Float planes of WWII

And it's not the guy building the DC-3 that will sue you, it's some guy riding in it or that it fell on. The floats were a riveted structure.

EDO definitely built those floats.  They will be on microfilm in their archives, as well as the attaching structure.   Jay Frey was head of the float division for many years, and that is where I learned how the records are kept.  EDO is primarily an electronics defense contractor now, so it is difficult to find anyone interested in old floats.  I am pretty sure that the DC-3 on floats now that was flying in the northeast used floats found in storage that EDO built in WW II but were never in use.  EDO did the floats and the testing on the F4F Wildcatfish as well.

the Baron wrote:

I'd want to get some kind of disclosure or release, protecting me against any liability, before I'd sign on on a project like this.

Bingo.  It sounds like you are a small company and I suspect that a 1.8 mil job represents a significant amount of revenue.  No wonder your boss can't say no.

But if something goes wrong you will be sued.  Not maybe, you will be.  The cost of defense and liability if you lose could easily sink the company.  As in gone.

I would not rest on a "couple of aeronautical courses."  I would not rest on any kind of loose agreement.  All of the prior recommendations from other posters are good.  CYA!!!!  Make sure you are covered six ways to Sunday, otherwise this is a huge risk.

I realize this responsibility lies with the upper management echelon, but at the end could mean your job.  Harp on it.

Good luck.

MIflyer wrote:

I wonder if this owner contacted Wipline and/or Edo (makers of aircraft floats) and they told him to take a hike.

I'm almost positive that Edo made the floats for the C-47, and that they weren't welded.

Is it April fools day already? 

Thought this may be of interest.

http://www.douglasdc3.com/float/float.htm

 The aircraft in the link still exists as far as I can find out but whether she still has floats or not I don't know yet. I'll keep digging for you because this one has my attention. 

All the best.

Greg

Ah yes, the great unknown variable when you visit the FSDO... what mood is the inspector/examiner in today? I've been there... CFI checkride. They manage to find an excuse to fail nearly 80% of CFI applicants their first time through. Guess what happened to me?

The other fun one is when FSDO offices disagree with each other, get to bureaucratic wrestling, and trap pilots/owners/operators in the middle. Talk about a mess.

I have to admit, I totally forgot that you can get an IFA for just one airplane. Sounds like you have some ownership experience... what are you owning and/or flying these days?

Kevin

I seem to remember seeing pics and a movie of that particular aircraft (or one modified like it) several years ago being used as a bush plane in Canada just after the war.  Might be worth a phone call, letter or e-mail to see what they have on file (or as Monk would say, "I could be wrong").

Mlflyer

They don't need to apply for a full STC (which is a supreme pain in the posterior to work thru).  Just apply for an "In Field Approval (or "One Only STC).  That only applies to one aircraft by manufacturer, model and serial number and carries no production approval.  It's somewhat quicker than a full STC and gets even quicker if you can provide data from a like modification previously installed by the Mfgr or IFA.  A lot also depends upon the inspector you draw either at the FSDO or EMDO.  The quickest IFA I ever got took only 60 days (approval for IFR operation of a GPS I'd installed) and the longest was a year and 3/4 (installation of a set of flaps on a stock J-3).  In one case, the inspector was interested in the modification, in the other, the inspector didn't see any need for the mod.

I agree with ya, Gregers... it would probably be very helpful to get in touch with folks as Edo or even Wipaire... folks who have been making aircraft floats for a very long time.

According to this Edo product list, the C-47A used Edo 78-29400 floats. Might give a starting point for further research. I also notice that they have a float listed for the DC-2, as well... someone must have put on of those on floats at some time.

You are correct to mention that the guy holding the pursestrings is entitled to the aircraft he wants... I just can't figure out why he'd want one.

I can just imagine what the owner is going to go through, trying to get the FAA to issue him a supplemental type certificate for the float conversion. Just 'cause he builds it, doesn't mean it's legal to fly. Red tape has doomed many a worthy aircraft project.

