Requirements for a future seaplane/amphibian transport system · Requirements for a future seaplane/amphibian transport system Author Andrzej Majka Department of Aircrafts and Aircraft

Requirements for a future seaplane/amphibian transport system

Author Andrzej Majka

Department of Aircrafts and Aircraft Engines Rzeszow University of Technology

Wolfgang Wagner

Dornier Technologie GmbH & Co. KG

Rzeszow, Poland

Uhldingen-Mühlhofen, Germany

Keeper of Document Author or Coauthor Work Package(s) WP5 Status Draft

Identification

Programme, Project ID FP7-AAT-2007-RTD1 Project Title: FUture SEaplane TRAffic (FUSETRA) Version: V.0.1 File name: FUSETRA_D51_Requirements_v01.doc

Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements

FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1

2

01.08.2011 Department of Aircrafts and Aircraft Engines Rzeszow University of Technology 2, W. Pola str. 35-959 Rzeszow Poland Dornier Technologie GmbH & Co. KG Hallendorfer Str. 11 88690 Uhldingen-Mühlhofen Germany Author: Andrzej Majka Phone: +48 (17) 865 16 04 Fax: +48 (17) 865 19 42 mobile : +48 () 602 441 977 [email protected] www.fusetra.eu Wolfgang Wagner Phone: +49 7556 9225 20 Fax: +49-7556-9225-59 [email protected] http://www.dornier-tech.com/



3

Control Page This version supersedes all previous versions of this document.

Version Date Author(s) Pages Reason

V.0.1 30.06.2011 Andrzej Majka Initial write



4

Contents

List of tables ..................................................................................................... 11

Glossary ........................................................................................................... 12

1 Objectives ................................................................................................. 13

2 Possible Seaplane Base Locations in Europe ........................................... 24

3 Seaplane park structure including infrastructure ....................................... 30

3.1 Determining the structure of the aircraft fleet ...................................... 30

3.1.1 Performance evaluation ................................................................ 33

3.1.2 Task division ................................................................................. 35

3.2 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of hydroplanes in an

amphibian system ......................................................................................... 37

3.3 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of hydroplanes in an float

system .......................................................................................................... 49

3.4 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of modified land-based

aircrafts ......................................................................................................... 54

3.4.1 Modification assumptions ............................................................. 54

3.4.2 Technical characteristics comparative analysis ............................ 55

3.4.3 Transport capabilities comparative analysis ................................. 60

3.5 Seaplane park structure ...................................................................... 68

3.6 Seaplane park infrastructure ............................................................... 68

4 Integration aspects sea-air-land ................................................................ 69

5 Development of requirements for future European seaplane/amphibian

transportation system ....................................................................................... 70

5.1 Aircraft requirements ........................................................................... 70

5.2 Infrastructure requirements ................................................................. 71

5.2.1 General ......................................................................................... 71

5.2.2 Seaport Infrastructure ................................................................... 72

5.2.3 Aircraft Infrastructure .................................................................... 73

5.3 Regulation / Certification requirements ............................................... 74

5.3.1 CS 23.51 Take-off speeds ............................................................ 75

5.3.2 CS 23.75 Landing distance .......................................................... 75



5

5.3.3 CS 23.231 Longitudinal stability and control ................................. 75

5.3.4 CS 23.233 Directional stability and control ................................... 75

5.3.5 CS 23.237 Operation on water ..................................................... 76

5.3.6 CS 23.239 Spray characteristics .................................................. 76

5.3.7 CS 23.521ff Water loads .............................................................. 76

5.3.8 CS 23.751ff FLOATS AND HULLS ............................................... 77

5.3.9 CS 23.777 Cockpit controls .......................................................... 77

5.3.10 CS 23.807 Emergency exits ...................................................... 78

5.3.11 CS 23.901ff Power Plant ........................................................... 78

5.3.12 CS 23.905ff Propellers .............................................................. 79

5.3.13 CS 23.925 Propeller clearance ................................................. 79

5.3.14 CS 23.1322 Warning, caution and advisory lights ..................... 79

5.3.15 CS 23.1385ff Position light system installation .......................... 79

5.3.16 CS 23.1415 Ditching equipment ................................................ 80

5.3.17 CS 23.1501 General (OPERATING LIMITATIONS AND

INFORMATION) ........................................................................................ 80

5.3.18 CS 23.1541 General MARKINGS AND PLACARDS ................. 80

5.3.19 CS 23.1581 General (AEROPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL) ........... 81

6 Summary ................................................................................................... 82

7 References ................................................................................................ 83

8 Appendix A - Review of technical characteristics of future amphibians .... 85

8.1 L-471 ................................................................................................... 85

8.2 LA-8 .................................................................................................... 86

8.3 SA-20P(OSA) ...................................................................................... 87

8.4 SK-12 Orion ........................................................................................ 88

8.5 Istok-4 ................................................................................................. 89

8.6 Be-103 ................................................................................................ 90

8.7 A-25 .................................................................................................... 91

8.8 C-400 Captain ..................................................................................... 92

8.9 Pelican-4 ............................................................................................. 93

8.10 LAKE 250 RENEGADE ................................................................... 94



6

8.11 Thurston TA16 Trojan ...................................................................... 95

8.12 CENTAUR 6 .................................................................................... 96

9 Appendix B - Review of technical characteristics of future floatplanes ..... 97

9.1 Cessna 180 ......................................................................................... 97

9.2 Cessna 182 ......................................................................................... 98

9.3 Cessna 185 ......................................................................................... 99

9.4 Cessna 206 ....................................................................................... 100

9.5 Cessna 208 ....................................................................................... 101

9.6 de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III ................................................. 102

9.7 de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter ......................................................... 103

9.8 Piper PA-18 ....................................................................................... 104

10 Appendix C - Review of technical characteristics of modified versions of

existing land-based aircraft ............................................................................ 105

10.1 MORRISON 6 ................................................................................ 105

10.2 Cessna 172R ................................................................................. 106

10.3 Cessna 182T ................................................................................. 107

10.4 Cessna 206H ................................................................................. 108

10.5 Cessna 208 CARAVAN ................................................................. 109

10.6 GA-8 Airvan ................................................................................... 110

10.7 EXPLORER 500T .......................................................................... 111

10.8 T-101 GRACH ............................................................................... 112

10.9 VulcanAir P68C ............................................................................. 113

10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B ................................................................... 114

10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T ................................................................... 115

10.12 HAI Y-12 ........................................................................................ 116

10.13 M-28 .............................................................................................. 117



7

List of figures

Figure 1.1 Top 50 most constraining points in European airspace, PRR

2006, EUROCONTROL, Annex VI, p.95. ........................................................ 14

Figure 1.2 Road network in the EU27+2 prepared by ESPON Project 2.1.1

[21]. .................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 1.3 Railroad network in the EU27+2 [ESPON Project 2.1.1] extended

by the up-to-date information on High speed train (HST) [21]. .................. 16

Figure 1.4 Passenger transport performance, by main transport mode, EU-

25, 1995-2004 (in billion passenger-kilometers) [Panorama of Transport,

EUROSTAT, 2007, p.102] ............................................................................... 17

Figure 1.5 Transport infrastructure quality expressed as summed potential

accessibility of road, rail and air transport in the EU27+2, ESPON Project

1.2.1 by S&W, 2004. ........................................................................................ 18

Figure 1.6 All European airports location .................................................... 19

Figure 1.7 All European landing fields location (airports are included) .... 20

Figure 1.8 Distribution of the European airport pair distances .................. 20

Figure 1.9 Cumulative distribution function of the city distance to the

nearest airport ................................................................................................ 21

Figure 1.10 Cumulative distribution function of the population within

catchment’s areas of aerodromes ................................................................ 22

Figure 2.1 All European seaports location................................................... 24

Figure 2.2 Distribution of distances from seaport to the nearest airport .. 25

Figure 2.3 Example air routes realised by seaplanes ................................. 26

Figure 2.4 Distribution of distances from main European airports to

seaports .......................................................................................................... 27

Figure 2.5 Distribution of distances from seaport to the nearest city

(seaports accessibility) ................................................................................. 27

Figure 2.6 Number of cities within particular radius of seaports in Europe


Figure 2.7 Population within particular radius of seaport in Europe


Figure 2.8 Average catchment area of seaports in Europe (seaports

accessibility) ................................................................................................... 29

Figure 3.1 Aircraft fleet transport potential (alternate fields). .................... 31

Figure 3.2 Task division between planes within a fleet (system) ............... 36

Figure 3.3 Amphibian aircrafts distribution by take-off weight .................. 38

Figure 3.4 Empty plane mass ratios ............................................................. 39

Figure 3.5 Payload mass ratios ..................................................................... 39



8

Figure 3.6 Maximum flying ranges of the amphibian aircrafts ................... 41

Figure 3.7 Maximum cruising speeds of the amphibian aircrafts .............. 41

Figure 3.8 Power-to-weight ratios of the amphibian aircrafts .................... 43

Figure 3.9 Wing loadings of the amphibian aircrafts .................................. 43

Figure 3.10 Water to land take-off run ratios of the amphibian aircrafts... 46

Figure 3.11 Transport qualitative effectiveness of the amphibian aircrafts

......................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 3.12 Weight to number of passengers ratios of the amphibian

aircrafts ........................................................................................................... 47

Figure 3.13 Diagram of the transport capabilities of the light amphibian

aircrafts ........................................................................................................... 48

Figure 3.14 Float planes distribution by take-off weight ............................ 49

Figure 3.15 Empty plane mass ratios for float planes ................................ 50

Figure 3.16 Payload mass ratios for float planes ........................................ 50

Figure 3.17 Maximum cruising speeds of the float aircrafts ...................... 51

Figure 3.18 Power-to-weight ratios of the float planes ............................... 51

Figure 3.19 Wing loadings of the float aircrafts .......................................... 52

Figure 3.20 Water to land take-off run ratios of the float planes ................ 52

Figure 3.21 Transport qualitative effectiveness of the float aircrafts ........ 53

Figure 3.22 Weight to number of passengers ratios of the float aircrafts. 53

Figure 3.23 modification of single engined existing land-based aircraft .. 54

Figure 3.24 modification of twin engined existing land-based aircraft ..... 54

Figure 3.25 Single engined aircrafts distribution by take-off weight ......... 55

Figure 3.26 Twin engined aircrafts distribution by take-off weight ........... 55

Figure 3.27 Empty plane mass ratios for single engined aircrafts ............ 56

Figure 3.28 Empty plane mass ratios for twin engined aircrafts ............... 56

Figure 3.29 Payload mass ratios for single engined aircrafts .................... 57

Figure 3.30 Payload mass ratios for twin engined aircrafts ....................... 57

Figure 3.31 Power-to-weight ratios of the single engined aircrafts ........... 58

Figure 3.32 Power-to-weight ratios of the twin engined aircrafts .............. 58

Figure 3.33 Water to land take-off run ratios of the single engined aircrafts

......................................................................................................................... 59

