Here's an interesting new aircraft about to be TC certified. About $5.5 million per copy.

http://www.dornierseaplane.com/content/seastar

600 lbs more than a C208A for an extra 3.2 million? A little extravagant

But you also get a second engine...

It may be 6 million but when you don't have to spend 1.5 to 3 million every second or third year on airframe overhaul and corrosion prevention you soon start to see the savings.

A composite seaplane has been a long time coming. I can't believe it took this long. Hopefully they catch on.

This is not a new airplane. It was made years ago and only one was built from my understanding. I was in Kuujuak last spring when it came through. They were on their way to demonstrate to someone in Florida and if they could generate enough interest it would go into production. It still had the "experimental" registration. Looks like they might have had some success in finding money.

About the price of a new King Air, 2 PT-6's, 12 pax. I haven't seen any King Air's on floats yet , maybe this aircraft will find a niche. Harbour Air, West Coast Air, etc.

Still flat bottomed and fragile in anything but VERY light seas...some never learn...





Compare to the deep "V" hull of the Marlin,
getting refuelled in open ocean...



Another deep V hull...

golden hawk wrote:About $5.5 million per copy.

I sincerely wish Dornier success with this venture, but I'm a little worried that they might have difficulty finding a market for this aircraft other than single unit sales to high net worth recreational owners. I saw this aircraft on display at NBAA last fall. It certainly looked very nice.

As Square already pointed, out, that is a heck of a price premium over a Caravan for an aircraft that appears to have about the same passenger capacity as a Caravan.

It's also significantly more expensive than a new Viking Twin Otter equipped with floats, and the Twin Otter offers more payload and greater passenger capacity (though I have to declare a conflict of interest here, because I work for Viking).

Does a flying boat hull (as opposed to a floatplane) offer any unique operational benefits or advantages that justify the price premium?

Why bother comparing this euro junk to the Caravan/Otter/TwOtter?

Docking alone should single this aircraft out as just plain USELESS for either HA, WCA or the coast in general.

Like a massage parlour in Tokyo, it's looks alone won't sell without a happy ending - and this aircraft is only useful in a picture on a brochure with some frenchy sippin a pernod in the background off the coast of Corsica.

It's inevitable that this aircraft will fail (at least in the Canadian market).

Still flat bottomed and fragile in anything but VERY light seas...some never learn...

The Sea Bee is flat bottomed and it sure does well on rough water.

I was told by old folks at Marignane(Marseille) who flew the Dorniers that they where
even worse than the PBY and had the tendency to drop the propeller
in the cockpit when things got "interesting"...hurt like hell.

In contrast, the British boats they flew after their escape to England and after the war
could land in the open ocean no trouble at all.(Seaplane crews where in high demand)

The Mediterranean offer little shelter and watching the scoopers operate
in the big breakers is something else.

Small flying boats and floatplanes are not intended to operate where the big boys go,
except the Norseman, of course...

they where
even worse than the PBY and had the tendency to drop the propeller
in the cockpit when things got "interesting"...hurt like hell.

In what way were they worse than a PBY?

What is the problem with a PBY?

The engine and prop collapse in the cockpit...
With a flat bottom, it's asking for it when you hit that big one.
Sometime the co-pilot get it, some other time it's
the cappie, often both get beheaded, or they get missed by an inch...

http://wildfirenews.com/fire/articles/crash.html






Interesting read there:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=2WFte4v ... #PPA265,M1

The engine and prop collapse in the cockpit...
With a flat bottom, it's asking for it when you hit that big one.

Interesting reading in that article you posted.

However I must have missed the parts that relate to those crashes being due to a flat hull.

Am I to understand that the PBY is a poor design as a flying boat and thus not a safe airplane to fly?

With a flat bottom, it's asking for it when you hit that big one.

Why would you get in that situation in the first place?

Am I to understand that the PBY is a poor design as a flying boat and thus not a safe airplane to fly?

The only mod I know that was unsafe in the pig boat was the steering wheel spinner off their old John Deere - you could catch it in your shirt sleeve -- --

How can anyone compare a float plane to a boat when it comes to big water -- I hear there is a real movement for companies to get rid of caravans -- I understand that fancy turbine float plane is reducing itself to junk in the water -- wonder when they will retool for the -3 -- seems that turbine mod is very popular and getting more so every day.

I thought they had decided to go with a deeper v hull years ago after they talked to the pilots at TPA. The other problem is how do you taxi it in a 30kt. x-wind?

I've taxied Beech 18's & 415's in 30 kt cross winds. It's a piece of cake. In the Beech the upwind engine could be operated at just above idle while the down wind engine was shut down or reduced to just turning over with the addition of carb heat. The water rudders would just about be in the centered or neutral position. The 415 props make easy work of it. In either case there is very little prop spray. I've only flown a Twin Otter on wheels but suspect that it also would be a piece of cake.

In aircraft with lesser abilities there's always the fine art of sailing. It's amazing how good one gets at it with practice and patience

Am I to understand that the PBY is a poor design as a flying boat and thus not a safe airplane to fly?

Not a all, the PBY or even the Dornier are grand in sheltered waters, like in
the million lakes here, it' just that each have their limitations, as the Sunderlands
where quickly abandoned after WW II as not very practical, if very capable in open seas.