Kevin

As someone who has chucked the occasional spanner at aircraft, both flying ones and restorations I agree with a lot of the above comments. BUT it's this guys toys and cash so as Spencer Flack was quoted as saying when he was lambasted about painting his Spitfire red "when you have one you can paint it how you like". (polite version) This guy has a B17 and a C47 that are not flying. he is prepared to put money into these aircraft and get them flying and also to get them flying as subtypes that many of us would never see otherwise. Damn huge good luck to the guy, I applaud his vision and wish him all success.
Now the sticky bit.
I personally (and I know I am stating the obvious here) would get in touch with anybody and everybody who had dealings with these conversions, Edo, Douglas (now Boeing?), The USN, USAF etc. Plans used by Edo and the services must still exist some place and I would try and get hold of these. this would in my humble opinion at least make the job of fabrication easier and as a tried and tested conversion MAY make certification easier too.
Good luck with the project, I doffs me cap to you sir.

If anyone has piccies of the floating B17 I'd love to see them.

All the best

Greg 

Can't comment on the structural integrity of the bird, that's not our department. Someone else is working on the restoration/refurbishing of the aircraft.

We're operating on the assumption that she'll be good to go with her new shoes.

I think someone has mentioned structural integrity, not of the floats, but of the aircraft that is 60(?) years old. Can she handle the weight of the floats and the pounding she is gonna take on landing?

Sure be a shame to see those brand new floats survive by smashing in the underside of the old gal.

W

A quick google search with "DC-3 floats"

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ6zTZuq5zw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syCb1b24ZMU

Expensive?  Yes.  You have me there!

. 

Ranger2Seven wrote:

cardshark_14 wrote: I'd love to find and build the O'Neil vacuform kit.   Pacific Coast Models has a 1/48 CANT Z.506 resin kit for $195.95.  They have a Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat for $295.95, too.

Thanks for the heads up!  Unfortunately, I'm after a 1/72 Z.511 which is a bit different than the Alcione.  Those PCM kits look nice, but they're big, and expensive!

Cheers,
Alex

cardshark_14 wrote:

I'd love to find and build the O'Neil vacuform kit.

Pacific Coast Models has a 1/48 CANT Z.506 resin kit for $195.95.  They have a Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat for $295.95, too.  

. 

I spent the afternoon wandering around the airport. There are 3 amphibs here. Got some ideas, took some pictures, made a few stencils. I think I can pull this off.

We don't have the resources/ability to build a scale model and wind tunnel test it. So we're going to use science, math, and fabricating sense to build it.

The intitial plans go off to John tomorrow. Basically I'm going to use aluminum tube (DOM) to build a framework and then skin it. I'm thinking 12 gauge aluminum on the bottom since that has to take the impact of the plane hitting the water. The sides I'll likely skin in 16 gauge aluminum and the top will be 22 gauge. This should keep the weight down to a manageable level. I hope. For mounts for hydraulics I will likely use 1/2" aluminum plate triangulated into the frame.

Right now the big debate is rivets versus TIG'ing the skins. Fred says TIG welding wasn't invented until the 1960's so the skins on the floats would have been riveted or gas welded. I'd like to TIG everything possible because I know it will be stronger and more watertight than riveting. Even though it won't be period correct. My contention is it will be safer, stronger, and lighter than riveting.

The rudders are another source of debate. I think the best way to do the rudders on the floats would be an electric over hydraulic system. Have a hydraulic system in each float electrically controlled from the cockpit. Fred wants to tie it in to the planes hydraulic system.

The landing gear hydraulics are a real ball buster. I'm not an aircraft mechanic so I'll have to leve that up to Mike and Fred. Apparently to get the front struts to swing out and down requires custom pieces. Mike thinks he can modify something off a Piper to work but isn't sure it can take the weight. If not we'll be spending some serious time in the machine shop.

It's not a walk in the park, but I think we'll be able to work through it. Thanks for posting that link. I had no idea one of these aircraft was still around. I must try to look at it personally.

Years ago I remember one of those puppys flying in for the local airshow (back when Manchester airport....now Manchester-Boston regional....actually HOSTED airshows) and thought it was pretty cool.  But then I saw her flying.  Boy, talk about slower than a dead snail stuck in glue!   I think hot air baloons were passing it

Brian

Great idea MD......and I admire your guts.......so many variables in question. Can you guys build a model for wind tunnel testing? You can't afford to guess where the floats and tail stabes might be located.

.....and then there is the idea of your great pics........none of which were in the water.

Hi Bill,

There's been a few multi-engined low-wing monoplanes that have been successfully adapted for use on floats - the example that leaps out at me is the Beech 18. The engines aren't any lower to the water than they would be on, say, a single-engine Cessna, and the carb intakes are still tucked inside the lower part of the cowl. I've also seen Piper Azteks on floats.

