Is anyone out there designing a scale PBY Catalina?

Shiver Me Timbers wrote in message ...
Course if you want the real thing:

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing....es%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