Amphib: Coot vs Osprey II

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?

TIA.

"Greg Milligan" wrote...
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?

Vulmer-Jensen VJ-22 gives an adequate payload:
http://www.volmeraircraft.com
http://mars.ark.com/~dcf/volmer2.html

If you wanted to go the kit route visit he
http://www.glassgoose.com
Better payload and speed...

Thanks.

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
.. .
"Greg Milligan" wrote...
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?

Vulmer-Jensen VJ-22 gives an adequate payload:
http://www.volmeraircraft.com
http://mars.ark.com/~dcf/volmer2.html

If you wanted to go the kit route visit he
http://www.glassgoose.com
Better payload and speed...

In article W9wEb.426354$275.1302314@attbi_s53, Greg Milligan
wrote:

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?

A friend of mine built an Osprey II twenty years ago with a 160 HP fuel
injected O-320. He could never get it on the water without porpoising.
Another fellow 30 miles away built one 15 years ago and extended the
step six inches further aft from what the plans called for. This
enabled him to land and take off without porpoising.
I flew the one my friend built for twenty hours. Including a trip to
Oshkosh and back. Land and take off at 85 kts. Cruise at 95-100 kts.
Max speed 110 kts. Good rudder authority, poor aileron authority in
cross wind conditions. I'm 6'3" and had to scrunch down in the seat to
keep my headset from contacting the side of the fuselage. Gear up
landings on wet grass are non events with the fuselage keel and wing
sponsons. I was the only person (other than him) that he let solo it.
It was fun to fly, but because of the difficulty he had on water, I
didn't try to get it wet.

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?

TIA.

Thanks.

"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article W9wEb.426354$275.1302314@attbi_s53, Greg Milligan
wrote:

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?

A friend of mine built an Osprey II twenty years ago with a 160 HP fuel
injected O-320. He could never get it on the water without porpoising.
Another fellow 30 miles away built one 15 years ago and extended the
step six inches further aft from what the plans called for. This
enabled him to land and take off without porpoising.
I flew the one my friend built for twenty hours. Including a trip to
Oshkosh and back. Land and take off at 85 kts. Cruise at 95-100 kts.
Max speed 110 kts. Good rudder authority, poor aileron authority in
cross wind conditions. I'm 6'3" and had to scrunch down in the seat to
keep my headset from contacting the side of the fuselage. Gear up
landings on wet grass are non events with the fuselage keel and wing
sponsons. I was the only person (other than him) that he let solo it.
It was fun to fly, but because of the difficulty he had on water, I
didn't try to get it wet.

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?

TIA.

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?

TIA.

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/

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.

------------------------------------------------

West of Singapore, wasn't it?


J.D.
to e-mail, pull the post

Thanks.

"tomcat" wrote in message
...
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?

TIA.

The predecessor version of the Glass Goose, the SeaHawker, had an
interesting problem with flutter -- an upper wing could come off in
flight. This wasn't all that much of a problem, most of the six
aircraft on which this happened landed with no further damage. Don't
know if the Goose fixed this or not.

As for building at 120% -- no way. There are too many factors which are
second or third order effects to get away with this without really
knowing what you're doing.

Ed Wischmeyer