Aerocat at Oshkosh

[randall g]

Did anyone check out the Aerocat kitplane at Oshkosh? It's a 4-place
amphibious twin with detachable floats.

The company website is www.creativeflight.com

I would love to see some pictures or hear your thoughts on what seems to
be a remarkable design. I am not associated with them, but I am
considering building an aircraft in the future and this may be an ideal
choice for me.





randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos.htm

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article >,
randall g > wrote:

> Did anyone check out the Aerocat kitplane at Oshkosh? It's a 4-place
> amphibious twin with detachable floats.
>
> The company website is www.creativeflight.com
>
> I would love to see some pictures or hear your thoughts on what seems to
> be a remarkable design. I am not associated with them, but I am
> considering building an aircraft in the future and this may be an ideal
> choice for me.


I have one up under my OshKosh 2003 photos at

http://homepage.mac.com/chriss/

I think i labelled it 'ugly amphib' heh

[Kevin Horton]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 06:37:36 -0400, Bryan Martin wrote:

> in article , Chris
> Schmelzer at wrote on 8/6/03 1:03 AM:
>
>> In article >, randall g
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Did anyone check out the Aerocat kitplane at Oshkosh? It's a 4-place
>>> amphibious twin with detachable floats.
>>>
>>> The company website is www.creativeflight.com
>>>
>>> I would love to see some pictures or hear your thoughts on what seems
>>> to be a remarkable design. I am not associated with them, but I am
>>> considering building an aircraft in the future and this may be an
>>> ideal choice for me.
>>
>>
>> I have one up under my OshKosh 2003 photos at
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/chriss/
>>
>> I think i labelled it 'ugly amphib' heh
>
> Nice pictures, but I think the one you have labeled as an S-3 is
> actually an S-2. The S-3 is a twin turbofan.


Nope, I've got lots of S-2 time, and it isn't one of those either. It
looks like an OV-1 Mohawk.

The pictures labelled FJ-4 are actually either an F4U or an FG (the FG was
a license built F4U). The FJ-4 is a derivative of the F-86. Very
different.

Also check the spelling of Sikorsky. And it is an amphibian flying boat,
not a float plane.

The "bombers" are North American B-25s (the twin tail ones) and Douglas
A-26s (the designation was later changed to B-26, after all the original
Martin B-26s had been retired).

Nice pictures though.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/

[Montblack]

>>>Oshkosh pictures http://homepage.mac.com/chriss/

The Classic Ford Tri-motor picture is the Bushmaster (1960's) out of
Anoka-Blaine, MN (ANE) at Golden Wings Museum.

http://irish5string.homestead.com/files/Trimotor/

The Mohawk (I'm pretty sure) is also out of Anoka-Blaine, different museum
though - American Wings ...Mohawks scattered around everywhere :-)

http://www.americanwings.org/museum.htm

Fun Oshkosh pictures Chris.

--
Montblack

("Kevin Horton" wrote)
> Nope, I've got lots of S-2 time, and it isn't one of those either. It
> looks like an OV-1 Mohawk.

> Nice pictures though.

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article >,
Kevin Horton > wrote:


>
> Nope, I've got lots of S-2 time, and it isn't one of those either. It
> looks like an OV-1 Mohawk.
>
> The pictures labelled FJ-4 are actually either an F4U or an FG (the FG was
> a license built F4U). The FJ-4 is a derivative of the F-86. Very
> different.
>
> Also check the spelling of Sikorsky. And it is an amphibian flying boat,
> not a float plane.
>
> The "bombers" are North American B-25s (the twin tail ones) and Douglas
> A-26s (the designation was later changed to B-26, after all the original
> Martin B-26s had been retired).
>
> Nice pictures though.


Thanks for the updates...

[Russell Kent]

Montblack wrote:

> I've looked a couple of times at those Ford Tri-motor pics. I might be wrong
> about the Bushmaster. The one shot looks like the Bushmaster, however some
> of the other shots look like a Tri-motor.

The Bushmaser can be differentiated from the model 4 and model 5 Ford Tri-motors
in that the Bushmaster's vertical stabilizer is squared off at the top and has
fully cowled engines, whereas the Fords have sloping vertical stabilizers and
cylinder heads in the breeze.

If you saw the flight of the Tri-motors, you saw the EAA model 4-AT Ford
Tri-motor, the Grand Canyon tours model 5-AT Ford Tri-motor, the Bushmaster, and
the Stinson model A (the black, or maybe dark blue, one).

Russell Kent