Figure 3.34 Water to land take-off run ratios of the twin engined aircrafts59

Figure 3.35 MORRISON 6 - payload-range diagram .................................... 60

Figure 3.36 Cessna 172R - payload-range diagram .................................... 60

Figure 3.37 Cessna 182T - payload-range diagram ..................................... 61

Figure 3.38 Cessna 206H - payload-range diagram .................................... 61

Figure 3.39 Cessna 208 CARAVAN - payload-range diagram .................... 62

Figure 3.40 GA-8 Airvan - payload-range diagram ...................................... 62



9

Figure 3.41 EXPLORER 500T - payload-range diagram .............................. 63

Figure 3.42 T-101 GRACH - payload-range diagram ................................... 63

Figure 3.43 VulcanAir P68C - payload-range diagram ................................ 64

Figure 3.44 Britten-Norman BN-2B - payload-range diagram ..................... 64

Figure 3.45 Britten-Norman BN-2T - payload-range diagram ..................... 65

Figure 3.46 HAI Y-12 - payload-range diagram ............................................ 65

Figure 3.47 M-28 - payload-range diagram................................................... 66

Figure 3.48 Diagram of the transport capabilities of the modified versions

of land-based aircrafts ................................................................................... 67

Figure 3.49 Optimum specialization fields determined on the basis of

transport effectiveness criterion (3.12) ........................................................ 68

Figure 3.50 Optimum specialization fields determined on the basis of

Direct Operating Cost criterion (3.14) .......................................................... 68

Figure 5.1 Typical seaport configuration: .................................................... 72

Figure 5.2 Ramp configuration ..................................................................... 72

Figure 5.3 Real existing seaport (Russia). Source: Diagrams and picture

Beriev Presentation AERO Frierichshafen................................................... 73

Figure 8.1 Amphibian aircraft L-471 ............................................................. 85

Figure 8.2 Amphibian aircraft LA-8 ............................................................... 86

Figure 8.3 Amphibian aircraft SA-20P(OSA) ................................................ 87

Figure 8.4 Amphibian aircraft SK-12 Orion .................................................. 88

Figure 8.5 Amphibian aircraft Istok-4 ........................................................... 89

Figure 8.6 Amphibian aircraft Be-103 ........................................................... 90

Figure 8.7 Amphibian aircraft A-25 AEROPRAKT ....................................... 91

Figure 8.8 Amphibian aircraft C-400 Captain ............................................... 92

Figure 8.9 Amphibian aircraft Pelican-4 ....................................................... 93

Figure 8.10 Amphibian aircraft Lake 250 Renegade ................................... 94

Figure 8.11 Amphibian aircraft Thurston TA16 Trojan ............................... 95

Figure 8.12 Amphibian aircraft CENTAUR 6 ................................................ 96

Figure 9.1 Floatplane Cessna 180 ................................................................. 97

Figure 9.2 Figure 9.3 Floatplane Cessna 182 ............................................... 98

Figure 9.4 Floatplane Cessna 185 ................................................................. 99

Figure 9.5 Floatplane Cessna 206 ............................................................... 100

Figure 9.6 Floatplane Cessna 208 ............................................................... 101

Figure 9.7 Floatplane de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III ....................... 102

Figure 9.8 de Havilland DHC-6 Floatplane Twin Otter ............................... 103

Figure 9.9 Floatplane Piper PA-18 .............................................................. 104

Figure 10.1 MORRISON 6............................................................................. 105

Figure 10.2 Cessna 172R ............................................................................. 106



10

Figure 10.3 Cessna 182T ............................................................................. 107

Figure 10.4 Cessna 206H ............................................................................. 108

Figure 10.5 Cessna 208 Caravan ................................................................ 109

Figure 10.6 GA-8 Airvan .............................................................................. 110

Figure 10.7 Explorer 500T............................................................................ 111

Figure 10.8 T-101 Grach .............................................................................. 112

Figure 10.9 VulcanAir P68C......................................................................... 113

Figure 10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B ........................................................... 114

Figure 10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T ........................................................... 115

Figure 10.12 HAI Y-12 .................................................................................. 116

Figure 10.13 M-28 ......................................................................................... 117



11

List of tables

Table 8.1 L-471 specifications ....................................................................... 85

Table 8.2 LA-8 specifications ........................................................................ 86

Table 8.3 SA-20P(OSA) specifications ......................................................... 87

Table 8.4 SK-12 Orion specifications ........................................................... 88

Table 8.5 Istok-4 specifications .................................................................... 89

Table 8.6 Be-103 specifications .................................................................... 90

Table 8.7 A-25 AEROPRAKT specifications................................................. 91

Table 8.8 C-400 Captain specifications ........................................................ 92

Table 8.9 Pelican-4 specifications ................................................................ 93

Table 8.10 Lake 250 Renegade specifications ............................................. 94

Table 8.11 Thurston TA16 Trojan specifications ......................................... 95

Table 8.12 CENTAUR 6 specifications ......................................................... 96

Table 9.1 Cessna 180 specifications ............................................................ 97

Table 9.2 Floatplane Cessna 182 specifications ......................................... 98

Table 9.3 Cessna 185 specifications ............................................................ 99

Table 9.4 Cessna 206 specifications .......................................................... 100

Table 9.5 Cessna 208 specifications .......................................................... 101

Table 9.6 de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III specifications ................... 102

Table 9.7 de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter specifications .......................... 103

Table 9.8 Piper PA-18 specifications .......................................................... 104

Table 10.1 MORRISON 6 specifications ..................................................... 105

Table 10.2 Cessna 172 R specifications ..................................................... 106

Table 10.3 Cessna 182T specifications ...................................................... 107

Table 10.4 Cessna 206H specifications ...................................................... 108

Table 10.5 Cessna 208 Caravan specifications ......................................... 109

Table 10.6 GA-8 Airvan specifications ....................................................... 110

Table 10.7 Explorer 500T specifications .................................................... 111

Table 10.8 T-101 Grach specifications ....................................................... 112

Table 10.9 VulcanAir P68C specifications ................................................. 113

Table 10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B specifications .................................... 114

Table 10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T specifications .................................... 115

Table 10.12 HAI Y-12 specifications ........................................................... 116

Table 10.13 M-28 specifications .................................................................. 117



12

Glossary

FUSETRA Future Seaplane Traffic

EU European Union



13

1 Objectives

Europe is one of the densely populated continents on Earth, it occupies the

area of 4,324,782 sq km and its population is 497,198,740 inhabitants (forecast

for the year of 2011) [10, 22]. Its meridional extension is 4,200 km and its

parallel extension is 5,600 km. The highest peak is 5,642 m above the sea

level. These dimensions also characterize the field of functioning of the

European transport market.

Transport is an activity aimed at overcoming the space. The aviation transport is

one of the branches of transport. The criterion of division into branches strictly

depends on labour facilities the use of which conditions the technological

process properties and organization. In the aviation transport the basic labour

facilities are planes, airports and means of safety and control of air traffic. All

these means make up a certain system and their characteristics should be

adjusted.

The field of transportation over long distances is considered to be a sphere of

the air transport in passenger transportation, the field of medium and short

distances competes with rail and car transport. Although over medium distances

the air transport has a dominating position.

An airport as a part of passenger transportation sector is characterized by a

definitely higher average service speed, which is undoubtedly its advantage in

comparison to other means of transport. The infrastructural requirements are

limited mainly to the airports as the so-called point infrastructure. In order to use

the mobility and the potential of the transport performed by a plane to the full it

is necessary to define possible reachable places of take-offs and landings, i.e.

location, operational-technical data, availability and so on.

A characteristic feature of the European air transport service market is co-

existence of several but large communication centres performing trans-

continental links and dense net of local links between the majority of small cities

and tourist resorts. In Europe there are 43 main airports (large and medium

hubs) and 450 country and regional airports (commercial service airports)

(Figure 1.1). European airports have 1336 hard take-off runways (concrete or

asphalt) and 737 airports have necessary equipment to perform IFR flights [9,

13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 27].



14

Figure 1.1 Top 50 most constraining points in European airspace, PRR 2006, EUROCONTROL,

Annex VI, p.95.

Taking into account short distances between the European cities transportation

on the territory of Europe is performed mainly over short and medium distances,

with the domination of the first ones. The European transport market is, thus,

the area of competition between the road, rail and air transport.

The vehicular transportation is a branch of transport in which the loads and

passengers travel on land roads with the help of vehicle means of transport.

The most important characteristics and advantage of the vehicular

transportation is its ability to transfer loads directly from the departure point to

the delivery point without reloading or changing the means of transport. The

European road net consists of roads which combined length is 4.8 mln km and

60,000 km of motorways. According to the data published by Eurostat in the

years of 1990-2003 1 million kilometers of roads were built. The number of cars

reaches 220 million and increases annually by 5 million. The vehicular

transportation consumes 83 per cent of the total energy consumed by the

industry connected with the transport.

This type of transportation of loads is costly which is usually compensated by a

developed infrastructure and speed of delivery. It should be stressed that it is

the most dangerous transport type. Additionally it causes the most damage to

the environment.



15

Figure 1.2 Road network in the EU27+2 prepared by ESPON Project 2.1.1 [21].

The popularity of the vehicular transportation results from its character, such as:

the best spatial access which results from the developed, dense road net;

the possibility of door-to-door transportation without indirect reloading

activities;

the best adjustment of the road net to the location of the sales market, the

most profitable offer for transportation companies, which results from the

quickness and exploitation accessibility of the road net;

the best abilities of delivering to other types of transport operators;



16

the transport column is adjusted to carry different loads taking into account

the manageability of transport;

the ability to adjust the means of transport to carry different types of goods.

Figure 1.3 Railroad network in the EU27+2 [ESPON Project 2.1.1] extended by the up-to-date

information on High speed train (HST) [21].

The rail transport is one of the branches of the land transport. Its most important

characteristic feature is the ability to carry a lot of load over long distances. The

principle is as follows: the farther, the cheaper. When travelling by train we do

not exposed to traffic jams or bad weather conditions. Railroad lines are well

developed and very safe. The coefficient of accidents is very low. The speed of

transportation depends on the kind of the transported goods and the operator.



17

One of the few drawbacks is the risk of theft during the stops at the stations or

lay-bys. The goods also may be damaged during possible shunting (stops or

pounding). The railroad is multipurpose; it can carry people, animals or very

heavy loads. It is mostly used for transportation of raw materials, such as coal

or wood. The railroad for distant passenger journeys is not as popular as it was

several years ago. The rail network has a cumulative length of 199,000 km

(2003), mainly in densely populated territories of the Central Europe (France,

Germany, Poland). The dynamics of changes show an annual 8 per cent

decrease in the rail length.

