Landing On A Freighter

Ok don't try this at home. Would have been more nervous on the takeoff.
 
Pfft..it took three or four go a rounds.

Actually, that looks like it would be a great airplane to own, whatever it is.

-John
 
kgruber said:
You might have a SES, but certainly no experience.
Click to expand...

You have no basis in making such an assertion, and you haven't explained why you think a float plane can't land on that water. Maybe putting a picture of an expensive plane as my avatar grants me such experience. From 1:10 on is about as smooth as you are going to see on open water.
 
Last edited:
Kiddo's Driver said:
Not to be snotty, but does the airplane in your avatar have floats?

Jim
Click to expand...

Be snotty all you want. I have the floatplane experience to back it up.....substantially. You don't.

The reason YOU can't rent floatplanes anymore is because of pilots, like you and the other poster, who can't read the water and other conditions.

Run out to Kenmore Air Harbor (largest floatplane base in lower 48) and try to rent a Cessna 180 or Beaver.
 
kgruber said:
Be snotty all you want. I have the floatplane experience to back it up.....substantially. You don't.

The reason YOU can't rent floatplanes anymore is because of pilots, like you and the other poster, who can't read the water and other conditions.

Run out to Kenmore Air Harbor (largest floatplane base in lower 48) and try to rent a Cessna 180 or Beaver.
Click to expand...
You seem very argumentative and defensive. I asked that because you pointed to 6,000 hours in a non-float plane as your experience. You did not mention until the post quoted above that you had any float plane experience. Have you ever tried having a calm, logical discussion in a thread or do you attack anyone who tries to talk to you?

BTW, I NEVER claimed to be able to read the surface conditions to see if it is safe to land. I just asked if your 6,000 hours in the pictured aircraft had any bearing on a float plane discussion.

Take a deep breath and bring something useful to the discussion. Personal attacks don't move the discussion forward.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Kiddo's Driver said:
You seem very argumentative and defensive. I asked that because you pointed to 6,000 hours in a non-float plane as your experience. You did not mention until the post quoted above that you had any float plane experience. Have you ever tried having a calm, logical discussion in a thread or do you attack anyone who tries to talk to you?

BTW, I NEVER claimed to be able to read the surface conditions to see if it is safe to land. I just asked if your 6,000 hours in the pictured aircraft had any bearing on a float plane discussion.

Take a deep breath and bring something useful to the discussion. Personal attacks don't move the discussion forward.

Jim
Click to expand...

Have you filled out your "user" profile?
 
kgruber said:
Your "experience" speaks for itself. My "basis" for such an assertion is your cavalier attitude about open ocean water landings. I have 6000 hours in my avitar airplane.

You don't have a clue.
Click to expand...

Please explain with all of your experience why would a float plane be so difficult to land on near glassy water as shown in the video from 1:10 on? The waves are being generated by the vessel. Talk about not being able to read the water.
 
Last edited:
Geez guys, I post a nice video of some nifty flying and the thread drifts to float planes? There isn't a float plane any where in the video. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
kgruber said:
Have you filled out your "user" profile?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Did I run out and check you profile when you started berating another person for stating their opinion? No, and it is not my job to go and research your history.

I'm done here. Clearly you are not interested in having a civilized discussion. You may know everything about everything, but good luck getting anyone to listen to you when you come right out of the gate attacking people.

Have a nice day.

Jim
 
EdFred said:
Based on what? Looked more than smooth enough to me. And yes, I actually have a SES.
Click to expand...

Never flown a floatplane, but I do have a little time (7300 hrs) in amphibious helicopters., (HH52A and HH3F), And I do have some experience judging sea state. (24 years as an active SAR pilot with the USCG) I would be very interested in your estimation of the size of the swells in that video. And also your limits for swell size for a floatplane. Educate us.
 
It's really hard to tell, but those swells look like they are at least six feet to me, and there are whitecaps. I don't know what floatplane limits are but I'd guess they are on the order of 2-3 feet. Three foot seas out in open ocean DO look glassy.
 
Nice opening post for the thread.
Enjoyed the video.

Rest of thread is wasted bandwidth.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
But..........but........but.......we're trying to win the internet!!!!!! :D


(OBTW SacArrow: Yeah my guess is 4-7 feet with a 6-10 second period. I unfortunately witnessed the result of a Beaver forced down in similar conditions. No bueno :nonod: )
Click to expand...

:rofl:



I would not classify the seas as glassy. :no:
 
I was referring to the second video, with the "crane" setup, since that is how the quoting went.

My post referred to post 5 which referred to past 3, which referred to post 2, not the original post. At 1:10 of the second video, you call those swells and whitecaps? Ooooooooooooook.

I didn't even watch the first video, since that wasn't the one that was commented on it being too rough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9vAWEgw6cc&t=1m10s
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What brutal seas.
 
