I have no "time" in that airplane, and I wouldn't want any. But I did sit in one once, and had the op to get in the air, but passed. Here's the thing. I don't view it as an airplane. It's a home built. This means it cannot be used for commercial purposes, as other "real" airplanes with airworthy certificates issued by the FAA.

I have absolutely no confidence in any home built or EAA aircraft. I can't speak for other professional commercial pilots, but that's how I view this airplane and any other EAA or home built. I am a commercially rated seaplane pilot and owned my own seaplane business. I started flying in 1966. I have 400 hours of seaplane time alone. That's 400 hours of "bush" flying in a Lake and a dozen hours in a Republic Seabee. I have no "float plane" time at all. A "Floatplane" is not a Seaplane. Most think they are.

Sure, there's a place for "home built" and EAA as a hobby, but when a pilot takes on a passenger, "the innocent," if you will, it becomes an issue with me.

The model is handsome, in fact striking to say the least, and I like it. But I would never purchase one.

My interest is more towards the models that aren't so readily available.

Charles

Jeez, Charles. Lighten up a little.

THIS IS THE BEST FLYING BOAT I KNOW OF... from a 10,000 hr+ ATP...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyiL7d713fo

Bob,

I am light. You're just reading heavy.

Charles

The fact that, after the test hours are flown off, homebuilts have a better safety record than certified airplanes is an awkward fact that you choose to ignore. They are not allowed to carry passengers during the test period, so you needn't worry about that either.

Well, you will be pleased to know that the Seawind is now, or shortly will be, an FAA certified "real airplane". I assume that will change your attitude and you will then be happy to fly it. You might even buy a model of it.

I can't wait to hear your opinion of the newly FAA certified Light Sport Aircraft, and (god help us) the Sport Pilot rating.

Jim

[8D]

How do you know what I'm ignoring? I would say that's an incorrect conclusion. Awkward? That's an unusual choice of word also. It's obvious you aren't comfortable with what I'm saying. Do you have interest in EAA?

Keep in mind, I may be at a bit of a loss because I probably don't have the information you have because I'm no longer active in general aviation. 40 years is enough and I said I don't miss it. Also, my interest was never the EAA side of general aviation. I said there's a place for a "home built," airplane, just not with me.

My first response, to your statement about the safety record of home built airplanes being greater than certified airplanes, is difficult for me to believe.

One has to take in consideration the total number of hours the airplane has on the airframe and operating systems. I cannot see a home built even coming close to accumulating these hours. Not to mention the comparing of aircraft type. Apples and oranges? Pilot error?

I know nothing about this EAA "Test Period."

Thank you for telling me I don't have to worry. Attitude? There's a difference between "worry" and "concern."

Myself, having five ratings and two of them being "Commercial," you come in contact with many instructors, in the learning process, who BTW, may have different views about General Aviation. "Views" can be extremely different, and so can the "nature" of the instructor and the pilots, for that matter. Unfortunately, "It takes all kinds?" You have to keep in mind, that these "kinds" are just people. Just like "modelers." Good, bad and indifferent.

The thing about General Aviation, is people can die because of a Pilot's behavior and they sometimes do. A known fact.

In my opinion, there's absolutely no place for "hot shots" in the real world of responsible piloting of an airplane with or without passengers. Over the years I have experienced meeting many "hot shots", "idiots", "jerks", "fools", call them what you want, but professionals, have absolutely no use for them. And they are everywhere. They exist in droves and the numbers are increasing.

Pleased? Why would I be pleased? I personally don't care what the FAA or the EAA or EF Hutton, for that matter, has to say or do with the Seawind. If I had interest in one, it would be different, but I don't. I'm not an EAA guy and guys like me don't talk or think like EAA guys. No big deal, I'm not mad at them, but they get mad at me for being "reasonable" about my approach to GA.

As long as the Seawind is offered in kit form, I cannot see the FAA giving an AC to this airplane for commercial use. You seem to have interest in this airplane?

Would I fly in a Seawind that was built from a kit, by someone in their garage or hanger?" I don't think so. What would be the purpose or point? Fun, excitement, to be able to say I did it?

No, I will not buy the ARF Seawind model. I have absolutely no interest in it. But, as I said, it looks like a fine model and is a great looking airplane!

Jim, why are you taking such a negative attitude towards my views about GA? Under those conditions, conversations are no longer conversations, and they become argumentative and "nothing" gets accomplished. Unfortunately, there are many groups and people who do this deliberately, and for many reasons.

If you have interest in getting a rating and becoming a pilot, I strongly suggest you make friends with older, and more experienced Pilots. You may not like what they say, or even agree with them, but I can say first hand, they have much to offer.

The Sport Pilot Rating? Limitations, but not a bad "starting" point. One has to begin someplace.

Times change, what's wrong with that.

Did you see the movie Iron Man? Now all you need is a suit that holds two or four people, because flying someplace alone sucks.

Charles

I think you guys need to take it someplace else. This thread is about a scale flying boat, last I checked.