The total volume of passenger transportation in Europe generated by the three

dominating branches of transport reached the level of 5 trillion passenger-

kilometers. The highest growth was noted for the road transport, increasing the

volume of transportation in the years 1995-2004 by 18 per cent. The growth

dynamics of the air transportation at the same time was 49 per cent, but in the

whole amount of transportation it is only a 6-8 per cent growth. The share of the

railroad transport in the total volume of transportation is presented by a number

of passenger-kilometers is slightly decreasing (Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4 Passenger transport performance, by main transport mode, EU-25, 1995-2004 (in billion

passenger-kilometers) [Panorama of Transport, EUROSTAT, 2007, p.102]

The total length of roads and rails does not give the answer to the question of

the transport infrastructure in Europe. The main problem of the infrastructure

level is neglecting its quality. The infrastructure quality is estimated on the basis

of the regional potential and the cost of transport between the regions is shown

in Figure 1.5 [21].

The analysis of the European transport market helps come to the following

conclusion:

Europe needs new, supplementary modes of transport



18

Figure 1.5 Transport infrastructure quality expressed as summed potential accessibility of road,

rail and air transport in the EU27+2, ESPON Project 1.2.1 by S&W, 2004.

Europe is an exceptional area with unique properties favoring regional

development of the air transport system of light amphibian aircraft with the use

of small and medium airports and natural water landings. Europe has a huge

partly unused potential of airports and landing grounds which can be the basis

for creating a competitive travel offer around Europe by light passenger

amphibian aircraft using less busy airports and adjusted and re-qualified landing

grounds as well as natural landing fields on water. On the territory of Europe

there are 1270 airports and 1300 landing fields (Figure 1.6 and Figure 1.7).



19

Figure 1.6 All European airports location

The possibility of flight operations on a straight line using RNAV navigation is

often limited by marked, reserved, limited or dangerous areas. The air corridors

of RNAV are laid mostly in the zones which do not collide with TSA and TRA.

The higher the flight level is the easier the possibility of the direct flights

planning is. From a certain height there is, however, dense air traffic with regard

to regular flights of passenger jet planes. Taking into account the unlimited

possibility to operate direct flights between particular airports it is possible to

determine the distances between the airport pairs as gear-circle distances from

the dependence:

1 2 1 2111.12arccos sin sin cos cos cosL (1.1)

where: 1, 2 - the geographical latitude of the initial and final points,

- the difference of the geographical longitude.



20

Figure 1.7 All European landing fields location (airports are included)

Figure 1.8 Distribution of the European airport pair distances

Figure 1.8 shows the distribution of distances between the European airports –

the distribution of potential airport links. The maximum for the distribution of

distances between the airports is about 1000 km, and there are a few potential

links for the distances over 3000 km. It is true that for the distances up to 300



21

km the air transport cannot compete with other means of transport due to the

cost and time of realization, however, in the regions with poor a transport

infrastructure (Figure 1.5) they can become a good alternative for other

branches of transport.

The accessibility of the land infrastructure will determine the possibility of

development of the given branch of transport. The accessibility of the natural

water landing fields is shown in Part 2.

Figure 1.9 presents the distribution function of the distance from the European

city centres with the population over 50 thousand inhabitants to the nearest

airport. It follows from the Figure that for 80 per cent of the European cities the

nearest airport is in the distance of not more than 20 km. Such a short distance

gives people a possibility to travel faster between the city centres and the

airports; it also speaks for the fact that their accessibility is high in Europe.

Figure 1.9 Cumulative distribution function of the city distance to the nearest airport

An airport should cover the area of economic transport value (a city, a place of

people concentration, tourist areas) in order to attract a certain target group of

passengers, which can be an element of development of the given region

included in the fast air transport.

In the territory of Europe with regard to numerous airports, a strong competition

between them develops in order to gain passengers, new carriers and new air

links. The zone of competition between the airports is the covering gravitation

area of the neighboring airports. The value of the gravitation area of an airport –



22

the area where passengers start their air travel from a certain airport or the

point where they reach their destination – is determined mainly by the time

factor of getting to the airport. The value of the gravitation area which influences

the potential increase in the number of passengers, raising its competitive

position depends also on other factors, such as: convenience of the

connections with the land transport etc.

Figure 1.10 Cumulative distribution function of the population within catchment’s areas of

aerodromes

Taking a simplified assumption that the value of gravitation areas is influenced

mainly by the time factor, and the travel time is the function of distance, the

gravitation areas were determined for four categories of the European airports

(Figure 1.10). The results analysis lets us say that for the airports which can be

the basis of the light passenger amphibious aircraft transport system the value

of the gravitation area is about 60 km. In this area there might be competition

between GA Airports and GA Towered Airports which have a twice as large

gravitation area. However, between the other two airport types cooperation is

quite possible because of a different range of transport services offered.

The work consists of 5 parts. The first part is the reason for development of a

supplemental kind of transport using amphibian aircraft, especially in the system

of flying amphibians. The second part presents the analysis of the existing land



23

infrastructure and natural conditions favoring the development of this branch of

transport. On the basis of the land (ports) infrastructure and natural conditions

(lakes, rivers) analysis it is possible to determine the constructional and

utilizable limits to which the new plane will be submitted (e.g. the required take

off length, the ascending shear rate, etc.). Part 3 includes the characteristic

analysis of currently used amphibian aircraft. The analysis of the characteristics

does not, however, give the answer to the question how the plane should look

like in the future, but rather the research on the tendency of their changing [2, 7]

lets forecast the future requirements. Part 4 includes the analysis concerning

the possible market for transport services offered by transportation companies

using the amphibian aircraft. The analysis of conditions which can favor the

development of this means of transport in order to improve the accessibility of

the airports and amphibian aircraft bases was made. Part 5 includes a number

of conditions and requirements which amphibian aircraft designed in the future

should meet.



24

2 Possible Seaplane Base Locations in Europe

The potential places for take-off and landing operations are port pools located

on the coast of the sea, lake and big rivers. In Europe there are 1400 ports (sea

and river) and some hundreds of lakes where amphibian aircraft can take-off

and land.

Figure 2.1 All European seaports location

Three alternative variants of amphibian aircraft use in the local passenger

transport are:

1. the flight from the nearest land airport to the seaport (or the return flight);

2. the flight between two water landing fields;

3. the flight from the land airport to the seaport located in a far distance

(transportation between the selected large European airports and local

tourist resorts).



25

Assuming the above mentioned methods of the amphibian aircraft use and

analyzing performance characteristics of amphibian aircraft of different systems

(Part 3), it was stated that to realize the transport services only amphibian

aircraft (boat-type or float-type) will be used.

The distribution of distances between the major selected land airports and

seaports is presented in Figure 2.2. It follows from it that the maximum

distribution of distances is 20 km, and maximum distance is 120 km. These

values define wider sets of tasks realized by amphibian aircraft for variant 1 of

the amphibian aircraft use.

Figure 2.2 Distribution of distances from seaport to the nearest airport

Figure 2.3 shows the selected example routs realized by amphibian aircraft

when performing tasks according to variant 3. The distribution of distances of

the flights is given in Figure 2.4.



26

Figure 2.3 Example air routes realised by seaplanes



27

Figure 2.4 Distribution of distances from main European airports to seaports

Figure 2.5 Distribution of distances from seaport to the nearest city (seaports accessibility)



28

Figure 2.6 Number of cities within particular radius of seaports in Europe (seaports accessibility)

Figure 2.7 Population within particular radius of seaport in Europe (seaports accessibility)



29

Figure 2.8 Average catchment area of seaports in Europe (seaports accessibility)



30

3 Seaplane park structure including infrastructure

3.1 Determining the structure of the aircraft fleet

The characteristic feature of the technical objects used in aviation (and not only)

is their multipurpose and multitask character. This property concerns single

planes as well as their sets which constitute a certain aircraft fleet. It shows

itself in different aims which this aircraft fleet is to fulfill (e.g. an airline) and in

different conditions of its functioning. For example, for passenger airplanes the

set of lanes of different length, intensity and other characteristics is a set of

tasks, and a variety of conditions of use is determined by technical,

geographical, climate and other differences of the gateway airport. This defines

the multipurpose (universal) character of the plane use.

A lot of tasks performed using the planes determine the necessity of using

different factors to estimate their effectiveness. Quality assessment of reaching

the aim on the basis of these factors has such a trait that for a plane with the

determined parameters (geometric, aerodynamic and performance) the highest

quality is reached as a rule in a single task. Although when performing all other

tasks, homogeneous or non-homogeneous, the plane always loses the quality

from the point of view of reaching the aim in comparison to its highest value.

This type of loss characterizes the level of universalism when performing certain

tasks. The way to increase the effectiveness of achieving the aim is to use the

plane not in the whole range of possible applications but in a narrower range

(specialization).

Every plane can perform a limited range of tasks. For transport planes the

typical task is delivering a certain load (payload weight) over a given distance.

To guarantee air transportation load aircraft fleets which consist of different

types of airplanes are used, and their effective selection decides on the quality

of the whole fleet. Cooperation of the planes within the fleet appears in the fact

that capabilities of different planes as a rule are partially covered. Thus,

alternative fields are created 12, 123, 23 (Figure 3.1) [2] to cover which two or

more types of planes are used. A lack of uniqueness which appears in this case

causes the necessity of distributing the tasks from the alternative fields between

the “compeeting” aircraft and determining the fields of the most effective use for

each of them.

It is difficult to estimate the effectiveness of the complex aircraft fleet as a whole

which performs the full range of tasks. However, it is possible to estimate a



31

single task performed by one plane. In the majority of cases only with strong

limitation of the requirements it is possible to estimate the goal achievement

with the help of one quality criterion. In practice certain points of view must be

determined with different quality criteria (see 3.1.2.). In this approach, different

variants of dividing the task sets between the planes included in the aircraft fleet

are obtained, better regarding one indicator and worse regarding the others.

Figure 3.1 Aircraft fleet transport potential (alternate fields).

If the system elements (Figure 3.1) can be treated as independent, then solving

the complex task of optimizing is reduced to solving two simple tasks which are

solved separately [2]. The first task is to find the optimal fields of specialization

of the planes which are a consisting part of a system. The second task is to the

find optimal parameters of the plane performing tasks assigned to it. In order to

solve the first task, the algorithm was worked out; it uses specific properties of

the aviation system and the defined coefficient of effectiveness.

The solving procedure consists of alternate looping for Fields of specialization

for the present aircraft fleet and looping for parameters of an optimal plane in its

set of tasks. The first task is solved with the method described in point 3.1.3.

The solution to the second task is beyond the scope of this research.

From the described aircraft fleet properties:

1. existence of different conditions of functioning and task performing,

2. using many quality coefficients to estimate the aircraft fleet,



32

3. the complex aircraft fleet structure consisting of many different planes

(autonomous elements) between which a particular task performing is

divided

follows that the mathematical model of the aircraft fleet can be a multitask

system [2].

3.1.1 Multitask aviation system

Each multitask system consists of a certain finite number m of elements which

make set A called a set of system elements. The set of all elements xi, which

can potentially enter the system structure, is determined by X, i.e.

