Flying boats.... (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

To be honest, I've always liked the Bv138. While it's not as impressive as the big flying boats (Bv222, Bv238, JRM-1), it was a reliable design and even had the deisel Jumos. (and it looked cool!)
 
Is a matter of fashion I guess, the landplane had some advantages but there is nothing wrong with a modern passenger turboprop flying boat, even in places away from the sea like my province Cordoba there are plenty lakes where you can operate without too much trouble. By the way dont forget the canadair CL-415T wich is fighting fires around the world.

cl415_tabone.jpg
 
Flying boats (and seaplanes) are maintenance intensive, corrosion buckets and are accidents waiting to happen during landing, but sometimes it's all well worth it...
 

Attachments

  • untitled.png
    untitled.png
    36.2 KB · Views: 114
And this neat Lakes amphibian would be good for weekends away. Unless you're a Scots Police Officer, investigating strange goings on in a remote village by the sea .........
 

Attachments

  • 2011-04-12_44.JPG
    2011-04-12_44.JPG
    92.9 KB · Views: 91
A rather unique flying boat.

Hansa-Brandenburg W.20
This little single-seat flying-boat was designed during 1917 for carrying aboard U-boats. It could be dismantled in 1 3/4 min. and stowed into space measuring only 20 ft. X 6 ft.; re-assembly took 2 3/4 min. As the type of submarine for which it was intended never went into service, only three examples of the W 20 were built. The first, No. 1551, had no interplane struts; these members were, however, added to the structure of Nos. 1552-1553, which also had the lower wing increased in span. Engine, 80 h.p. Oberursel UO. Span, 5.8 m. (19 ft. 0 3/8 in.), "1551"; 6.8 m. (22 ft. 3 3/4 in.), "1552/3". Length, 5.91 m. (19 ft. 4 5/8 in.), "1551"; 5.925 m. (19 ft. 5 1/8 in.), "1552/3". Area, 14.95 sq.m. (161 sq.ft.), "1551"; 15.82 sq.m. (171 sq.ft.), "1552/3". Weights: Empty, 396 kg. (871 lb.). Loaded, 568 kg. (1,250 lb.). Climb, 1,000 m. (3,280 ft.) in 14.9 min. Duration, 1 1/4 hr. Armament, none.

Photograph taken 14 March 1918.
67.jpg
 
"It could be dismantled in 1 3/4 min"

"re-assembly took 2 3/4 min."

I think it would take that long just to get your tool box out. Something sounds fishy about those statements!
 
True to a point - you still have bio-fungal and salt problems that will effect composites although a lot less maintenance intensive than a metal airplane.

Propeller erosion, engine internal corrosion, metal fittings, there are still plenty of increases in maintenance costs.
 
Propeller erosion, engine internal corrosion, metal fittings, there are still plenty of increases in maintenance costs.

Yep - I didn't even feel the need to go there. I used to work on a Lake, neat airplane but we were always finding some pretty nasty stuff on it and it was operated in fresh water!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back