On the C-47 the struts betweent the plane and the floats are going to have to be quite large, so engine clearance shouldn't be a problem - they'll end up sitting about as high off the water as they would with the bird on her wheels, I bet.

I wonder if this owner contacted Wipline and/or Edo (makers of aircraft floats) and they told him to take a hike.

My question is - Why? Why spend $1.8M converting a C-47 for use on the water, when a well-outfitted, airworthy Grumman Albatross goes for $400-600K? I would leave that grand old lady on her wheels, where she's comfortable. For what this guy's spending, you could buy both a C-47 and an Albatross, and still have plenty left over for restoration and upkeep on both aircraft.

The insurance on that thing is going to be rediculous, too. I really don't see the point.

Kevin

IL2windhawk wrote:

...please do have your plans and calculations reviewed by the experts: not just aeronautical engineers, but material-strength engineers too.  The latter may actually offer the most important and relevant input.

My Thought exactly!!!   As a Landscape architect I don't do anything without consulting the apporpriate professionals and most importantly the structural engineer.  I wouldn't trust this to professors or grad students, only certified registered professionals.  Of particular importance is the lives of the people who will be flying in this thing.  That is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.  PLEASE, have your plans reviewed and signed off by a registered engineer.  Your employer will thank you for doing so if this thing does crash and somebody is looking for someone to sue!  Sorry for the rant but this is not to be taken lightly.

That's one heck of a project!  Good luck on it, and please do have your plans and calculations reviewed by the experts: not just aeronautical engineers, but material-strength engineers too.  The latter may actually offer the most important and relevant input.

A quick google serach turned up this page about the early military trials.  More recently, it says that there has been a C-47 floatplane making flights since 1990.

http://www.dc3history.org/floats.htm

A few of the highlights from this link:
... 1-ton floats, (the largest floats ever built)
... Each float also had a 325 gallon fuel tank.
... The floats had retractable wheels and could land on water, snow or land.
... Pilots found the C-47C difficult to launch in rough water, and performed like a pogo stick when landing on anything but a mirror smooth body of water

MountainDew

Have some faith Herr Hammer. If she crashes it won't be because of our floats! I'm definetely doing my homework. It's very fortuitous that I'm taking some aeronautics classes this semester.

I'll put it in context... Back when the CAF discovered the B-29, "Fifi" at China Lake Naval Weapons Test Center, the restoration crew spent about 4 months in the desert getting her ready to fly out of there.  The Navy wouldn't allow any test flights though, so when they they did the first test flight, it was going to one way, non-stop, all the way to to Harlingen, Texas.  During the ensuing week of the flight, "Fifi" (not her name at the time) was crammed with every spare B-29 part the crew could fit into her, and the flight crew boarded and fired her up.  While they were doing that, the Navy sent a crew out to film it.  The rest was history.  Fifi took off, circled the range once, and headed East to Texas.

Some weeks later, the 16mm film the Navy shot that day was presented to CAF Colonel Lloyd Nolan, the Founder of the CAF, in Harlingen.  After watching it with the Navy guys, Lloyd remarked that he didn't know that the Navy had wanted to film the take-off.  The Navy Officer replied, "We didn't come out there to film the take-off, we came out there to film the crash..." 

I always liked that story, and made a habit of retelling it to the folks that we took on-board "Fifi" during pre-airshow (I was on her Flight Crew for two years, Scanner/APU Operator) media flights...

bondoman wrote:

I've wracked my brain and cannot find a single example of a large low winged monoplane seaplane design, with multiple engines, that worked.

How about the He-115

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He-115

Or the Fokker T-VIII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_T.VIII

Have some faith Herr Hammer. If she crashes it won't be because of our floats! I'm definetely doing my homework. It's very fortuitous that I'm taking some aeronautics classes this semester.

One thing that does puzzle me is that I figure these floats will add roughly 2,145lbs to the weight of the C-47. Thats a very rough figure. I haven't factored in the aerodynamic drag but it should be significant. I'll have to have a professor or grad student go over the plans and help me figure it out. So I'm curious as to how much cargo/passengers it would be able to carry in this configuration. I'd suspect not much. They will also seriously affect top speed, I imagine.