, , i

x X dla i 1 m (3.1)

and set A is defined as:

, ,iA x X gdzie i 1 m

(3.2)

It is supposed that set Y will be set. The integral function E(y) was determined

in this set which takes values 1, 2,..., m – it is called the distribution function [2].

The field of specialization Di, of the element xi A for i = 1,..., m, will be called

a subset of the set Y in points of which the distribution function has values equal

to i:

: , ,iD y Y yE i dla i 1 m

(3.3)

The fields of specialization must fulfill two criteria:

1. Fields of specialization for different elements cannot have common parts

; , , , ;

i kD D i k 1 m i k

(3.4)

2. The sum of all Fields of specialization must be equal to external multitude Y

iD Y

m

i 1

(3.5)

Three main elements of the presented model <A, Y, E(y)> are called the

multitask system.

The vector of quality of the multitask non-vector system [2] can be defined as

follows:



33

, ,F F E A Y y (3.6)

Putting the mathematic multitask system into the notion of local quality function f

[x, y, (D)] of the field of specialization Di of the aircraft xiA, it is possible to

express the coefficient of the multitask system quality (3.6) in terms of its values

in particular fields of specialization Di of certain elements xiA [2]:

, , , ,i

m m

i i i

i 1 x D

F x f x yi 1

X A E D X D (3.7)

where: (Di) - field of specialization measure Di [2].

3.1.1 Performance evaluation

The analysis of scientific literature [2, 7] helps distinguish some types of criteria

of performance evaluation of planes with different range of their use and

capability.

Simple technical criteria – technical criteria describe performing and bulk

characteristics of the plane. The following values can act as criteria: maximum

speed, maximum rate of climb, service ceiling, range, takeoff distance, landing

distance, payload weight, and gross weight. These criteria are irrelative; they

have nothing to do with the dimensions, weight or category of the plane. They

determine only “isolated” facts.

Complex technical criteria [2, 7] connect some Simple characteristics of the

plane and give somehow more “meaningful” estimation of the quality, however

limited, to a selected plane category with not so distant technical features.

These criteria have a relative character. The range of velocity is often used as

an indicator of quality

max

min

VV

V (3.8)

which determines approximate dynamic properties of the plane. Another simple

technical (irrelative) indicator is mass effectiveness which helps estimate the

plane construction:

usefuluseful

TO

mm

m (3.9)

or the criterion which is an addition (3.9)



34

1empty

empty useful

TO

mm m

m

(3.10)

Technical criterion taking into account transport capacities is the indicator of

transport effectiveness:

zuseful useful crue

bl

LW m m V

t

(3.11)

where:

tbl - total time of task performing together with ground procedures,

Vcrue - average flight velocity of the plane.

The criterion derivative in relation to (3.11) is the criterion called transport

qualitative effectiveness and is defined as:

useful cruet useful crue

TO

m VW m V

m

(3.12)

The indicator of transport effectiveness is proportional to the work required for

cargo transportation over a given distance in a given time (it is proportional to

the average transport capacity). Relating it to the power of the engine unit an

indicator of capacity usage was received:

useful crueP

m VW

Power

(3.13)

Economic criteria – originally appeared for the needs of airlines (transport

companies) [2, 7] using them to optimize the aircraft fleet, setting rational (and

competitive) traffic tariff rates and so on. Despite the compilation and necessity

to take into account a lot of components based on statistic data or given data

these criteria are currently a basic form of estimation of the planes used

commercially.

The most widened and most general economic criterion is the complete life

cycle cost of a plane (LCC – Life Cycle Cost) [7] consisting of costs of

development, research, production, acquisition, utilization and disposal of the

majority of planes of a particular type. The LCC of a plane is a sum of four

components:

RDTE ACQ OPS DISPLCC C C C C (3.14)



35

where:

CRDTE - costs of research, development, tests and evaluation

CACQ - costs of acquisition

COPS - operating costs

CDISP - costs of disposal after use

Thus the form of the criterion is especially useful when estimating functioning of

aviation companies, types of military aviation, because it helps determine

general costs of development and operation of the plane as well as annual

expenditures on maintenance of the aircraft fleet.

A less general criterion is the DOC (Direct Operating Cost) expressing the cost

of a time unit of operation of a given type of plane [7]. The DOC is a sum of

costs directly connected with performing an aviation task. It consists of flight

costs (fuel, personnel salaries, amortization, repairs, airport charges,

navigation, etc.) which fall on each plane and calculation unit.

The economic criteria unlike simple technical criteria, which estimate separate

plane characteristics, have “integral” properties, taking into account flight

characteristics, construction of the fuselage, driving system, operation and

market factors. Thus, it is a better, although not sufficient, measure of the

general features of a plane.

3.1.2 Task division

Input data for the algorithm:

Achievable task fields D(xi) of planes in fleet A.

Resource vector R = {R1, R2,..., Rm+1} of the planes of all types. Each

component of vector R determines the number of hours which can be logged

by a single unit of a determined type in an analyzed time period.

Unit costs of performing the task yj, j = 1,...,n for all types of the planes, as

presented in the matrix

n,1m2,1m1,1m

n22221

n11211

ij

CCC

CCC

CCC

C



36

The elements of the matrix Cij = C1ij Nij show effectiveness of performing of all j-

type tasks by i-type planes (Nij – number of flights of the planes which is enough

to perform a j task.

Figure 3.2 Task division between planes within a fleet (system)

Algorithm of division

1. The matrix [Cijf ] of the (mxn) size was input, its elements will be filled with

performing cost values of all the tasks Y.

2. In every column of the matrix [Cijf ] a minimal element is selected

1min

j iji

C minC , j , ,n (3.15)

a line with minimal elements (3.15) presents the minimal costs of performing

all task types by the planes i *( j ).

3. In line (3.15) the minimal element is selected

min min

j jj

C minC (3.16)

and the number of task type j * corresponding to it as well as the number of

plane type i ( j*). The found couple (i (j *), j *) are an optimal solution in the

first step.



37

4. Costs of flight Ci1( j *)j * for this solution is written in a corresponding matrix cell

Cijf

5. The j *- column of the matrix Cij is modified, decreasing Ci ( j *)j * by a “used”

cost flight value Ci1( j *)j *

1

i( j ) j i( j ) j i( j ) jC C -C

(3.17)

Further steps of the process are marked with index “+”. The rest of the

elements of the j *- column are decreased by the value of one flight cost of

the plane for corresponding plane types.

6. Then the condition of presence of the period for all-type planes

1

ijn

j i

j

T R

(3.18)

nij – number of flight of the i – type plane, Tj – time of onwards flights of the

j – flight. If for a certain plain type the operating life Ri for all units is epired,

the given type is excluded from the further analysis.

7. The condition of completing the task of the set Y is checked.

1

1 1 1

n mq

j i

j i q

N N

(3.19)

N qi – the number of carried passengers by i – type of the plane in q - task,

–number of complete tasks by i – type plane. If all the tasks are

completed, the process of division is considered to be finished. Otherwise it

is necessary to return to point 2 of this algorithm.

3.2 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of hydroplanes

in an amphibian system

The main performance characteristics of all the amphibian aircraft analyzed in

this work are presented in Appendix A.

Weight characteristics of aircraft. Figure 3.3 gives a clearer overview of the

take-off weights of the aircraft analyzed in this review. As we can see, among

the whole analyzed array of planes, three types of Russian-made planes – LA-8

”Flagman”, Be-103 and OSA (SA-20P) – are distinguished, whose take-off

weights are approximately 2300 kg. Other Russian-made planes - SK-12 Orion

and Pelican-4 are considerably smaller by their take-off weight (1000 kg or



38

slightly over). The USA and GB-made planes by their dimensions are within the

medium range, and their take-off weights are within the range between 1400 kg

and 1800 kg. Obviously, bigger amphibian aircraft possess certain advantages

in such important characteristics as load-lifting capacity (payload weight), as

well as a possibility to equip the plane with more complete set of different

equipment (electrical equipment, hydraulic system, flight and navigation

equipment, meteorological radar, air-conditioning system, life rafts, etc.).

Installation of a fairly complete set of the above mentioned equipment on light

aircraft with the take-off weight of approximately 1000 kg is not possible due to

their low load-lifting capacity.

Figure 3.3 Amphibian aircrafts distribution by take-off weight

Meanwhile, the presence of a fairly complete set of airborne equipment widens

the functional capabilities of a plane in terms of its all-season (all-year), all-

weather and all-day capability of its operation, which means that the plane

becomes more competitive and attractive for its potential customers. A higher

load-lifting capacity of the plane allows for installation of different special

airborne equipment for using the plane in such operations as environmental

monitoring, resource exploration, search and rescue operations, border control

operations and many other special operations.



39

Figure 3.4 Empty plane mass ratios

Figure 3.5 Payload mass ratios



40

The plane load-lifting capacity, as well as its other characteristics – the flying

range and flight endurance – depends not only on the plane dimensions (take-

off weight), but also on the level of the weight cleanness of the construction. As

the weight cleanness measurement, the factor of the empty plane mass ratio,

which is the ratio of the empty plane to its take-off weight (3.10). The diagram of

the amphibian aircraft distribution by this factor is presented in Figure 3.4.

The empty plane mass ratio of light landplanes of the analyzed weight class is

usually within the range of values between 0.55 and 0.6. This factor of light

amphibian aircraft must not be better in any way taking into account the higher

requirements to the strength and tightness of the body (hull), the presence of

additional structural members, such as wing floats, sometimes engine mounting

pylons, landing gear retraction and extension mechanism and a number of other

elements. Generally, the diagram in Figure 3.4 proves this statement – the

arithmetic mean value of the empty plane mass ratio calculated for the group of

11 types of aircraft is 0.637.

However, the weight characteristics of the one plane of the analyzed group –

“Istok-4 raise questions. To create a light aircraft (particularly an amphibian

aircraft) meeting the AP-23 requirements in terms of strength, with the empty

plane mass ratio of 43% is not possible under any circumstances. In general,

the extremely high weight characteristics, i.e. a very low empty plane mass

ratio, are mostly explained by two reasons – either the plane does not meet the

strength requirements, or it lacks even minimum required set of airborne

equipment, or both.

The weight characteristics of the remaining eight planes do not cause doubts

and are fairly explainable. In particular, the big empty plane mass ratio of the

Be-103 (0.759) is explained mainly by its abundance of different airborne

equipment. Possible, the point is that the Be-103 was designed in a

professional development design office using the standards for creating big

airplanes which influenced the choice of the equipment set (everything must be

like in a big airplane). The weight characteristics of the LA-8 “Flagman”, which is

currently under development, do not cause any doubts considering its rather

rational aerodynamic and design arrangement and the absence of

“unnecessary” structural elements (such as, engine mounting pylons). It is quite

possible to build a plane with the empty plane mass ratio within the 0.6-0.61

range with the take-off weight of 2300 kg, without compromising the set of

equipment and comfort of the passenger cabin. It would be most likely

impossible for aircraft of 1000 kg in dimensions.



