By: mike currill - 17th March 2010 at 07:48
Think of the weight and speed of an aircraft on touch down. Remembering that the heavier it is the faster the touch down, thus more kinetic energy to dissipate. On take off you only have inertia to overcome.
By: topgun regect - 16th March 2010 at 03:54
Just a thought. would the weight of the aircraft settling into the water not cause more and more drag as its airspeed drops off thus slowing it quicker?
Martin
By: Bager1968 - 16th March 2010 at 03:40
Does anyone else think lt’s odd that the landing distance is longer??
Wheel brakes probably provide more stopping power than skimming on the surface of the water.
Unless you fit the plane with panels to open up below waterline.
By: J Boyle - 15th March 2010 at 20:25
Verry funny considering the 185 floatplane I flew can stop in 50 metres…
Difference between a flying boat-type fuselage vs. floats?
Also, the 185 has large flaps and probably a slower approach speed than the Lake.
By: *Zwitter* - 15th March 2010 at 19:32
Verry funny considering the 185 floatplane I flew can stop in 50 metres…
By: AvgasDinosaur - 15th March 2010 at 19:20
Are you looking for the difference between land and water operations?
Yes that is exactly what I was looking for. I thought they would be greater but not by as big a margin as your Lake Buccaneer figures would suggest.
Thanks for your swift replies folkes your time and trouble is much appreciated.
Be lucky
David
By: Oxcart - 15th March 2010 at 19:18
Does anyone else think lt’s odd that the landing distance is longer??
By: AdlerTag - 15th March 2010 at 16:51
I don’t have any figures for the types you mention, but just generally speaking take-offs from water tend to be much longer than on land due the surface tension and friction of the water. It takes longer for the aircraft to accelerate up to flying speed, and the take off speed is higher due to the aircraft needing extra lift to break free of the surface tension of the water.
By: J Boyle - 15th March 2010 at 16:50
Are you looking for the difference between land and water operations?
If so, I happen to have a sales brochure for a 1970’s-era Lake Buccaneer amphibian.
It may give you an general idea of the performance penalty of water ops.
Take off runs:
Land: 600 ft
Water: 1100 ft -a 83% increase
Landing distances:
Land: 475ft
Water: 600 ft. -a 26% increase
All figures at gross weight and standard altitude.
It will be interesting to see if the water ops penalties, in terms of percentage, remain similar in larger and more powerful aircraft.
Sign In
March 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm