> economy.
>
> As far as prop erosion from spray, that could be minimized/eliminated
> with some careful attention to hull design
>
> >You may want to consider revising some combination of horsepower,
> >useful load, and gross weight, as 320hp would be a dog hauling around
> >4750lbs.
> >-Nathan
>
> The 50% scale at 4750 lbs gross is based on the later models that had
> 38000 gross. Based on 35420 gross, it's 4427 lbs. The power loading
> with 2-160hp engines is more like that of a 172 at 4750. If you were
> at 4500 gross, 2-160hp engines would be more like the power loading on
> a cherokee 180. My dad has said that on a hot day that extra 20 hp
> sure made a difference (172 vs cherokee 180).
>
> Perhaps I'll revise gross weight to 4500 lbs. My goal in engineering
> the airframe is to achieve empty weight 55% of gross. so my goal at
> 4500 gross is 2475 empty and 2025 useful, which still meets my
> original useful load goal.
>
> >In the early 1970's while stationed at the Pentagon a bunch of us
> worked on
> >scaling various WWII aircraft.
> >It became immediately obvious that there were were two things we
> could NOT
> >scale: the pilot and the engines.
> >-R.S.Hoover
>
> As far as pilot relative scaling, at 50% scale there shouldn't be much
> of a problem, and if it was close you could just fudge the size a bit
> to compensate, since it's generally to scale, not carbon copy to
> scale. At 50% we are looking externally at 5' wide and 4' tall, so
> inside would be a bit smaller. I was thinking of making the fuse a bit
> taller than scale.
>
> >I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia
> etc.
> >featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying
> >combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find
> the
> >name of the series.
> >Kumaros
> >It's all Greek to me
>
> Oh shoot, can't find the bookmark. I know what you are talking about,
> the Explorer by Hubert de Chevigny and Dean Wilson (Dean did the
> Private Explorer that was like a single engine winnebago). It had a
> pair of 300hp O-540's , grossed 8000 or so, big and boxy, was huge
> inside. I think it topped out at 125 mph or kts, can't remember. The
> photo I saw it was painted yellow. Gihugic for a pair of O-540's!
>
> AhHa! didn't find the page I found way back when, but found a photo of
> it at the bottom of this page...
> http://fafagege.free.fr/html/eng/reves.htm
>
> >I even approached one of Burt Rutan's test pilots and told
> >him to get Burt working on the idea..??
> >Stu Fields
>
> If I can do half as well as what a thoeoretical Rutan "pby" could do,
> this thing would still be awsome! I hope everything goes well for the
> whole team at scaled composites on the 21st for their official 100km
> altitude space attempt with "SpaceShipOne". If I wern't so poor, I'd
> drive down to watch it live!
>
>
>
> Again, thanks for the comments! Much Appreciated!
> Tom-aka-Dieselfume

"Tom Osmundson" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Pardon for the earlier triple post, connection was giving me fits...
snipped
kumaros wrote>
> >I recall a French series of nature documentaries filmed in Patagonia
> etc.
> >featuring a huge amphibian twin-engined aircraft, sort of a flying
> >combination of a house, a boat and an airplane. I wish I could find
> the
> >name of the series.
> >Kumaros
> >It's all Greek to me
>
> Oh shoot, can't find the bookmark. I know what you are talking about,
> the Explorer by Hubert de Chevigny and Dean Wilson (Dean did the
> Private Explorer that was like a single engine winnebago). It had a
> pair of 300hp O-540's , grossed 8000 or so, big and boxy, was huge
> inside. I think it topped out at 125 mph or kts, can't remember. The
> photo I saw it was painted yellow. Gihugic for a pair of O-540's!
>
> AhHa! didn't find the page I found way back when, but found a photo of
> it at the bottom of this page...
> http://fafagege.free.fr/html/eng/reves.htm
>
That's it!!! That's the yellow monster of a sea-plane that was featured in
the series. In a couple of "interior" (he, he) shots you could see the tube
fuselage and the insulation as well as the bamboo furniture. Now if I could
only remember the name of the series :-(
So, to come to your original post. Why could you not replicate or even
scale down this one instead of a Catalina?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
It's all Greek to me

