Canoe pontoons?

[Scott Marquardt]

Has anyone done it? I did the obligatory google search, and found nothing
in 20 seconds (so it must not exist, right? ;-) Obviously, though, I'm not
the first idiot to think of it.

I'd like to see a light plane with canoes for pontoons. There'd be vertical
tubes that would drop down (think a pickup truck camper's vertical supports
for when you don't have the pickup under it), so you could taxi to shore,
jack down the tubes (broad plates on the bottoms for mud?), and detach the
canoes. Go fishing for the day, then re-attach the canoes, jack up the
tubes and take off.

Am I nuts? I suppose someone's going to tell me that it'd be easier to
convert a pontoon to something that could double as an inefficient canoe.
;-D

The big hazard is an obvious one, but what the heck. There's gotta be a
way.

- Scott

[Bernie the Bunion]

> Scott Marquardt > wrote:

> I'd like to see a light plane with canoes for pontoons.
>
> Am I nuts?

Beats me, but why don't you contact Jesse James from
the TV show Monster Garage and ask him to consider
a conversion as one of the show's projects.

[Scott Marquardt]

Bernie the Bunion wrote:
>> Scott Marquardt > wrote:

>> I'd like to see a light plane with canoes for pontoons.

>> Am I nuts?

>Beats me, but why don't you contact Jesse James from
>the TV show Monster Garage and ask him to consider
>a conversion as one of the show's projects.

No, for them I'd suggest trying to get one of these to fly:
http://www.zorb.com/thumbnails.htm

- Scott

[Del Rawlins]

On 07 Aug 2003 08:26 PM, Scott Marquardt posted the following:
> Has anyone done it? I did the obligatory google search, and found
> nothing in 20 seconds (so it must not exist, right? ;-) Obviously,
> though, I'm not the first idiot to think of it.

Nope, you're not. 8^) Idiot is a stronger term than I would have used,
though.

> I'd like to see a light plane with canoes for pontoons. There'd be
> vertical tubes that would drop down (think a pickup truck camper's
> vertical supports for when you don't have the pickup under it), so you
> could taxi to shore, jack down the tubes (broad plates on the bottoms
> for mud?), and detach the canoes. Go fishing for the day, then re-
> attach the canoes, jack up the tubes and take off.

The main problem is that a canoe is a displacement hull, while you need
the pontoons to be planing hulls with a step. As I understand it, the
faster you push a displacement hull, the further into the water it wants
to dig, until it reaches its hull speed, which is the fastest you can
make it go. A planing hull is designed specifically to ride (plane) on
top of the water's surface at high speed, which will allow you to reach
a suitable speed for takeoff. The "step" allows the hull to rise
further out of the water than if the entire bottom surface was flat,
decreasing drag so that you can get off the water.

By the time you modified the canoes to act as planing hulls and added a
step, there wouldn't be much of the original metal left. Probably
easier to start from scratch.

> Am I nuts? I suppose someone's going to tell me that it'd be easier to
> convert a pontoon to something that could double as an inefficient
> canoe. ;-D

Even if it were possible, you wouldn't want to try to remove a float in
the field. Normally, when aircraft are switched between floats and
wheels a large hoist or crane is used to raise it high enough in the air.
If you are content with an inefficient canoe, carry an inflatable and
folding paddles with your baggage. You should always have a paddle in
your floatplane anyhow. Alternately, lots of canoes are carried as
external loads on float rigging, if your plane is big enough. Beware, a
buddy of mine who flies floats says external loads can do goofy things
to the handling qualities/performance.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 23:26:31 -0500, Scott Marquardt > wrote:

>I'd like to see a light plane with canoes for pontoons. There'd be vertical
>tubes that would drop down (think a pickup truck camper's vertical supports
>for when you don't have the pickup under it), so you could taxi to shore,
>jack down the tubes (broad plates on the bottoms for mud?), and detach the
>canoes. Go fishing for the day, then re-attach the canoes, jack up the
>tubes and take off.

IIRC, many folks just lash a regular canoe to the floats. Best of both
worlds, there....

Ron Wanttaja

[Bushy]

I plan on building a Storch so I can go fishing out the window,
'cause I get seasick, but I don't get airsick!

;<)
Peter

[Rich S.]