41

Figure 3.6 Maximum flying ranges of the amphibian aircrafts

Figure 3.7 Maximum cruising speeds of the amphibian aircrafts



42

The weight cleanness level of the three USA and BG-made amphibian aircraft

can be estimated as very high, especially of the TA-16 “Seafire” (0.556) and

“Warrior Centaur” (0.563) planes. When estimating the weight cleanness of

these planes, one should take into account that these planes are equipped with

a complete set of airborne equipment, electric and hydraulic systems, and have

automatic controllable pitch negative thrust propellers.

The diagram showing distribution of the payload mass ratios of the equipped

empty planes (including the service load) is presented in Figure 3.5. One should

note that the payload weight is obtained on the basis of the equipped empty

plane subtracted from the take-off weight. In the materials available on some

planes, the empty plane weight is used instead of the equipped empty plane

weight. As a result, the useful loads (and payloads) are usually overstated.

The cruising characteristics – the flying range and the flight endurance. The

flying range, the cruising speed, and for completion of certain tasks – the flight

endurance are rather important characteristics of any aircraft, including light

amphibious aircraft. The diagram showing distribution of the maximum flying

range for all the planes analyzed in this part is presented in Figure 3.6.

The maximum flying ranges of the light amphibian aircraft are within a rather

wide range between 900 km and 2220 km (the maximum flying range arithmetic

mean value is 1287 km). With this, as seen, the maximum flying ranges of the

Russian-made planes do not exceed 1275 km, whereas these values for USA

and GB-made planes are within the range between 1600 km and 2220 km.

This is mainly explained by a high maximum fuel mass ratio within the wet

weight of the plane (0.17 – 0.195 of the USA and GB-made planes and 0.1 –

0.11 of the Russian-made planes), but also, probably, by more economical

engines and better aerodynamics of the planes and propellers.

The diagram in Figure 3.7 shows distribution of the maximum cruising flight

speeds of the amphibian aircraft. As seen, the cruising speeds are not very high

and do not differ considerably from those of conventional (land) light planes of

the same weight class. The cruising speeds are higher for the group of heavier

Russian-made planes (LA-8 “Flagman”, Be-103), and for the group of the USA

and GB-made amphibian aircraft. The cruising speeds of the lighter planes with

the take-off weights of approximately 1000 kg are within the range between 170

–200 km/h. The average maximum cruising speed value for the selected planes

of 198 km/h is just based on the presence of this low-speed group of planes.

The USA and GB-made planes have better cruising speed characteristics

(approximately 240 km/h).



43

Figure 3.8 Power-to-weight ratios of the amphibian aircrafts

Figure 3.9 Wing loadings of the amphibian aircrafts



44

The level of maximum cruising (as well as maximum) flight speeds of an

airplane is determined mainly by four parameters:

power-to-weight ratio of a plane, i.e. the ratio of the plane engine power

to the take-off weight (or by the inverse ratio of the plane weight to the

power installed, the so called load per unit of power),

wing loading, i.e. the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of

the wing,

the plane aerodynamic property at normal cruise operation,

the propeller(s) efficiency.

As the power-to-weight ratio has a considerable effect on such characteristics

as the climbing capability of a plane, take-off characteristics, maneuvering

capabilities, it is interesting to estimate the value of this parameter for all the

planes under analysis. With this we use the

takeoff

takeoff

TO

NN

m (3.20)

factor, i.e. the ratio of the take-off (or maximum) output of the plane’s engines to

its take-off weight.

The diagram of distribution of the power-to-weight ratios in Figure 3.8 shows

that the power-to-weight ratios of all these planes are not high, not exceeding

the value of 0.16 kW/kg. The An-2 plane has about the same power-to-weight

ratio. It is interesting that the USA and GB-made planes’ power-to-weight ratios

are not higher than those of the Russian-made planes, but their cruising flight

speeds are higher on average. The low power-to-weight ratio also explains the

low climbing capabilities of the light amphibian aircraft (5–6 m/s on average).

As far as safety is concerned, it would be desirable to have higher levels of the

power-to-weight ratios; at least, on the twin-engine planes this would ensure a

sufficient climbing capability in the event of failure of one of the engines.

Take-off and landing characteristics of the planes. The take-off and landing

characteristics (the take-off run, landing run, useful take-off and landing

distances) are the most important characteristics for any airplanes, but in

particular, for light amphibian aircraft as they are operated on basically prepared

landing grounds or rivers and lakes. Considering the low power-to-weight ratios

of the planes, which, in particular, should have an effect during take-off from

water, first of all, it is worthwhile considering and estimating the take-off



45

characteristics of the planes. Such comparative evaluation is presented in the

diagram in Figure 3.10, which shows the take-off runs of the planes at take-off

from a land aerodrome and from the water surface.

The scatter of the take-off runs of the amphibian planes, as seen, is rather wide,

especially considering near values of the power-to-weight ratios of the planes

and the wing loading (Figure 3.9) of the majority of the aircraft. Unfortunately,

for two planes there are no data on the water take-off run, and for other two

planes it’s not indicated if it’s takeoff run or full takeoff length. In such cases the

take-off run figures were considered to be for the take-off run.

Let us look at the take-off characteristics of some of the planes mentioned in

this work.

1) Be-103. The data is provided according to the KnAAPO application data

sheet. As the plane has been in operation since 1997, its take-off

characteristics are actual performances, but not scheduled performances.

The plane’s take-off run is 440 m along the runway, and 620 m on the water,

which is 1.5-2 times the average values for the whole array of the light

amphibian aircraft. Such characteristics become quite explainable, if we

consider the take-off speed (lift-off speed) of the Be-103: 137 km/h at the

land take-off and 130 km/h at the water surface take-off. The Be-103 at the

declared take-off weight of 2269 kg and the wing area of 25.1 m2 has the

wing loading of 91 kg/m2, which is rather high for the analyzed class of

aircraft. At take-off at the speed of 137 km/h the wing-lift coefficient CLW =

0.99 –1.0. The wing of the plane does not have flaps, but still such values of

CLW are very small. At the water take-off the take-off speed is a bit lower

(130 km/h), the wing-lift coefficient CLW = 1.1. Note that the declared stall

speed of the Be-103 is 109 km/h, which corresponds to CL MAX= 1.57. Thus,

the Be-103 at take-off has approximately a time and half stall margin

coefficient of CLW. As far as take-off safety is concerned, this is very good,

but it results, as seen, in a considerable increase in the take-off run.

2) LA-8 “Flagman”. The plane is currently under development; therefore its

characteristics are scheduled. According to the project data, the plane will

have the land/water take-off runs of 300/350 m. The LA-8 with the take-off

weight of 2300 kg and the wing area of about 18.6 m2 has the wing loading

of 124 kg/m2, which is the highest among all the planes analyzed in this

report. The take-off speed for the plane is expected to be about 95 km/h at

the land take-off, and 100 km/h at the water take-off. Such take-off speeds

will require very high values of the wing-lift coefficient CLW = 2.6-2.65. Note



46

that for light planes, the used wing-lift coefficient at take-off is generally

substantially smaller. Theoretically, on the straight wing with efficient flaps,

with blowing the wings with the air-stream from the propellers, and using

drooped ailerons it is possible to obtain the necessary values of wing-lift

coefficient. But an increase in the aerodynamic drag of the plane during the

run also becomes too big and offsets the advantages of the reduced take-off

speed. Apparently, the developers take this fact into consideration.

Figure 3.10 Water to land take-off run ratios of the amphibian aircrafts

Characteristics of the aircraft transport capabilities. Transport capabilities of the

plane can be estimated by the indicator of transport effectiveness (eq. 3.11,

Figure 3.11). Transport capacities can be partially estimated by the mass to

passenger ratio (Figure 3.12). This factor estimates also plane construction

efficiency.

The most general characteristics of the plane transport capabilities is the plane

transport capabilities diagram showing the payload versus the range.

Figure 3.13 includes such diagrams for some of the planes analyzed in this

report.



47

Figure 3.11 Transport qualitative effectiveness of the amphibian aircrafts

Figure 3.12 Weight to number of passengers ratios of the amphibian aircrafts



48

Figure 3.13 Diagram of the transport capabilities of the light amphibian aircrafts

The aircraft transport capabilities diagrams are created on the basis of the data

from the application data sheets, reference books and other sources of

information. As seen, at a flight range up to 1200 km the LA-8 “Flagman” has an

essential advantage over the other planes in terms of the payload weight

(provided the declared characteristics are met). With ranges over 1200 km USA

and GB-made amphibian aircraft have the advantage of the payload weight with

the maximum flying range up to 1600-2220 km. At small ranges, the Russian-

made planes Be-103 and OSA have an advantage over the American LA-250

“Renegade”, but underperform as compared with the more modern ТА-16

“Seafire” and “Warrior Centaur”. It should be taken into consideration, that the

USA and GB-made amphibian aircraft which the Russian-made planes are

compared with have a 1.3-1.5 times lower take-off weight that the Russian-

made planes. They have an advantage over the Russian-made planes due to

their higher weight cleanness level, better aerodynamics and more economical

engines.



49

According to the information available, it is expected to equip the LA-8

“Flagman” with two additional fuel tanks 150 l each. This will give a possibility to

almost double the maximum fuel on board, increasing it to 460 kg, if necessary.

With such fuel range the plane will have the transport capabilities diagram as

shown with a broken line in Figure 3.13, i.e. the maximum flying range of 2400

km with the payload of 300-350 kg. At the economic flight speed, its flying

range, in this case, can be 12-14 hours.

3.3 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of hydroplanes

in an float system

The main performance characteristics of all the float planes analyzed in this

work are presented in Appendix B

Figure 3.14 Float planes distribution by take-off weight



50

Figure 3.15 Empty plane mass ratios for float planes

Figure 3.16 Payload mass ratios for float planes



51

Figure 3.17 Maximum cruising speeds of the float aircrafts

Figure 3.18 Power-to-weight ratios of the float planes



52

Figure 3.19 Wing loadings of the float aircrafts

Figure 3.20 Water to land take-off run ratios of the float planes



53

Figure 3.21 Transport qualitative effectiveness of the float aircrafts

Figure 3.22 Weight to number of passengers ratios of the float aircrafts



54

3.4 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of modified

land-based aircrafts

The main performance characteristics of all the modified versions of land-based

aircrafts analyzed in this work are presented in Appendix C.

