On 19 Dec 2003 02:23 PM, tomcat posted the following:
Take another look at high wing monoplanes with amphibious floats.
Rebel to Bearhawk.


"Greg Milligan" wrote in message
news:W9wEb.426354$275.1302314@attbi_s53...
I'm interested in a plans-built amphib, and the Coot and Osprey II
have attracted my attention. Any thoughts/opinions about one vs the
other?

On a related issue, I have been underwhelmed by the useful loads of
both aircraft...around 450 pounds, more or less. Is there any
"conventional wisdom" out there about "supersizing" a plane; i.e.
building to 120% or so of scale?

As fascinated as I am by amphibians, I tend to agree with you from a
practical standpoint. A hull fuselage is probably fine if you will
always be tying up to a dock, but I think for most of the activities
that people here in Alaska use floatplanes for, it would just be a real
pain in the neck. With a conventional fuselaged airplane mounted on
pontoon floats, you can step out on the floats for docking operations.
If you are launching from a beach, you don't necessarily have to jump
right into the cabin of your plane in your muddy boots, you can push/
paddle out, then wipe them off before climbing in. With floats it is
easier to have a built in step for boarding and they provide a good
place to mount racks for external loads such as lumber or a canoe.

Still, I'd love to have something along the lines of a Widgeon sporting
a pair of M-14 radials. I'm told that the weight and balance would work
out right, but that prop clearance (from the fuselage) might be a
problem. Put a couple of .50s in the nose so I could go live out all my
Turk Madden (any other Louis L'Amour fans here?) fantasies.

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