"Bushy" > wrote in message
...
> I plan on building a Storch so I can go fishing out the window,
> 'cause I get seasick, but I don't get airsick!
>
> ;<)
> Peter

How large of a sinker do you need to troll at 40 mph?

Rich S.

[Morgans]

"Scott Marquardt" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone done it? I did the obligatory google search, and found nothing
> in 20 seconds (so it must not exist, right? ;-) Obviously, though, I'm
not
> the first idiot to think of it.
>
> I'd like to see a light plane with canoes for pontoons. There'd be
vertical
> tubes that would drop down (think a pickup truck camper's vertical
supports
> for when you don't have the pickup under it), so you could taxi to shore,
> jack down the tubes (broad plates on the bottoms for mud?), and detach the
> canoes. Go fishing for the day, then re-attach the canoes, jack up the
> tubes and take off.
>
> Am I nuts? I suppose someone's going to tell me that it'd be easier to
> convert a pontoon to something that could double as an inefficient canoe.
> ;-D
>
> The big hazard is an obvious one, but what the heck. There's gotta be a
> way.
>
> - Scott

Floats for airplanes are a lot tougher than canoes. They also have
watertight compartments, so they all don't fill up in case of a leak, or
hole. They also have a raised portion just in back of the cener of gravity,
so that once it is planning, the aircraft can rotate, and fly away. It
might be easyer to convert a float into a canoe. Bettter yet, strap a a
canoe onto the float, and leave the float alone.
--
Jim in NC--

[Bushy]

> How large of a sinker do you need to troll at 40 mph?
>

I'll let you know in a couple of years, but from what they reckon,

20mph +full flap + 30%power = fly at 20mph

- 20mph headwind = 0mph ground speed

Peter

[Scott Marquardt]

Dan Thomas wrote:

> Aircraft floats are designed the way they are for a critical
>purpose and it would be difficult indeed to come up with something
>much different that might still work.

Looks like there's agreement on that.

Hokay, then, would any respectable homebuilt pontoon be capable of doubling
as some kind of canoe? Granted, we still have the problem that a canoe is
generally wide open, whereas a pontoon that's wide open is ill-advised.

Perhaps a kayak design, where a simple hole in the middle of the pontoon
could be easily covered, might work -- provided a pontoon would be
seaworthy (why do I have this nagging sense it would just tip over no
matter what you tried to do with it).

Thanks to all for responding to an idea that I agree borders on the
nonsensical. I'll skip asking wether using a prop as a canoe paddle would
eliminate the need to j-stroke. ;-)

- Scott

[nooneimportant]

I dunno.... p-factor, torque, and spiraling slipstream could all have an
effect to eliminate the need for the j-stroke if you stroke only from the
left side of the canoe, but ONLY if you use a propellor as a paddle......
If you use a paddle for a propellor make sure you feather it on the forward
part of the stroke.....




> Thanks to all for responding to an idea that I agree borders on the
> nonsensical. I'll skip asking wether using a prop as a canoe paddle would
> eliminate the need to j-stroke. ;-)
>
> - Scott

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Scott Marquardt > wrote:
>Dan Thomas wrote:
>
>> Aircraft floats are designed the way they are for a critical
>>purpose and it would be difficult indeed to come up with something
>>much different that might still work.
>
>Looks like there's agreement on that.
>
>Hokay, then, would any respectable homebuilt pontoon be capable of doubling
>as some kind of canoe? Granted, we still have the problem that a canoe is
>generally wide open, whereas a pontoon that's wide open is ill-advised.
>
>Perhaps a kayak design, where a simple hole in the middle of the pontoon
>could be easily covered, might work -- provided a pontoon would be
>seaworthy (why do I have this nagging sense it would just tip over no
>matter what you tried to do with it).

pontoons _are_ top-heavy, *by*design*.

However, I see no reason, why you couldn't carry a couple of small
'outriggers' to deal with _that_ problem.


>Thanks to all for responding to an idea that I agree borders on the
>nonsensical. I'll skip asking wether using a prop as a canoe paddle would
>eliminate the need to j-stroke. ;-)

Depends, is it fixed or variable pitch ?? <chortle>

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
gpa > wrote:
>
>"nooneimportant" > wrote in message
>news:7yiZa.109146$o%2.48070@sccrnsc02...
>> I dunno.... p-factor, torque, and spiraling slipstream could all have an
>> effect to eliminate the need for the j-stroke if you stroke only from the
>> left side of the canoe, but ONLY if you use a propellor as a paddle......
>> If you use a paddle for a propellor make sure you feather it on the
>forward
>> part of the stroke.....
>>
>
>Indeed, however, if you intend to use a propellor from an eastern european
>aircraft such as a Yakolev 52 please be advised that everything you
>recommended is the same but in reverse..and of course the canoe would also
>have to be upside down...

