Thread 2051803

Can /n/ help me out with my pet project?

I'm trying to design a modern turboprop flying boat transport that seats 80 passengers in a 5-abreast layout. It would be powered by two PW150's in an overhead push-pull pod similar to pic related, but with a V-tail to keep clear of the propwash, and retractable wing floats. The wings will be unswept with a front taper.

On my to-do list is to decide what de-icing, radar and hydraulic systems to use, but one problem I haven't been able to work out is how baggage would be loaded on to the plane if the cargo hold sits below the waterline.

I don't understand the problem

Open here put your shit in like that.

>>2051803 (OP)
>but with a V-tail to keep clear of the propwash
Why? If anything it’s a good thing; the prop wash would increase pitch and yaw authority, and in the tandem prop configuration stuff like spiraling slipstream and torque are nearly canceled.
>deice
With turboprops you’re lookin at pneumatic boots and electrically heated prop if anything. Weeping wing/prop wouldn’t be practical for an airframe of that size. Where/on what routes would this plane be used? Is it necessary at all?
>radar
There are lots of options, but Honeywell and Garmin both offer lightweight/short range WX radar equipment.
>hydraulic
What do you mean what system to use? There are no drop-in hydraulic systems, you’d have to design one.

>>2051803 (OP)
Push-pull seems impractical on an aircraft nearly the size of a 737. It'd make maintenance (especially engine swaps) unnecessarily hard and add a lot of cabin noise for no reason.

For baggage, I'd probably access the hold through the cabin floor. If it's just for regular baggage, it shouldn't need a huge door, you could probably use existing vestibule space between the passenger doors, and could probably just bring bags through them. It'd add a bit of loading/unloading time since you'd have to load before passengers board and unload after them off, but with a flying boat you're probably not trying to match regular airline turnarounds anyway and pax will get their bags just as fast since they don't have to work their way across a huge airport.

>>2051843
On a side note btw, I've been thinking about something similar for years, but without the seaplane part. Airworthy DHC-7s and gravel kit 737s are dwindling fast and there's nothing to replace them for STOL or rough field work. I think a medium turboprop with STOL and gravel capability could be commercially viable with all the NGOs, remote oilfields and mines, arctic settlements, etc. that need more capacity than you can get out of a 208 or Twin Otter but can't justify an L-100.

Gulp

>>2051838

I generally thought it would be a bad idea to have the tail surfaces exposed to 10,000hp worth of propwash.

>>2051866
Aerodynamic forces are greater in flight than that produced by the propwash at low speeds, and buffeting should be reduced with the tandem orientation. There are more effective configurations though. Mounting engines on the wings (like most multi engine seaplanes) will supplement lift generation at low speeds, reducing takeoff and landing distance requirements.

>>2051804

That's a telescope

>>2051976
Specificalli SOFIA.

This is the cabin seating layout I came up with.

>>2051869

I wanted the tandem overhead pod for two reasons: to keep the props away from people boarding the plane on a dock and to minimize corrosion by seawater.

>>2052406
>to keep the props away from people boarding the plane on a dock
A non-issue if the props aren’t spinning
>minimize corrosion by seawater
This is an issue regardless of where you put the engines, it’s a seaplane.

Do you think billionaires would want a VIP retrofit version of OP's plane to ferry guests to their private islands?

This is basically what youre looking for - just add size

At 80 pax your engines should have more than enough bleed air available for deice. I actually like the US-2 solution for boundary layer control for STO performance.

>>2051803 (OP)
No shade on OP--obviously it's very cool to design vehicles--but I wonder what the point of it is.
A fully custom car or boat probably wouldn't cost more than a few hundred thousand dollars to build, and practically any reasonably-well-off person could handle that if he really wanted to. But aren't FAA regulations literally orders of magnitude more cumbersome than state DMV regulations, especially for a plane that carries dozens of passengers? Even a four-occupant Cessna costs half a million dollars brand new! On that scale, wouldn't an "80-passenger flying-boat transport" cost more than ten million dollars to construct and to get approved?
t. not an /n/ regular, knows next to nothing about planes

>>2053725
>D-ICKS

>>2052150

>no emergency exits

bruh

>>2053753
Pretty much.
As it is, trying to develop a clean-sheet airliner is about the deepest level of bureaucratic hell you can find yourself in. And trying to make it a sea-plane is even worse. About the only thing that would be more difficult and expensive in the aviation world would be to try and make it supersonic, or to develop your own engines to power it.

>>2053753
>>2054354

I just felt that today's society depends too much on landplanes. I fear flying boats are becoming a lost art.

>>2054413
Indeed.

>>2051803 (OP)
i have this neat little idea based around maritime laws.. since laws on tiny planes usually differs around the globe but laws around ground effect planes tend to stay relatively copy pasta.

not the best picture, made another but no clue where i saved it.-

> use canards as walkway to enter flying kayak
> use chopped down glider wings as addons for legal ground distance purposes.
> air intake for engines are under main wing, main wing is not shaped like usual wings as its made to create an air pillow, glider wings provides extra lift where as the canards simply stops you from stalling or doing backflips (like these things tend to do)

again, the idea isn't to do anything magical, simply just work around laws to create a product that can be used all around the world and still be licensed as a boat.. meaning that you don't require much (if any) training.

>>2054413

peak autism

>>2051803 (OP)

Jeffery Epstein probablywould have wanted one.

>>2051848
OM NOM NOM