> That's it!!! That's the yellow monster of a sea-plane that was featured in
> the series. In a couple of "interior" (he, he) shots you could see the tube
> fuselage and the insulation as well as the bamboo furniture. Now if I could
> only remember the name of the series :-(
> So, to come to your original post. Why could you not replicate or even
> scale down this one instead of a Catalina?
> Kumaros
> It's all Greek to me
> It's all Greek to me

I suppose one could duplicate it but it's kinda draggy with many
external braces and slow (although one could clean up the design). I'm
sure it works great, but lacks that classic look a catilina has. I
believe when I had some specs of it, the empty to gross ratio wasn't
the greatest. I think it was 5000 empty 8000 gross. It is metal, I'm
looking at composite for corrosion resistance. But you could make a
composite version of it (and get a better empty to gross ratio), like
I want to do to the PBY.

Some advantages of the PBY design is having the wing on a pylon. This
gets the same wing area (with same aspect ratio) in a shorter span. It
gets the engines up higher, out of the spray. The engines are close
enough together SE operation is relatively easy. You can stand on top
of the fuse to open a cowling and check the oil or whatever. The
retractable floats add cool factor but also adds weight. But outrigger
floats can be smaller than inboard sponsons to do the same job.

>Tom: In the outer Pacific islands you can get auto gas, diesel and if
there
>is a runway jet fuel. But NO avgas.
>BTW I know a guy that flew a Grumman something or other Goose? out in
the
>Marshalls for awhile. He now is in Calif selling a strange fast
outrigger
>sailboat.
>Stu Fields

Thank you for that post, I would have never thought of fuel
availability to that extent. That is definitely an advantage for using
200 hp deltahawk diesels(can use diesel or Jet A).

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
> On 11 Jun 2004 22:07:51 -0700, (Tom Osmundson)
> wrote:
>
> :
> :I suppose one could duplicate it but it's kinda draggy with many
> :external braces and slow (although one could clean up the design). I'm
> :sure it works great, but lacks that classic look a catilina has. I
> :believe when I had some specs of it, the empty to gross ratio wasn't
> :the greatest. I think it was 5000 empty 8000 gross. It is metal, I'm
> :looking at composite for corrosion resistance. But you could make a
> :composite version of it (and get a better empty to gross ratio), like
> :I want to do to the PBY.
>
> Generally an amphib will have a horrible empty to gross ratio. The
> hull has to be MUCH heavier than for an equivalent conventional
> airplane. A friend once told me that to see if the hull is strong
> enough, beat on it with a baseball bat. If it doesn't dent, it might
> be strong enough to take a floating log just before liftoff without a
> catastrophic failure.
>
> I'm not sure if going to composite - and keeping the same kind of
> impact resistance - will give you a lighter airframe.

One can see you've done your homework.
Now, going to the other side of the cold war ;-)
Look at what almost all aerobatic pilots are doing, abandoning the various
forms of Pitts and going to the Zlins and Yaks.
Perhaps a Soviet era "Caspian Monster" "Wing in Ground Effect" vehicle would
be suitable for you. With composite materials "glass epoxy over foam
sandwich" for corrosion resistance, insulation and strength, you could build
something in the line of the following:
See: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/WIG.html
or: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,410266,00.html
Of course you could try to build this ;-)
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~vortexau/Page2.htm
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

"Tom Osmundson" > wrote in message
om...
> > That's it!!! That's the yellow monster of a sea-plane that was featured
in
> > the series. In a couple of "interior" (he, he) shots you could see the
tube
> > fuselage and the insulation as well as the bamboo furniture. Now if I
could
> > only remember the name of the series :-(
> > So, to come to your original post. Why could you not replicate or even
> > scale down this one instead of a Catalina?
> > Kumaros
> > It's all Greek to me
> > It's all Greek to me
>
> I suppose one could duplicate it but it's kinda draggy with many
> external braces and slow (although one could clean up the design). I'm
> sure it works great, but lacks that classic look a catilina has. I
> believe when I had some specs of it, the empty to gross ratio wasn't
> the greatest. I think it was 5000 empty 8000 gross. It is metal, I'm
> looking at composite for corrosion resistance. But you could make a
> composite version of it (and get a better empty to gross ratio), like
> I want to do to the PBY.
>
> Some advantages of the PBY design is having the wing on a pylon. This
> gets the same wing area (with same aspect ratio) in a shorter span. It
> gets the engines up higher, out of the spray. The engines are close
> enough together SE operation is relatively easy. You can stand on top
> of the fuse to open a cowling and check the oil or whatever. The
> retractable floats add cool factor but also adds weight. But outrigger
> floats can be smaller than inboard sponsons to do the same job.
>
> >Tom: In the outer Pacific islands you can get auto gas, diesel and if
> there
> >is a runway jet fuel. But NO avgas.
> >BTW I know a guy that flew a Grumman something or other Goose? out in
> the
> >Marshalls for awhile. He now is in Calif selling a strange fast
> outrigger
> >sailboat.
> >Stu Fields
>
> Thank you for that post, I would have never thought of fuel
> availability to that extent. That is definitely an advantage for using
> 200 hp deltahawk diesels(can use diesel or Jet A).