Last edited:
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Interesting but I don't see the point to it. Why not just use a crane to hoist a floatplane in and out of the water?
Click to expand...
As others have mentioned, floatplanes generally take calm seas. The Brodie System can be used in rougher seas.

The Brodie System was conceptualized for combat. To hoist a seaplane in and out of water basically requires the mothership to stop, this halts progress and makes the ship and aircraft sitting ducks.

The Brodie system enabled a ship to continue headway and to be less of a sitting target. It was less likely to slow down a convoy and gave better protection for the convoy. L-4s & L-5s could protect a force by providing reconnaissance, targeting and FAC
 
Last edited:
That was pretty interesting. Looked more like a crash to me however! He had plenty of room to smooth that out!
 
The guy in the first video has been interviewed and said the ship created turbulence off the bow and once in the flare all he had was that mast for a point of reference. He says he wouldn't do it again.
 
denverpilot said:
The guy in the first video has been interviewed and said the ship created turbulence off the bow and once in the flare all he had was that mast for a point of reference. He says he wouldn't do it again.
Click to expand...

Turbulence off a ship's superstructure is no joke. Landing on the 378 ft cutters there is a pretty sharply defined "burble" that you need to get through pretty quickly. When the sea state is frisky the deck movement and turbulence can make you a busy boy. Icebreakers have a similar issue in open seas, but generally when operating in the ice there isn't much forward speed. Hovering over a moving ship of any size you can generally stay out of the wake. All in all for a first attempt he did fine, after all he could use the airplane again!!!
 
EdFred said:
Based on what? Looked more than smooth enough to me. And yes, I actually have a SES.
Click to expand...

In a Mars yes, Catalina it would be rough but might not break the plane, any float plane is likely to dig a sponson and flip. That was pretty rough for a float plane.
 
EdFred said:
You have no basis in making such an assertion, and you haven't explained why you think a float plane can't land on that water. Maybe putting a picture of an expensive plane as my avatar grants me such experience. From 1:10 on is about as smooth as you are going to see on open water.
Click to expand...

That's not particularly true, I have seen the ocean look like a mirror. That was a 5' sea with 15kt winds with about a knot of current against it from the looks of the stacking. You won't find sea planes operating in those conditions except in an emergency.

Sea planes seek out a nice lee with flat water to land on, there's no shock absorbing to a seaplane and water at typical landing and take off speeds is hard, then you have the transitional period, especially on take off, where you have to get on the step and you need to punch through the waves. If you get one too big it'll either knock you off the step and keep you from being able to accelerate for take off, or will downright flip you on your back.

Launching seaplanes from catapults and recovering them with cranes was tried in the WWI and between the wars era, they gave up on it for a reason.
 
EdFred said:
I was referring to the second video, with the "crane" setup, since that is how the quoting went.

My post referred to post 5 which referred to past 3, which referred to post 2, not the original post. At 1:10 of the second video, you call those swells and whitecaps? Ooooooooooooook.

I didn't even watch the first video, since that wasn't the one that was commented on it being too rough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9vAWEgw6cc&t=1m10s
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What brutal seas.
Click to expand...

:confused: in the L-5 video that was a trial, of course they do those in calm water, the point is that it will also work in rougher water where the floats won't. Unfortunately, the military also operates when the weather isn't nice and they have to have systems that account for that.
 
denverpilot said:
The guy in the first video has been interviewed and said the ship created turbulence off the bow and once in the flare all he had was that mast for a point of reference. He says he wouldn't do it again.
Click to expand...


He hit pretty hard on landing.
 
Geico266 said:
He hit pretty hard on landing.
Click to expand...
Other then a bouncy hard landing, the landing looked very good on the OP video. The takeoff looked ugly and scary.
 
Geico266 said:
Not sure why two of the guys hung on so long. That was dumb.
Click to expand...


Agreed.....

If I were to do it,my instructions to the ground crew would be to let go as soon as they hear my motor go to full throttle. From then on I want to fly the plane, even if I have to keep it planted for a few feet to accelerate a bit... When they let go,the plane over rotated and it looks like he hit the horizontal stabilizer on the deck of the boat....

Also,all he needed to do was get high enough to clear the side deck handrails. This guy spent alot of energy trying to climb instead of getting clear of the deck off to one side and then proceed to fly away... The severe wing wagging a few seconds after take off is showing off for the camera.. IMHO....

Still..... A pretty neat stunt..:yes:
 
I'm surprised the ship's management or insurers didn't have something to say about the stunt. In other words, I'm surprised the cPtain gave him permission to try it. Clearly the Europeans are much more laid back about such things.
 
Brad Z said:
I'm surprised the ship's management or insurers didn't have something to say about the stunt. In other words, I'm surprised the cPtain gave him permission to try it. Clearly the Europeans are much more laid back about such things.
Click to expand...

Meh, sign off a hold harmless and I'd be good with it. The ship was in ballast so there's no big risk to anything/one besides the pilot and his plane that a few bucks in paint won't fix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top