Tibarus

Hey, I was just wondering how possible it would be to create a medium scale RC version of this plane. (Pics attached)


I'm wondering how big a medium scale RC plane would be, what engines that sort of thing.

-Robbie

Lamoilleriver

It is a cool looking airplane, would think a size which would handle a pair OS .52 4-strokes would make a nice project. My concern on the design would be the props getting into the spray from the hull, looks awful close to me. Good Luck

Tibarus

I was just searching out the boards and saw a Cesna with actual retracting landing gear, would those work with a seaplane desing such as this?

Would the spray effect the props a lot? Do damage?


Are there any models that could be modified into looking like this plane?

simhatus

HI

like the look of that.

The spray is unlkely to actually damage anything, but the prob is the carberetter tends to suck that in instead of air and the engine goes sick. Not good on a twin.

perhaps you could have some sort of attchment to the carbouretter to take air from somwhere else possibly higher up or from inside the fuz. not somthing ive tried but can't see why it shouldn't work.similar concept to tractors that can go in the sea.

Simon

magyarbacsi

And depending on how much spray, you may have problem getting the rpms up to speed for a lift off

Pilots12

Looks to be WAY nose heavy with a design like that.

Tibarus

I could always put the air intake on the top instead of the bottom (seen in this pic)


It'd be a simple modification.. I think... any possible existing models that could be modded?

Tibarus

I may just forgo building an RC model and just build the real thing X3

Tibarus

I could always move the wings forward a bit... maybe right up to the door line (pic below shows it well) I could make the wings fatter too... more lift you know...

Lake Flyer

My Feedback: (13)

Kewl design, I like it. My first concern is your engine cowlings are so low I think any size of wave will get sucked right into them. Your props tips will be in the water. I would consider moving the wing up or mounting it on a pylon PBY or Sikorsky S-43 style. My other concern is I think your fin & rudder area is way to small. I do think your design has potential.

Tibarus

Well considering the plane is from a cartoon... I don't think there was anymore thought to it than "lets make it look cool" and "At least a little aerodynamically sound"

If I were to build it I'd probably base it off an existing model and simply change the wings and pylons up a bit, hang a new fuselodge on it and call it made... make it fly first... work on cosmetics later.

vertigo72480

Looks like the Sea Duck from "Tale Spin." A Disney cartoon from my youth. Baloo would love to see that plane, and so would I!


HA HA HA TALE SPIN!!!

Tibarus

Thats exactly where I got the idea from ^^ Tail Spin X3 Great show, I always wanted a real Sea Duck, hence why I'm aiming to build a scale RC model... =3

Lake Flyer

My Feedback: (13)

A North Vancouver modeler did a Tailspin Duck a few years back. It was smallish (2) 25's, but it flew well. Unfortunately I didn't get any pictures of it.

JimCasey

My Feedback: (1)

There was a long-lasting thread on one of these forums (fora?)some time ago. I have not yet located it.
I think the plane is flyable but the vertical stabs look a bit smallish.

Hah! found it!
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Seaplanes >> Has anyone ever seen that disney show TaleSpin?

lever02

Or you could buy this. I know it's not the same, but nice anyway.

Tibarus

That is a nice plane... with regards to the tail fins and pylons... I could always make em bigger....

T_om

There is a reason you do not see a full size seaplanes with that engine configuration. The spray pattern from the hull will direct a constant stream of water directly into the propeller arc and engine nacelles.

It looks cool, but will have MANY problems actually making it work.

Tom

Tibarus

Modification is always an option, if I were to build it, I'd modify it till it worked while maintaining the overall look of the subject.

T_om

Then the first modification you might try is to move the engines and nacelles to the top of the wing and inboard as far as you can without hitting the fuselage. There are a whole series of Grumman boat hull aircraft that come close to this configuration, take a look at them for planform specification and component locations.

Tom

Tibarus

That'd work.... but' it'd loose a bit of the look... I could move them out, more to the middle of the wings... would that work?

T_om

I doubt it, as again... there are reasons you do not see commercial aircraft with that configuration.

One way to test the concept would be to do a mock-up of the hull and tow test it at liftoff and landing speeds. Observe the spray pattern and go from there. These relatively flat bottomed boat hulls throw water upward and outward from the edge of the chine. MANY commercial aircraft ended up having to have spray rails added to the hulls along with other water deflecting devices. It is NOT a minor design problem.

Tom

PS: I do not see a step in the hull. That is going to cause more problems. A hull step allows both rotation and a way to eliminate hull suction so the aircraft can lift off at reasonable angles of attack.

Tibarus

Heh if theres one thing I can make it's a hull mock up... Hm... I could move the engine pods higher, so they sit a top the wings instead of in them... .that might take care of the spray problem... as for the hull steps, I'd more than likely be using an existing plane design and simply be modifying it to look like the SeaDuck.

carlosponti

My Feedback: (1)

saw one done in foam but the guy didn't post more about it after he got the thing mostly frames up. it was over on rcgroups

T_om

Which directed my attention to your hull... The round bottom you have shown is not the best hullform. Indeed, it is terrible for a planning hull, as all aircraft hulls must be. You need flat (or at the very least 'much flatter') sections with sharp chines.

I see what you are trying to do here, but save yourself some time and grief... look closely at what has gone before. Re-inventing the wheel is an exercise in futility. This is not to say that new designs are a waste of time, but what you are proposing is very close to existing planforms... and there is a reason those existing planforms are the way they are. As I said earlier... look at all the Grumman series of boats with hulls resembling yours. See where the differences lay and then ask yourself 'why' the Grumman designers went the way they did.

You can get away with a lot in models that would be impossible or fatal in full sized aircraft, but do not ignore why things were done a certain way. There is ALWAYS a reason.

Tom