Yeah, I know, but guys like him have kept me and most of my modeling friends out of full scale aviation for 20 years. I just couldn't resist tweeking him a little. I'm through now.

Jim

Do you mean "tweaking?"

"Guys like me?" How have I kept you, and your friends, out of "full scale" aviation, for the past 20 years? If you and your friends meet me 20 years ago, you would have credentials and your own airplane by now.

I started in a "Flying Club." Five of us each had a share in an airplane. You just have to find the right guys, which is difficult to say the lease.

Yes Bob, and thank you, obviously, the fool I am, I should know better. Just trying to be helpful when it's impossible.

The Thread "is" about the Widgeon, which I'm currently researching.

Seaplanes with radial engines, I find more interesting, so this is the Widgeon I will model. see photo.

I'm getting the Paul Matt drawings for scale outlines, then I will decide on what size model to build. I would like to build one in the 80" span area.

Starting out with a glass fuse or a semi-kit would be great, if possible? And no, I have little interest in a 10' Widgeon.

Charles

Wow - guys! I did not mean to start a big argument. I am not the best RC flyer, so when I am debuting an expensive new model, I get the most expert local pilot to test fly the model for me. As you can see on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGmo8Q5ooNA my quarter scale Widgeon, at 44 pounds, did not porpoise very much, in the hands of a good pilot. Later, at 51 pounds after a rebuild, it seemed to be more prone to porpoise.

I don't know what West Coast or Inland Empire have to do with anything. The West Coast includes Alaska and British Columbia and Washington state, where most of the seaplane activity takes place. I am originally from Brooklyn, NY. Are you going to flame that as well? I hold FAA commercial, instrument, multi-engine and instructor ratings, and I have about a thousand hours as pilot in command, mostly in a Cessna 172I, in which I was a co-owner with three other guys for about 18 years. But I don't see what that has to do with anything, either.

Applying some engineering type logic, rather than emotional ranting, I think that we can make a case for the fact that the longer the hull, the less prone a seaplane would be to porpoising. The longer hulls have, in effect, a longer wheelbase, and will tend to be more stable in pitch, on the water. A short-coupled airplane tends to be more sensitive and "squirrily" in pitch than one with a nice long tail moment, and so will hulls or floats. Bill Price of G&P Sales, says that, with his even heavier quarter scale Widgeon, he must "fly it through" the porpoising stage of the take off. Of course piloting technique is important, but my experience, mostly with model seaplanes (plus one hour of dual on a full-scale Super Cub on floats on Lake Tahoe) says that hull length, hull design, step location, C.G. location, float rigging, wing angle of attack relative to the floats, elevator trim setting, wing loading, power loading, flap setting and of course water surface and wind conditions, all have an effect on takeoff characteristics.

To me, a good model seaplane should not require a whole bunch of expertise to accomplish a simple thing like a takeoff. My Ultra Stik 120, with Slocan 43 inch floats and a Saito 150, will track straight into the wind, without porpoising, and will take off hands off. Now, that's a seaplane!

At Lake Shuswap in B.C., a pair of 14 ft. wingspan Grumman Albatrosses, with their long hulls, took of majestically. Ihave a film of them flying , which I may post on YouTube some day. The PBY had a relatively long hull, but I cringed when, on TV, Jacque Coustou's son took off in their modified PBY Catalina after much porpoising. He eventually killed himself in that aircraft.

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!

Charles

Thanks, Charles,

Henry Arance moved the step forward to be near the C.G. He also made the step larger by flaring the bottom of the hull downward, just ahead of the step. The scale step location is a fair distance rearward from where we modelers generally place it, at or near the C.G. We also trim the floats so that the wing has a slightly positive angle of attack relative to the water when planing. This enables the model to lift off by flying off on the wing, without a major zoom after breaking water.

The scale Widgeon wing saddle has too much positive incidence, and the engines have added up-thrust on top of that. Both don't work well in a model, where we prefer everything zero-zero. I think that this is one of the major reasons for the model's porpoising, as the Widgeon wants to leap into the air in ground effect, before it has enough air speed to fly. So it noses down back to the water, and continues this bouncing until adequate airspeed is attained. On my heavier Widgeon, a bit more power would help it to achieve the needed air speed sooner. It is underpowered for two Ryobi's at that weight.

Scale-type floats, with a curved, boat-like shape forward of the step, don't work as well on a model as a straighter, sloped shape. Shallow or no vee on the bottom works better than a deep vee shape. The Widgeon hull has both deep Vee and curved boat shape forward of the step.

Regards,

Oscar

Thanks for that information. I appreciate it.

I always held full back on the yoke in preparation for getting on the step for takeoff with the Lake I owned. I used this same technique with my S-39 model.

If porpoising developed, I would abort and start again. Same with the real airplane. I have 377 hours in the Lake. That's a lot of take offs and landings. Only one aborted because of porpoising.

I hear stories of seaplane models being difficult to get off the water. I'd hate to loose a model.