Nah, just in Australia.

[Scott Marquardt]

Robert Bonomi wrote:

>However, I see no reason, why you couldn't carry a couple of small
>'outriggers' to deal with _that_ problem.

To heck with canoes -- how about using both pontoons as a catamaran? Add a
sail. Or heck, use the plane's seats too, and contrive a paddle-boat. Put
some hydroplanes under the pontoons. Solve world hunger. Get toast to land
butter side up. And so forth.

Is there any homebuilt in existence that could double as a bass boat? Or,
of course, is there any bass boat etc.

- Scott "but seriously, folks" Marquardt

[Corrie]

"Bushy" > wrote in message >...
> > How large of a sinker do you need to troll at 40 mph?
> I'll let you know in a couple of years, but from what they reckon,
> 20mph +full flap + 30%power = fly at 20mph
> - 20mph headwind = 0mph ground speed

Yeah, but do the big ones bite on a windy day?

[Corrie]

Scott Marquardt > wrote in message >...
> But hey, and here I'm almost serious again: could a pontoon be made that
> would fly well, plane well -- and work *upside down* as a better hull for a
> catamaran? As has been pointed out, an aviation pontoon hull would make a
> lousy boat hull, and vice versa. But might the *top* of a good aviation
> pontoon also be a good hull shape for a cat?

Maybe. But either you sit astride it (using the step as back
support?) or else you cut a hole in the surface that's in the water on
takeoff and landing.

Inflatable boat and a pump, anyone?

[The Nelsons]

Full Lotus made inflatable floats. Use those, catamaran style, or just use
one float and an outrigger. Or just buy a Coot, Osprey, Kingfisher, etc.,
and stick a trolling motor over the side.

RN

"Scott Marquardt" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Thomas wrote:
>
> > Aircraft floats are designed the way they are for a critical
> >purpose and it would be difficult indeed to come up with something
> >much different that might still work.
>
> Looks like there's agreement on that.
>
> Hokay, then, would any respectable homebuilt pontoon be capable of
doubling
> as some kind of canoe? Granted, we still have the problem that a canoe is
> generally wide open, whereas a pontoon that's wide open is ill-advised.
>
> Perhaps a kayak design, where a simple hole in the middle of the pontoon
> could be easily covered, might work -- provided a pontoon would be
> seaworthy (why do I have this nagging sense it would just tip over no
> matter what you tried to do with it).
>
> Thanks to all for responding to an idea that I agree borders on the
> nonsensical. I'll skip asking wether using a prop as a canoe paddle would
> eliminate the need to j-stroke. ;-)
>
> - Scott

[Corrie]

Scott Marquardt > wrote in message >...

> >Maybe. But either you sit astride it (using the step as back
> >support?) or else you cut a hole in the surface that's in the water on
> >takeoff and landing.

> No, for a cat you just use three frame pieces and stretch some fine mesh
> nylon webbing across the open area for a deck.
> See, it's more practical than you thought. ;-)

Ah - missed the cat part. So....how do you propose to attach the
frame to the upended pontoon?

[Scott Marquardt]

Corrie wrote:

>Ah - missed the cat part. So....how do you propose to attach the
>frame to the upended pontoon?

I can think of a couple ways of doing it -- both of which would add a small
amount of weight. What I'd hope is that the frame pieces needed could
double as structural support for the pontoons when mounted on the plane,
modifying traditonal mounting of pontoons a bit.

Heck, take off a wing and use it as a sail {since I'm on a roll with this;
heck, when you get in deep there's no sense coming out the way you got in;
there's gotta be another exit somewhere ;-)

Just don't ask me how I'd mount *that*. And don't ask me how I'd license
the thing as both an airplane and a boat!

- Scott

[Bushy]

> Yeah, but do the big ones bite on a windy day?

Don't know yet, but you get a pretty good view from above the water so you
can go where you can see the fish......

Maybe I'll try spear fishing! Stuka style!

Peter