3.4.1 Modification assumptions

Figure 3.23 modification of single engined existing land-based aircraft

Figure 3.24 modification of twin engined existing land-based aircraft



55

3.4.2 Technical characteristics comparative analysis

Figure 3.25 Single engined aircrafts distribution by take-off weight

Figure 3.26 Twin engined aircrafts distribution by take-off weight



56

Figure 3.27 Empty plane mass ratios for single engined aircrafts

Figure 3.28 Empty plane mass ratios for twin engined aircrafts



57

Figure 3.29 Payload mass ratios for single engined aircrafts

Figure 3.30 Payload mass ratios for twin engined aircrafts



58

Figure 3.31 Power-to-weight ratios of the single engined aircrafts

Figure 3.32 Power-to-weight ratios of the twin engined aircrafts



59

Figure 3.33 Water to land take-off run ratios of the single engined aircrafts

Figure 3.34 Water to land take-off run ratios of the twin engined aircrafts



60

3.4.3 Transport capabilities comparative analysis

Figure 3.35 MORRISON 6 - payload-range diagram

Figure 3.36 Cessna 172R - payload-range diagram



61

Figure 3.37 Cessna 182T - payload-range diagram

Figure 3.38 Cessna 206H - payload-range diagram



62

Figure 3.39 Cessna 208 CARAVAN - payload-range diagram

Figure 3.40 GA-8 Airvan - payload-range diagram



63

Figure 3.41 EXPLORER 500T - payload-range diagram

Figure 3.42 T-101 GRACH - payload-range diagram



64

Figure 3.43 VulcanAir P68C - payload-range diagram

Figure 3.44 Britten-Norman BN-2B - payload-range diagram



65

Figure 3.45 Britten-Norman BN-2T - payload-range diagram

Figure 3.46 HAI Y-12 - payload-range diagram



66

Figure 3.47 M-28 - payload-range diagram



67

Fig

ure

3.4

8 D

iag

ram

of

the

tra

ns

po

rt c

ap

ab

ilit

ies

of

the

mo

dif

ied

ve

rsio

ns

of

lan

d-b

ase

d a

irc

raft

s



68

3.5 Seaplane park structure

Figure 3.49 Optimum specialization fields determined on the basis of transport effectiveness

criterion (3.12)

Figure 3.50 Optimum specialization fields determined on the basis of Direct Operating Cost

criterion (3.14)

3.6 Seaplane park infrastructure



69

4 Integration aspects sea-air-land

in progress



70

5 Development of requirements for future European

seaplane/amphibian transportation system

5.1 Aircraft requirements

The conducted comparative analysis of the characteristics of selected types of

light amphibian aircrafts helped to identify some requirements and persistent

advantages of the new amphibian seaplane.

Rather large dimensions (take-off weight) of the plane – approximately

2300 kg, which makes it possible to equip the plane with a modern set of

flight and navigation equipment, transport 6-7 passengers with the

necessary comfort level in its passenger version, transport cargo (including

long cargo) up to 500-600 kg over a distance up to 1000-1200 km in its

freighter version, and equip the plane with the appropriate equipment in its

special application versions, having a payload mass reserve (fuel range).

The rational aerodynamic and design-layout diagram (a conventional

aircraft, high-wing, with two engines on a wing). The presence of two

engines will considerably increase reliability and flight operating safety,

provided the flight continues with one working engine at any flight stage. The

high-wing diagram is more efficient aerodynamically than the low-wing

diagram due to positive interference between the wing and the fuselage,

providing at the same time improvement of the roll stability of the plane. The

high-positioned wing not touching the water at take-off and landing stages

makes it possible to equip the wing with efficient take-off and landing

devices. The engines and propellers are moved away from the runway or

water surface without any additional weight costs, as they are installed on

the high-positioned wing. The high-positioned wing improves the view from

the cockpit downwards and makes it possible to install various equipment for

observation of the land or water surface (for instance, sideward-looking

antennas) alongside the fuselage.

It is expected to use highly reliable certified and quite economical engines

with certified variable pitch propellers on the plane. The use of certified

engines is a very valuable advantage making it potentially possible to

operate the plane without territorial limitations. Another important advantage

of the selected engines is low-octane gasoline which does not simply make

the operation cheaper, but also makes it more reliable and independent on

fuel supplies.



71

The new amphibian plane declared performances should exceeds those of

all other amphibian aircraft analyzed in this work, which was mentioned

above in chapter 3 or appendixes. In the process of making the plane the

advantages of its design should to be realized, and first of all passed the

weight limits and confirmed the declared take-off and landing characteristics.

In this case the new amphibian plane should have advantages over other

planes considering not only declared, but also practically implemented

performances.

5.2 Infrastructure requirements

5.2.1 General

During the Fusetra related discussions, it has been found that the infrastructure

for Seaplane/Amphibian operation is not totally different to the operation of land

based airplanes.

The major operation is in a day VFR environment. Based on this the request

has been stated that no marked landing area on a seaport shall be used.

This circumstance and this request is adapted to the state of the art of today.

Based on the non-availability of avionics a night operation or IFR up to CAT II

operation is not possible in the moment. but technically feasible for future

seaplane transport systems.

For future seaplane/amphibian operation in connection with scheduled flights

under nearly all weather conditions, it is requested to improve this situation.

For such an advanced operation a seaport with marked take-off and landing

strips seems to be beneficial.

This does not mean that an infrastructure, like a typical land airfield, is required.

The advantage to keep the infrastructure low shall not drop away.

Anyhow, to fulfil the request of all-weather operation the seaport shall be

equipped with the typical ILS features like localizer and glide slope. These

devices may be based on a pontoon.

Beside the infrastructure of the seaport an adapted infrastructure in the aircraft

is also requested.

This is more or less the standard ILS equipment.

In addition to that a new type of wave configuration measurement may be used.



72

5.2.2 Seaport Infrastructure

The following example shows a general layout of a seaport.

Figure 5.1 Typical seaport configuration:

Figure 5.2 Ramp configuration



73

Figure 5.3 Real existing seaport (Russia).

Source: Diagrams and picture Beriev Presentation AERO Frierichshafen

In cases where no ramp or parking area can be installed or if seaplanes instead

of amphibians are operated, an adequate pontoon system shall be available for

passenger boarding and refuelling.

5.2.3 Aircraft Infrastructure

The major difference between a touch down on land and water is the unknown

surface of the landing strip.

The waves caused by wind or swell may cause a danger to the aircraft.

Based on this, especially if we think about a CAT II landing, there must be

features to know details about the waves and the wind. This is beside the wave

direction the wave frequency and the wave energy accompanied by the wind

direction and strength.

During the Fustera meetings it could be demonstrated that the Russian

participants (Beriev Aircraft Company) do have advanced sensors and

mathematics to determine the wave configuration.

With the existing method it is easily possible to calculate the requested data as

stated above.

This means in combination with adequate sensors and processing units it would

be possible to provide to the pilot the requested data for a safe landing.



74

The first approach for such a solution could be the use of a radar based sensor

unit located at the wingtips of the airplane.

Based on this a 3D picture of the waves can be created. With the mathematics

mentioned above the calculation can be achieved and presented to the pilot.

This feature may be supported by additional sensors located near the landing

strip.

For further details about the wave energy calculation see also the Presentation

FUSETRA Workshop 3 April 2011 Friedrichshafen by Vadim V. Zdanevich Beriv

Russia

This idea of an aircraft internal wave computing system may be developed

further if other external senor systems like satellites are used in addition.

With general wave informations from such Satellites in combination with GPS

date a flexible and optimized landing strip may be determinded and shown to

the pilot as an artifizial localizer beam.

After a fly over and a final verification for obstacles in this computed landing

strips by the internal radar system a save touch down can be performed.

5.3 Regulation / Certification requirements

The Investigation has been made according the certification requirement of

EASA CS23. This certification configuration is currently the preferred one of the

Fusetra involved parties.

Anyhow a certification for future seaplane/ amphibian developments according

to the CS 25 regulations is in the same range of probability. In that case the

relevant paragraphs of CS 25 shall be considered.

The following statements consider not the entire CS 23 requirements; only the

specific requirements for seaplanes and amphibians are pointed out.

In some cases additional requirements are stated. These statements are written

in cursive letters.



75

5.3.1 CS 23.51 Take-off speeds

Requirement:

For seaplanes and amphibians taking off from water, VR, must be a speed that

is shown to be safe under all reasonably expected conditions, including

turbulence and complete failure of the critical engine.

Means of Compliance:

A twin engine aircraft shall be preferred which can show compliance with the

remaining engine after a fault of the first engine.

For single engine application an ELOS (Equivalent level of Safety) shall be

shown by procedures and special requirements to the sea port.

5.3.2 CS 23.75 Landing distance

Requirement:

The landing must be made without excessive vertical acceleration or tendency

to bounce, nose-over, ground loop, porpoise or water loop.


During certification, especially during flight test, it has to be demonstrated the

aircraft has no uncontrollable porpoise and is free of water loop

5.3.3 CS 23.231 Longitudinal stability and control

Requirement:

A seaplane or amphibian may not have dangerous or uncontrollable purpoising

characteristics at any normal operating speed on the water.


During certification, especially during flight test, it has to be demonstrated the

aircraft has no uncontrollable porpoise.

5.3.4 CS 23.233 Directional stability and control

Requirement:

Seaplanes must demonstrate satisfactory directional stability and control for

water operations up to the maximum wind velocity specified in sub-paragraph

(a).


To consider 90° Crosswind, waves and special cases like single engine on a

twin airplane an adequate water rudder is recommended if other means are not

available



76

5.3.5 CS 23.237 Operation on water

Requirement:

Allowable water surface conditions and any necessary water handling

procedures for seaplanes and amphibians must be established.


Beside the directional control according CS 23.233 the operation in waves shall

be defined and approved during flight test.

New technologies for wave energy calculation may be included in the

definitions.

5.3.6 CS 23.239 Spray characteristics

Requirement:

Spray may not dangerously obscure the vision of the pilots or damage the

propellers or other parts of a seaplane or amphibian at any time during taxying,

take-off and landing.


It shall be demonstrated during flight test that the shape of the aircraft nose, the

sponsen or floats do not create a spay which does cause reduces vision of the

pilot or may damage any part of the airplane.

5.3.7 CS 23.521ff Water loads

This paragraph includes:

CS 23.521 Water load conditions

CS 23.523 Design weights and centre of gravity positions

CS 23.525 Application of loads

CS 23.527 Hull and main float load factors

CS 23.529 Hull and main float landing conditions

CS 23.531 Hull and main float take-off condition

CS 23.533 Hull and main float bottom pressures

CS 23.535 Auxiliary float loads

CS 23.537 Seawing loads

Requirement:

The paragraphs mentioned above consider the design and test loads for

seaplanes and amphibians.

For details see CS 23



77


The loads and design data stated in the requirements shall be considered

during design. An adequate documentation shall be prepared.

Note:

The load determination is a major task for the seaplane and amphibian design.

High additional aircraft mass may be caused by these requirements.

On the basis on the request of high efficiency and low CO² emission modern

technologies shall be applied to optimize the relation between, structure

weights, aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, safety against obstacles in the water

e.t.c.

5.3.8 CS 23.751ff FLOATS AND HULLS

This paragraph includes:

CS 23.751 Main float buoyancy

CS 23.753 Main float design

CS 23.755 Hulls

CS 23.757 Auxiliary floats

Requirement:

The paragraphs mentioned above consider the design floats and hulls for

seaplanes and amphibians in general.