Charles

I've never seen many good pictures of the Widgeon with radial engines. All I can say is WOW, are those nacelles ever big. Anything I have ever read on radial engined Widgeons was that their performance was inferior to either the inline or flat engined ones. I can also see that in the event of an engine out condition there is going to be a lot of extra drag on the "dead" side of the plane.
On to other things. My Widgeon, (see page one of this thread) is finally approaching completion. Since I have not included a water rudder because things like that tend to get damaged with ground handling, I would like to know if anyone has programmed their Eclipse Seven for differential throttles for water handling? Obviously I want to link the rudder and throttle but I would also like to be able to deactivate the mixing for flight.
Thanks guys for keeping this thread interesting. I hope everyone had a great Christmas and that there are lots of new Widgeons in the new year.
Peter

Peter,

Did full size plans come with the Mr. G kit?

Photos of your progress?

Charles

Hey Guys,
Could someone please post the web sites that sell the various kits of the Widgeon? Additionally, could someone share the history/differences of the Widgeon compared to the larger Goose. Thanks and Happy New Year.

This is for Oscar and Peter..... not to take away from the Widgeon - there were 3 giant Albatrosses at Shuswap in 2004...

" G-21 - The Goose. Eight place (plus 2 crew) boat-type high wing amphibian. All metal except for fabric-covered wing and tail surfaces. Powered by two P&W R-985 engines of 400 HP each. Hamilton Standard two-blade constant speed propellers. Wing area, 375. Span, 49'. LOA, 38'4", HOA, 15'. Weight empty, 5900. Weight loaded 8000. Vmax 200. Vcruise 150. Service ceiling, 24,000. "


" G-44 (Widgeon) - High wing five-place amphibian powered by two Ranger L-440C-5 engines rated at 200 hp each. Sensenich two-bladed fixed pitch wood props. Wing area, 245. Span, 40'. LOA 31''1". HOA 11'5". Weight empty, 3189. Weight laded, 4500. Vmax 153. Sevice ceiling 14,600. Rate of climb 700 fpm."

Hi Charles,
Yes, full sized plans (model sized) did come with my Widgeon. They are pretty minimal outline drawings because of the fiberglass fuse and foam cored surfaces. There are some pretty serious errors in the scale outline and I have been mainly working from a set of Paul Matt drawings. Structurally I feel the plans are pretty poor. I guess the word haphazard summarizes the structural details.
I was too far into it to quit but the distance from scale has turned me off for long periods. Now that the end is in sight I seem to have a renewed interest.
I'll try for some pictures soon. I have to take them outside as I have no room in the house to assemble it and then get back far enough to take a photo. With outside temperatures around -30C (that's about -22F) I haven't been outside too much.
With two large projects on the go my basement is rather full. The other is a 1/3 Pitts built from a German Topp Kit. I'm on my third engine for it and I haven't even got it covered yet.
Peter

www.flying-models.com Plan CF132 $17 Oscar's 1/7 scale Widgeon full-size plan, includes construction article.
Nacelle plugs available free from Oscar, [email protected], but I would need a $100 returnable deposit.

www.rcairplane.net G&P Sales. Al Franklin's 1/4 Scale Widgeon. Fiberglass-foam short kit with full-size plans, about $1200. Includes fiberglass hull, nacelles (classic inverted Ranger or horizontally opposed), and tip floats, with foam cores for wing and tail feathers.

Background
Grumman wanted to offer a smaller, more affordable version of their highly successful Goose, and in 1940 they introduced the G-44 Widgeon.
The 5-place Widgeon had a forty ft. wingspan and was a typical rugged product of the Grumman "Iron Works", with a gross weight of 4525 lb. Flaps, retractable landing gear and fixed wing tip floats were standard equipment. Construction was all-metal, except for the flaps, control surfaces and aft outer wing panels, which were fabric covered.
About 275 Widgeons were produced, mostly for military service in WW II. They were used by the American
armed services and by several allied nations. The British called their G-44s "Goslings", an apt name considering their derivation from the larger Goose.
After the war, Widgeons saw service as executive, utility and bush planes throughout the world. Many were converted to use larger engines, both horizontally opposed and radial. Some "Super Widgeons", even had retractable wing tip floats like a PBY. About 100 Widgeons are still flying today.
Inverted Ranger 6-cylinder in line air-cooled engines, rated at 200 horsepower each, powered the classic Widgeon. The streamlined cowlings of these engines, similar to those of the PT-19, gave the fat, short-coupled little amphibian a pleasing, kind of cute, appearance, quite different from that of the other Grumman twins, which used big radial engines. Widgeons converted to horizontally opposed engines had a variety of nacelle shapes.

Thanks all...

Since I crashed my 1/3 scale Ercoupe, I am considering putting retracts in my 1/4 scale Widgeon and flying it in this year's Scale Masters Competitions. It has been flown previously only as a seaplane. Robart has discontinued these retracts. Does anyone know of a set of these retracts that might be available for sale?

peter c

I'll borrow you my camera so we can see some pics of your project. I'll have it in my vehicle when we meet for lunch Tues.