The PBY, like the Dornier, is otherwise just a great big powered glider, and as such, as the B-52,
have other limitations and advantages.(see it's Youtube B-52 low level crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E21byPXR1ek)

See, lots of PBY also bought the farm the same way, as the LOWER down deflected ailerons
cause the lower wing to stall in a steep turn, making the recovery require
over 2 thousand feet, if you're lucky...

The video show him losing it when he had only 60 degrees of bank(rudder fully deflected
trying to raise the low wing)...

That doesn't seem like much an airframe limitation.. Who woulda thought a B52 could do a 90 degree turn fifty feet off the deck that slow.

See, lots of PBY also

bought the farm the same way, as the LOWER down deflected ailerons

Really?

Could you link me a few accident reports where pilots lost control of PBY's due to stalling the lower aileron?

cause the lower wing to stall in a steep turn, making the recovery require
over 2 thousand feet, if you're lucky...

I never experienced that problem with a PBY and believe me I am quite familiar with stalling the down going aileron in a PBY. It is also known as " aileron snatch " among some of the pilots who fly in the airshow circuit.

Not a all, the PBY or even the Dornier are grand in sheltered waters, like in
the million lakes here, it' just that each have their limitations,

All aircraft have their limitations and the PBY is no exception, but I believe you are over stating the limitations of a PBY by making the statement they are only good in sheltered waters such as lakes.

Where did you get these opinions on how a PBY handles because your opinions are not what I have experienced flying them.

This is completely false:

cause the lower wing to stall in a steep turn, making the recovery require
over 2 thousand feet, if you're lucky...

Who woulda thought a B52 could do a 90 degree turn fifty feet off the deck that slow.

If you look him up on some youtubes, it was the guy's usual routine, for which his
commanding officer was going to fire him over, the very guy you see ejecting,
and who rode onboard to make sure THIS did not happen(and who was blown back
into the fireball)...

As for the aileron down deflection aggravating a high speed stall in big wing airplanes,
like the canso and B-52, it was explained to me by some of the guys who designed the CL-215.
He stated that lot of PBYs met their demise that way...

The PBY was used in various roles for thirty years before water bombing was invented,
and then most crews where not as experimented as they where when
it was used as a water bomber...

All aircraft have their limitations and the PBY is no exception,
but I believe you are over stating the limitations of a PBY by making
the statement they are only good in sheltered waters such as lakes.

Check the Cousteau crash...just because seas touched the gear doors, they collapsed,
engulfing the cockpit with water and pushing it up in the props...

Compare with the incident in Nice(pronounced niss) in 81...

The guys TO from the runway to scoop right off in the mediterranean,
but forgot the land-sea switch in land,
so they touched down with the gear down.

The gearboxes broke off and both props fell in the sea, never to be seen again.

Otherwise, not a scratch on the plane(discounting the gear doors, of course)
Next day, a barge brought two QEC, promptly installed. Next day, two doors
where lashed to the nose and the plane was flown to Marignane by the
same crew...The Pasha(the boss over there) refusing ANY time off to the crew
for the screw up.

It would have taken longer just to bury the crew if they had been flying a Canso...

As for the aileron down deflection aggravating a high speed stall in big wing airplanes,
like the canso and B-52, it was explained to me by some of the guys who designed the CL-215.
He stated that lot of PBYs met their demise that way...

With all due respect wabano you have been getting some very flawed information.

I have probably done more training on the PBY than any pilot alive today and have explored the flight envelope to the limits of the airplane.

Trust me aileron stall is not a control problem with the PBY, it is however quite violent as far as airframe shock goes as as the down going aileron stalls there is a sudden reversal of force that actually is felt right through the airframe, control however is regained as soon as you un-stall the aileron and there is no real loss of altitude.

Furthermore to get into a position where aileron stall is experienced requires one to really be aggressive with the ailerons at a high angle of bank and a high G load in the turn....

Of all the many different airplanes and helicopters I have flown over my career the PBY is still my favorite because it is just plain an amazing all around good airplane.

http://www.pbyflighttraining.com

Trust me aileron stall is not a control problem with the PBY, it is however quite violent as far as airframe shock goes
as as the down going aileron stalls there is a sudden reversal of force that actually is felt right through the airframe,
control however is regained as soon as you un-stall the aileron and there is no real loss of altitude.

It must be what he was talking about, as this was told to me twenty years ago...

Similarly, try to follow a Norseman with and Otter-or twin Otter,
better bring your flippers and shark repellent...but which would you rather fly?
(For those not in the know, Otters are fun, Norseman is...pain?)

(For those not in the know, Otters are fun, Norseman is...pain?)

I for one always preferred the whoredyne over the DH products -- hands down -- especially on boards -- a beaver and an otter did not have the snap to pull a sick whore off a piss pot -- and a Noorduyn on Elliot Boards was head and shoulders above the otter or the beaver in rough conditions, slush or sticky snow -- on floats -- it was a lot easier to handle in windy conditions than the otter -- for landing and taxiing -- it was more of a challenge to fly and it took a little more skill to launch -- to me that always brought more enjoyment -- my only big complaint in the summer was it was damn hot in the pitcock -- but we worked at keeping at getting re-hydrated in the "snake pit"

A little pain is good -- bring the whip --

A little pain is good -- bring the whip --

If you are stuck with a dead battery the Norseman with an inertial starter had a good device to bring pain...the hand crank handle, just insert it in the proper hole and start cranking.