For details see CS 23


The design data shall be considered during design. An adequate documentation

shall be prepared.

See also the note stated in CS 23.521ff

5.3.9 CS 23.777 Cockpit controls

Requirement:

No specific requirements for seaplanes or amphibian airplanes are stated in the

regulation.

For amphibians the following paragraph is important:

The landing gear control must be located to the left of the throttle centreline or

pedestal centreline.

It describes only the location. But the erroneous operation of the landing gear

handle may case catastrophic accidents.



78

Based on this a specific control system is recommended

This shall require a double action of the pilot to alert him not to select the wrong

landing gear configuration on water or on land. A master switch with a blue light

is recommended to give a clear indication about the intended landing case.


The general requirements and the additional recommendations shall be

considered during design and test.

5.3.10 CS 23.807 Emergency exits

Requirement:

(e) For twin-engined aeroplanes, ditching emergency exits must be provided in

accordance with the following requirements, unless the emergency exits

required by sub-paragraph (a) or (d) s already comply with them:

(1) One exit above the waterline on each side of the aeroplane having the

dimensions specified in sub-paragraph (b) or

(d), as applicable; and

(2) If side exits cannot be above the waterline; there must be a readily

accessible overhead hatch emergency exit that has a rectangular opening

measuring not less than 51 cm (20 in) wide by 91 cm (36 in) long, with corner

radii not greater than one-third width of the exit.

Additional requirements:

It shall be considered that CS 751ff requires special buoyancy for seaplanes

and amphibians


It shall be demonstrated by test or calculation.

5.3.11 CS 23.901ff Power Plant

CS 23.901 Installation

CS 23.903 Engines and auxiliary power units

Requirement:


regulation. For seaplanes and amphibians the following is very important:

Based on the operation in water the water spray requirements shall be more in

the focus. This is combined with the requirement do deal in addition to normal

water with sea water.

Special water separation devises are recommended in the air intake of the

engine. Also the cleaning of the engine shall be considered to prevent corrosion



79


The general requirements and the additional recommendations shall be

considered during design and test.

5.3.12 CS 23.905ff Propellers

CS 23.905 Propellers

CS 23.907 Propeller vibration

5.3.13 CS 23.925 Propeller clearance

Requirement:


regulation.

For seaplanes and amphibians the following is very important:

The water sprays or in worse case the collision of a propeller blade with “Green”

Water creates much higher stability requirement then propeller for land based

airplanes.

Also the vibration prevention of the propeller may cause more effort because of

the water impact encouragement


Compliance shall be shown by special tests.

5.3.14 CS 23.1322 Warning, caution and advisory lights

Requirement:


regulation.

For seaplanes and amphibians the following is very important:

The erroneous operation of the landing gear handle may case catastrophic

accidents. Based on this a special warning system is recommended using a

blue light for the operation on water (see also 23.777)


Compliance shall be shown by special equipment and adequate tests.

5.3.15 CS 23.1385ff Position light system installation

CS 23.1385 Position light system installation

CS 23.1387 Position light system dihedral angles

CS 23.1389 Position light distribution and intensities



80

Requirement:


regulation.

For seaplanes and amphibians the following is additionally required:

Special lights according the maritime requirements shall be installed in the

airplane.


Compliance shall be shown by special equipment and adequate documentation.

5.3.16 CS 23.1415 Ditching equipment

Requirement:


regulation.

For seaplanes and amphibians the following shall be considered:

Ditching of a seaplane may be a landing configuration outside the normal

operation condition (i.e. abnormal wave height, cross wind or wave direction)

and outside the seaport vicinity. For such cases the equipment shall be similar

that for land based airplanes.


Compliance shall be shown by special equipment.

5.3.17 CS 23.1501 General (OPERATING LIMITATIONS AND INFORMATION)

Requirement:


regulation.


The operating limits on waves hare difficult to be described. This is caused by

the high number of parameters.

New technologies like “Wave Energy Calculation” may be considered to give

the pilot clear indication about his operating limits.


Compliance shall be shown by special equipment and tests.

5.3.18 CS 23.1541 General MARKINGS AND PLACARDS

Requirement:


regulation.



81


Additional placards shall be installed to consider the special requirements.

Especially for Take off and landing, boarding and deboarding.


Compliance shall be shown by documentation.

5.3.19 CS 23.1581 General (AEROPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL)

See comments to CS23.1501



82

6 Summary

It should be assumed that the development of local communication using

amphibian aircraft will have the following aims:

Simplification of plane production and decrease in its costs. It is firstly

connected with the search of new constructional conceptions (plane design

regarding their further development by modification, model construction and

so on).

Decrease in direct operating costs and increase in profitability of the user. It

requires the use of computer software which gives the possibility of complex

plane design.

Increasing the lifespan and safety of the plane.

Improving flight and piloting characteristics influencing the increase in the

safety level. It is connected with the development of supervision systems in

connection with the above mentioned works.

Improving the comfort. Apart from improving the airborne systems (e.g. air-

conditioning) or designing a cockpit with larger dimensions it is connected

with working out aerodynamic systems assisted by active steering systems

guaranteeing minimization of negative feelings of passengers during the

flight in turbulent air.

To make the development of this kind of transport possible and to make it more

competitive in comparison to other branches and fulfill its tasks, the following is

required:

Adjustment of the flight training system to new needs.

Adjustment of the infrastructure and air traffic rules to the increased flight

intensity and the use of air area. It is connected with building and equipping

new small airports and water landing fields as well as creation of information

service system.



83

7 References

1. W. Nelson. Seaplane design. New York : McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1934.

2. W. Brusow. Optymalne projektowanie wielozadaniowych statków latających.

Warszawa : Instytut Lotnictwa, 1996.

3. Remer D. Cesare B. Seaplane Operations: Basic and Advanced Techniques

for Floatplanes, Amphibians, and Flying Boats from Around the World. New

Castle : brak nazwiska, 2004.

4. Remer, Dale De. Water Flying Concepts: An Advanced Text on Wilderness

Water Flying (ASA Training Manuals). Washington : Aviation Supplies &

Academics, 2002.

5. Mees, Burke. Notes of a Seaplane Instructor: An Instructional Guide to

Seaplane Flying (ASA Training Manuals). Washington : Aviation Supplies &

Academics, 2005.

6. M. Langley. Seaplane float and hull design. London : Sir Isaac Pitman and

Sons, 1935.

7. E. Torenbeek. Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design. Delft : Delft University

Press, 1976.

8. Dale De Remer Cesare Baj. Seaplane Operations: Basic and Advanced

Techniques for Floatplanes, Amphibians, and Flying Boats from Around the

World (ASA Training Manuals) . Washington : Aviation Supplies & Academics,

2003.

9. Brusow W. Klepacki Z., Majka A. Airports and Facilities Data Base, EPATS

technical report, Project no: ASA6-CT-2006-044549. Warsaw : Institute of

Aviation, 2007.

10. Central Statistical Office. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland

2010. Warsaw : Central Statistical Office, 2010.

11. U.S. Department of Transportation. Seaplane, Skiplane and Float/Ski

Equipped Helicopter Operations Handbook. Washington : Federal Aviation

Administration, 2004.

12. Seaplane companies. [Online] May 2010.

http://www.seaplanecompanies.com/.



84

13. Polish Air Navigation Services Agency. [Online] December 2010.

http://www.pata.pl.

14. International Civil Aviation Organization. [Online] December 2010.

http://www.icao.int.

15. International Air Transport Association. [Online] December 2010.

http://www.iata.org.

16. German Airports Association. [Online] December 2010. http://www.adv-

net.org.

17. Federal Aviation Administration. [Online] December 2010.

http://www.faa.gov.

18. European Civil Aviation Conference. [Online] December 2010.

http://www.eraa.org.

19. European Communities. Europe in figures, Eurostat yearbook 2008. s.l. :

European Communities, 2008.

20. Eurocontrol. [Online] December 2010. http://www.eurocontrol.int.

21. ESPON. [Online] April 2011. http://www.espon.eu/.

22. Central Statistical Office. Demographic Yearbook of Poland 2010.

Warsaw : Central Statistical Office, 2010.

23. Civil Aviation Office, Poland. [Online] December 2010. http://www.ulc.gov.pl.

24. AOPA. AOPA Online. AOPA. [Online] May 2011. http://www.aopa.org.

25. ICAO. Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,

Aerodromes, Volume I, Aerodrome Design and Operations. brak miejsca :

ICAO, 1990.

26. Airports Council International. [Online] December 2010. http://www.aci-

europe.org.

27. POLISH AIR TRAFFIC AGENCY. Aeronautical Information Publication AIP

Poland, EUR ANP – ICAO, Doc 7754, Part VII AIS. brak miejsca : POLISH AIR

TRAFFIC AGENCY, 2010.

28. ICAO. Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 1, Runways. s.l. : ICAO, 1983.



85

8 Appendix A - Review of technical characteristics of

future amphibians

8.1 L-471

Figure 8.1 Amphibian aircraft L-471

Wingspan, [m] 13,50

Length, [m] 11,80

Height, [m] 4,10

Wing area, [m] 26,30

Empty weight, [kg] 1420

Gross weight, [kg] 1850

Payload weight, [kg] 400

Fuel weight, [kg] 330

Power plant М14P-ХDK

Power, [kW] 265

Maximum speed, [km/h] 215

Cruising speed, [km/h] 175

Range, [km] 1275

Service ceiling, [m] 4000

Crew 1

Pax 3-4

T-O run land / water, [m] 360/470

Table 8.1 L-471 specifications



86

8.2 LA-8

Figure 8.2 Amphibian aircraft LA-8

Wingspan, [m] 13,08

Length, [m] 11,10

Height, [m] 3,40





Fuel capacity, [litres] 380

Power plant LOM PRAHA M-337C

Power, [kW] 2x184



Range, [km] 1200


Crew 1

Pax 7


Table 8.2 LA-8 specifications



87

8.3 SA-20P(OSA)

Figure 8.3 Amphibian aircraft SA-20P(OSA)