The CONCEPT of the Consolidated PBY was a very good one. Given the airfoils
and engines available in 1938, the execution wasn't too bad either. They
did the best they could with the materials they had to work with.

Creating a replica in composite materials would probably not save much if
any weight over metal but the impact strength of carbon-kevlar would be much
greater. I'd think that generally adopting the concept with changes
wherever the opportunity presented itself to improve the design would result
in a pretty cool aircraft.

Bill Daniels

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:05:10 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
> wrote:
>
> :
> :Creating a replica in composite materials would probably not save much if
> :any weight over metal but the impact strength of carbon-kevlar would be
much
> :greater. I'd think that generally adopting the concept with changes
> :wherever the opportunity presented itself to improve the design would
result
> :in a pretty cool aircraft.
>
> Kevlar absorbs water, even after it's been laminated, up to almost
> it's own weight. In that enviornment you'd find the hull getting
> heavier and heavier. Carbon is worse in impact resistance than glass
> - it's stiff, but brittle.
>
> Glass *might* be better than aluminum in this application (fiberglass
> canoes are scraped up after 30 years, aluminum ones are dented to
> hell) but I wouldn't bet on a significant weight savings.

Really? I thought Kayaks have used Kevlar/carbon for impact resistance. I
have never head that Kevlar absorbs water.

Bill Daniels

Barnyard BOb - wrote:

>>http://www.beriev-usa.com

> Hmmmm.
> A veritable bargain?
>
> The price for each aircraft is slightly less than 1 million dollars
> after a negotiated BULK discount that the Chinese requested.

How about this then:

http://volition.chooseyouritem.com/airplanes/files/8000/8487.html

Not much to be found on the internet about the Airshark I by Freedom
Master. They went out of business in the early '90's and the person with
the kit forsale mentioned above, sent me an info packet and video tape
about the plane, ages ago...

Airshark: The Business Side: Airshark-Is it Dead in
the Water?, Mar. 1991, p. 86 of Kitplanes.

> > :Creating a replica in composite materials would probably not save much if
> > :any weight over metal

Well, from what I hear, if you were to build an composite airplane
like an aluminum plane, often it does not save much weight.

> > but the impact strength of carbon-kevlar would be
> much
> > :greater. I'd think that generally adopting the concept with changes
> > :wherever the opportunity presented itself to improve the design would
> result
> > :in a pretty cool aircraft.
> >
> > Kevlar absorbs water, even after it's been laminated, up to almost
> > it's own weight. In that enviornment you'd find the hull getting

> > heavier and heavier. Carbon is worse in impact resistance than glass
> > - it's stiff, but brittle.

Correct, carbon isn't that great in the traditional sense of "impact
resistance", but there are many grades of carbon from many
manufacturers. For example, your fishing rod might say "IM-6" or
"IM-7", those are two different grades of CF manufactured by an outfit
named Hercules. CF can be had in many forms ranging from intermediate
(IM), high (HM), and ultra high (UHM) modulus (stiffness) to high
strength (HS). Kevlar is more resiliant than CF (in terms of how much
energy can be absorbed without permanent deformation).

Kevlar can absorb water in a laminate, but all laminates are not the
same. You could try to make a water tank with a double layer of glass
(or CF or kevlar) built like you would a wing for a model airplane and
all could leak from pinholes. But your average fiberglass boat doesn't
leak from pinholes because of the the way they do the laminate. In
that way, the water absorbed I would think would be minimal, but I'm
no expert on composites (yet! ;-) ). MSE 404, engineering composites,
is next spring for me (even then I will have much to learn, one 3
credit class can't teach everything)...

