A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Amphib: Coot vs Osprey II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 19th 03, 06:39 AM
Greg Milligan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


Ads
  #2  
Old December 19th 03, 12:45 PM
Darrel Toepfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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...


  #3  
Old December 19th 03, 11:11 PM
EDR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article [email protected]_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.

  #4  
Old December 20th 03, 12:23 AM
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Take another look at high wing monoplanes with amphibious floats. Rebel to
Bearhawk.


"Greg Milligan" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_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.




  #5  
Old December 20th 03, 04:17 AM
Del Rawlins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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:[email protected]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/
  #6  
Old December 20th 03, 09:03 AM
Greg Milligan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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...




  #7  
Old December 20th 03, 09:03 AM
Greg Milligan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks.

"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article [email protected]_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.



  #8  
Old December 20th 03, 09:03 AM
Greg Milligan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks.

"tomcat" wrote in message
...
Take another look at high wing monoplanes with amphibious floats. Rebel to
Bearhawk.


"Greg Milligan" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_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.






  #9  
Old December 27th 03, 03:01 AM
J.D.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #10  
Old December 29th 03, 02:48 AM
Ed Wischmeyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SeaHawk Amphib Sale / Trade HankL Home Built 0 October 18th 03 08:11 PM
Repost - SeaHawk Composite Amphib HankL Home Built 0 August 7th 03 05:08 PM
SeaHawk Amphib For Sale HankL Home Built 2 August 2nd 03 06:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.