Wingspan, [m] 12,72

Length, [m] 10,45

Height, [m] 3,75





Fuel capacity, [kg] 216

Power plant М-14Х

Power, [kW] 265



Range, [km] 900


Crew 1

Pax 5


Table 8.3 SA-20P(OSA) specifications



88

8.4 SK-12 Orion

Figure 8.4 Amphibian aircraft SK-12 Orion

Wingspan, [m] 12,54

Length, [m] 7,94

Height, [m] NDA






Power plant Rotax-912ULS

Power, [kW] 2x74



Range, [km] 1000


Crew 1

Pax 3

T-O run land / water, [m] NDA

Table 8.4 SK-12 Orion specifications



89

8.5 Istok-4

Figure 8.5 Amphibian aircraft Istok-4

Wingspan, [m] 13,20

Length, [m] 8,00

Height, [m] 3,10

Wing area, [m] NDA





Power plant Rotax 912UL

Power, [kW] 2x58



Range, [km] 1000

Service ceiling, [m] NDA

Crew 1

Pax 3


Table 8.5 Istok-4 specifications



90

8.6 Be-103

Figure 8.6 Amphibian aircraft Be-103

Wingspan, [m] 12,72

Length, [m] 10,65

Height, [m] 3,76






Power plant ТСМ 10-360 ES4

Power, [kW] 2x155



Range, [km] 1180


Crew 2

Pax 5


Table 8.6 Be-103 specifications



91

8.7 A-25

Figure 8.7 Amphibian aircraft A-25 AEROPRAKT

Wingspan, [m] 10,60

Length, [m] 7,95

Height, [m] 2,96






Power plant Lycoming IO-540-C485

Power, [kW] 155



Range, [km] 1000


Crew 1

Pax 3


Table 8.7 A-25 AEROPRAKT specifications



92

8.8 C-400 Captain

Figure 8.8 Amphibian aircraft C-400 Captain

Wingspan, [m] 12,30

Length, [m] 7,80

Height, [m] 2,80

Wing area, [m] 16




Fuel capacity, [kg] NDA

Power plant Rotax912ULS

Power, [kW] 2x74



Range, [km] 1200


Crew 1

Pax 3


Table 8.8 C-400 Captain specifications



93

8.9 Pelican-4

Figure 8.9 Amphibian aircraft Pelican-4

Wingspan, [m] 11,00

Length, [m] 6,90

Height, [m] 2,50






Power plant Rotax 912ULS

Power, [kW] 2x76



Range, [km] 1200


Crew 1

Pax 3

T-O run land / water, [m] 150/NDA

Table 8.9 Pelican-4 specifications



94

8.10 LAKE 250 RENEGADE

Figure 8.10 Amphibian aircraft Lake 250 Renegade

Wingspan, [m] 11,58

Length, [m] 8,64

Height, [m] 3,05






Power plant Lycoming IO-540-C4B5

Power, [kW] 186



Range, [km] 1668


Crew 1

Pax 5


Table 8.10 Lake 250 Renegade specifications



95

8.11 Thurston TA16 Trojan

Figure 8.11 Amphibian aircraft Thurston TA16 Trojan

Wingspan, [m] 11,28

Length, [m] 8,28

Height, [m] 3,28






Power plant Lycoming O-540-A4D5

Power, [kW] 186



Range, [km] 1600


Crew 1

Pax 3


Table 8.11 Thurston TA16 Trojan specifications



96

8.12 CENTAUR 6

Figure 8.12 Amphibian aircraft CENTAUR 6

Wingspan, [m] 13,65

Length, [m] 11,15

Height, [m] NDA

Wing area, [m] NDA




Fuel capacity, [kg] NDA

Power plant Lycoming IO-540-C

Power, [kW] 220

Maximum speed, [km/h] NDA


Range, [km] 2220


Crew 1

Pax 5


Table 8.12 CENTAUR 6 specifications



97

9 Appendix B - Review of technical characteristics of

future floatplanes

9.1 Cessna 180

Figure 9.1 Floatplane Cessna 180

Wingspan, [m] 10,92

Length, [m] 7,85

Height, [m] 2,36






Power plant IO-540

Power, [kW] 170



Range, [km] NDA


Crew 1

Pax 3


Table 9.1 Cessna 180 specifications



98

9.2 Cessna 182

Figure 9.2 Figure 9.3 Floatplane Cessna 182

Wingspan, [m] 11,00

Length, [m] 8,84

Height, [m] 2,80






Power plant IO-540

Power, [kW] 170



Range, [km] NDA


Crew 1

Pax 3


Table 9.2 Floatplane Cessna 182 specifications



99

9.3 Cessna 185


Wingspan, [m] 10,92

Length, [m] 7,85

Height, [m] 2,36






Power plant IO-520

Power, [kW] 224



Range, [km] NDA


Crew 1

Pax 5





100

9.4 Cessna 206


Wingspan, [m] 10,97

Length, [m] 8,61

Height, [m] 2,83






Power plant IO-540

Power, [kW] 224



Range, [km] NDA


Crew 1

Pax 5





101

9.5 Cessna 208


Wingspan, [m] 15,88

Length, [m] 12,67

Height, [m] 4,32






Power plant PT6A-114A

Power, [kW] 497



Range, [km] 1522


Crew 1

Pax 9





102

9.6 de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III

Figure 9.7 Floatplane de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III

Wingspan, [m] 14,63

Length, [m] 9,22

Height, [m] 2,74






Power plant Pratt & Whitney R-985

Power, [kW] 405



Range, [km] 1234


Crew 1

Pax 7


Table 9.6 de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III specifications



103

9.7 de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter

Figure 9.8 de Havilland DHC-6 Floatplane Twin Otter

Wingspan, [m] 19,81

Length, [m] 15,09

Height, [m] 6,10

Wing area, [m] 39





Power plant Pratt & Whitney PT6-34

Power, [kW] 2x552



Range, [km] NDA


Crew 2

Pax 19

T-O run land / water, [m] NDA

Table 9.7 de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter specifications



104

9.8 Piper PA-18

Figure 9.9 Floatplane Piper PA-18

Wingspan, [m] 10,73

Length, [m] 6,88

Height, [m] 2,02






Power plant Lycoming O-320

Power, [kW] 112



Range, [km] NDA


Crew 1

Pax 1


Table 9.8 Piper PA-18 specifications



105

10 Appendix C - Review of technical characteristics of

modified versions of existing land-based aircraft

10.1 MORRISON 6

Figure 10.1 MORRISON 6

Category Base Amphibious

floatplane

Engine, [kW] 298 298

Wing span, [m] 10.92 10.92

Length overall, [m] 9.12 9.12

Weight empty, [kg] 1181 1394

Max. fuel weight, [kg] 410 410

Max. payload, [kg] 466 466

Max. T-O weight, [kg] 2018 2232

Max. operating speed, [km/h] 383 358

Service ceiling, [m] 3460 2146

T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 460 580

T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 670

T-O run (on land), [m] 308 399

T-O run (on water), [m] 489

Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km] 1598 1296

Crew / Pax 1/5

Table 10.1 MORRISON 6 specifications



106

10.2 Cessna 172R

Figure 10.2 Cessna 172R


floatplane


Wing span, [m] 11.00 11.00








T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 335 429





Crew / Pax 1/3

Table 10.2 Cessna 172 R specifications



107

10.3 Cessna 182T

Figure 10.3 Cessna 182T


floatplane


Wing span, [m] 10.97 10.97








T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 368 474





Crew / Pax 1/3

Table 10.3 Cessna 182T specifications



108

10.4 Cessna 206H

Figure 10.4 Cessna 206H


floatplane


Wing span, [m] 10.97 10.97








T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 359 455





Crew / Pax 1/5

Table 10.4 Cessna 206H specifications



109

10.5 Cessna 208 CARAVAN

Figure 10.5 Cessna 208 Caravan


floatplane


Wing span, [m] 15.88 15.88








T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 576 718





Crew / Pax 1/9

Table 10.5 Cessna 208 Caravan specifications



110

10.6 GA-8 Airvan

Figure 10.6 GA-8 Airvan


floatplane


Wing span, [m] 12.28 12.28








T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 398 505





Crew / Pax 1/7

Table 10.6 GA-8 Airvan specifications



111

10.7 EXPLORER 500T

Figure 10.7 Explorer 500T


floatplane


Wing span, [m] 14.43 14.43








T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 533 679





Crew / Pax 1/9

Table 10.7 Explorer 500T specifications



112

10.8 T-101 GRACH

Figure 10.8 T-101 Grach


floatplane


Wing span, [m] 18.20 18.20








T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 500 598





Crew / Pax 1/9

Table 10.8 T-101 Grach specifications



113

10.9 VulcanAir P68C

Figure 10.9 VulcanAir P68C

Category Base Amphibious floatplane

Amphibian

Engine, [kW] 2x157 2x157 2x157

Wing span, [m] 12.00 12.00 12.00

Length overall, [m] 9.55 9.55 9.55

Weight empty, [kg] 1427 1700 1507

Max. fuel weight, [kg] 543 543 543

Max. payload, [kg] 477 477 477

Max. T-O weight, [kg] 2192 2465 2272

Max. operating speed, [km/h] 315 290 307

Service ceiling, [m] 4320 2922 3894

T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 551 706 597

T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 786 662

T-O run (on land), [m] 272 364 299

T-O run (on water), [m] 443 364

Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km]

1371 1191 1324

Crew / Pax 1/5

Table 10.9 VulcanAir P68C specifications



114

10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B

Figure 10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B


Amphibian

Engine, [kW] 2x224 2x224 2x224

Wing span, [m] 14.94 14.94 14.94

Length overall, [m] 10.86 10.86 10.86

Weight empty, [kg] 2076 2396 2161


Max. payload, [kg] 840 840 840

Max. T-O weight, [kg] 3066 3386 3152



T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 532 656 565

T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 711 611

T-O run (on land), [m] 260 334 280



581 524 564

Crew / Pax 1/9

Table 10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B specifications



115

10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T

Figure 10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T


Amphibian

Engine, [kW] 2x298 2x298 2x298

Wing span, [m] 14.94 14.94 14.94

Length overall, [m] 10.86 10.86 10.86

Weight empty, [kg] 1854 2155 1929


Max. payload, [kg] 1069 1069 1069

Max. T-O weight, [kg] 3202 3503 3277



T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 488 587 514

T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 651 570

T-O run (on land), [m] 231 286 246



1324 1133 1237

Crew / Pax 1/9

Table 10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T specifications



116

10.12 HAI Y-12

Figure 10.12 HAI Y-12


Amphibian

Engine, [kW] 2x462 2x462 2x462

Wing span, [m] 17.24 17.24 17.24

Length overall, [m] 14.86 14.86 14.86

Weight empty, [kg] 2636 3112 2794


Max. payload, [kg] 1700 1700 1700

Max. T-O weight, [kg] 4834 5310 4992



T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 641 784 690

T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 873 770

T-O run (on land), [m] 325 408 355



2141 1934 2013

Crew / Pax 2/18

Table 10.12 HAI Y-12 specifications



117

10.13 M-28

Figure 10.13 M-28


Amphibian

Engine, [kW] 2x810 2x810 2x810

Wing span, [m] 22.06 22.06 22.06

Length overall, [m] 13,10 13,10 13,10

Weight empty, [kg] 4438 4925 4628


Max. payload, [kg] 2546 2546 2546

Max. T-O weight, [kg] 7564 8051 7754



T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 682 776 720

T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 843 782

T-O run (on land), [m] 354 409 377



1126 916 986

Crew / Pax 2/18

Table 10.13 M-28 specifications

Documents

Requirements for a future seaplane/amphibian transport system · Requirements for a future seaplane/amphibian transport system Author Andrzej Majka Department of Aircrafts and Aircraft