> >
> > Glass *might* be better than aluminum in this application (fiberglass
> > canoes are scraped up after 30 years, aluminum ones are dented to
> > hell) but I wouldn't bet on a significant weight savings.
>
> Really? I thought Kayaks have used Kevlar/carbon for impact resistance. I
> have never head that Kevlar absorbs water.
>
> Bill Daniels

Now a CF part can take impact, but it depends a lot on how the CF is
used.

>The CONCEPT of the Consolidated PBY was a very good one. Given the
airfoils
>and engines available in 1938, the execution wasn't too bad either.
They
>did the best they could with the materials they had to work with.

Yep, for the mid 30's, they did a pretty darn good job.
And I'm sure that is part of the reason why you still see them in use
today!

Again, thanks for the comments!

Tom

Dan

My good buddy (now deceased) who flew 'Cats', told me 90, 90, 90.

Big John (Out of the hospital and kind of back with the living)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```


On 10 Jun 2004 22:14:55 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: "John Oliveira"
>
>>
>>PBY was only US warplane (not counting single engine observation) that did
>>not have flaps!
>>"Tom Osmundson"
>
>The running gag at the tim was that the Cat had a take off speed of 100 kt,
>cruise speed of 100kt and a stall speed of 100kt.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>From: Big John
>Date: 6/17/2004 2:49 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Dan
>
>My good buddy (now deceased) who flew 'Cats', told me 90, 90, 90.
>
>Big John (Out of the hospital and kind of back with the living)
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
>
>
>On 10 Jun 2004 22:14:55 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>>>From: "John Oliveira"
>>
>>>
>>>PBY was only US warplane (not counting single engine observation) that did
>>>not have flaps!
>>>"Tom Osmundson"
>>
>>The running gag at the tim was that the Cat had a take off speed of 100 kt,
>>cruise speed of 100kt and a stall speed of 100kt.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I bow to his eperience.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yea, I've herd that before... 90kts is best climb, best cruise speed
for range, and something else...

Big John > wrote in message >...
> Dan
>
> My good buddy (now deceased) who flew 'Cats', told me 90, 90, 90.
>
> Big John (Out of the hospital and kind of back with the living)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
>
>
> On 10 Jun 2004 22:14:55 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>From: "John Oliveira"
>
> >>
> >>PBY was only US warplane (not counting single engine observation) that did
> >>not have flaps!
> >>"Tom Osmundson"
> >
> >The running gag at the tim was that the Cat had a take off speed of 100 kt,
> >cruise speed of 100kt and a stall speed of 100kt.
> >
> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dibs on shotgun on SECOND passenger flight!

Bryan

UltraJohn > wrote in message t>...
> Hey maybe he is as interested in designing as he is building and flying!
> Go for it.
> John
> Dibs on shotgun on first passenger flight! ;-)
>
>
> Shiver Me Timbers wrote:
>
> > Instead of designing and building something that may or may not work
> > and taking years in the process why don't you just go out and
> > buy the closest equivalent and have a certified airplane in the process.
> >
> > The Canadair CL-215.
> >
> > Big, roomy, radial engines, certified, you can redo the interior to
> > your own specs, and if you want the big bulgy widows on the sides....
> > why not.
> >
> > Available now...... You could be actually flying throughout those
> > Pacific Islands within months.
> >

Probably best single engine climb and best glide.

Maybe best approach speed, max gear extension, best speed for IMC, best
attack speed, max speed with any windows open? :)

"Tom Osmundson" > wrote in message
om...
> Yea, I've herd that before... 90kts is best climb, best cruise speed
> for range, and something else...
>
> Big John > wrote in message
>...
> > Dan
> >
> > My good buddy (now deceased) who flew 'Cats', told me 90, 90, 90.
> >
> > Big John (Out of the hospital and kind of back with the living)
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
> >
> >
> > On 10 Jun 2004 22:14:55 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> >
> > >>From: "John Oliveira"
> >
> > >>
> > >>PBY was only US warplane (not counting single engine observation) that
did
> > >>not have flaps!
> > >>"Tom Osmundson"
> > >
> > >The running gag at the tim was that the Cat had a take off speed of 100
kt,
> > >cruise speed of 100kt and a stall speed of 100kt.
> > >
> > >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired