Earl Pike Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Has any-one flown an Osprey amphibian? How do they go, on land and water? let me know before I start to build one. Earl Pike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brentc Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Which one Earl, the singe or the 2 seater? I can put you in touch with someone that used to fly the single seater and now flies the two seater (which was for sale in RA mag a few months back? Email me [email protected] and I'll put you in touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark11 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Old thread - not many replies... Anyone flown the two seater ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I have quite a few hours in the two seat Osprey 2. Frankly it was the only aircraft I've flown that was worse than the original short KR2 with 2PoB. I've not yet seen one that can be, or has been, built to the design weight and as a result the stall speed is way faster than advertised (surprise, surprise). The stall is sudden with a rapid wing-drop and can have you inverted in an instant. The water landings are tricky to say the least, attempting to land slowly almost always results in a bounce and ending up six feet off and fully stalled - not a nice situation with a high wing-loading, necessarily quite small prop diameter and a low aspect ratio wing. Water landing fast is also tricky because the very low wing results in huge ground effect making it resist settling. On-land landings tend to be a matter of ka-thump as the main gear is a bit further aft than optimal (to allow the wheels to retract with simple geometry behind the main spar), so to manage a gentle landing you need the mains below the CG at touchdown and to achieve that you need to be quite nose high and consequently quite near the stall which is uncomfortable and risky in anything other than very smooth air. We found 70kts to be an absolute minimum safe approach and landing speed, 75-80kts felt better, and given that max cruise speed was only about 90kts it doesn't have much of a performance envelope. The high thrust line doesn't produce the large power-on/power-off pitch change that might be expected as the HS is well positioned and at a good trim angle, so that's a rare positive for the design. On-water ops (taxying) are also difficult in anything other than flat water. Because it opens from the front and the cabin has very minimal freeboard you can't have the canopy open in even a very slight chop or else you flood the cabin and panel with water. If you taxy with the canopy closed in a chop the canopy gets covered in droplets and you can't see where you're going so the only option is taxying fast, up on the plane, which can be quite dangerous in confined areas. Overall, it's a dog, but that's just my opinion. It's notable that a high proportion of them have been destroyed while making water landings, as was the one I knew. It was cartwheeled on a Queensland dam after a bounced landing by a many-thousand hour instructor. I'm not sure if it's true or not but it's well rumoured that after flying one Paul Poberezny (the founder of the EAA) suggested that George Pereira might do better to go back to designing apartments ... For someone interested in a kindly handling floating hull aircraft the Thurston and Volmer designs are generally highly regarded, but once again that's only my opinion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 HITC that's one of the best reports I've seen. You support all your contentions with facts. Amphibious aircraft are not always.the experience we imagine them to be. They are compromised with a high thrust line inevitably and extra weight and drag, plus you nee to be a "boat" type of person as well. When you shut off the engine you have a fairly ungainly bit of gear, the breeze blows anywhere. By all means use one if you need to or can justify it to yourself but there are extra hazards. They have a "magic " all of their own. I grew up opposite Rathmines in the 50's so I'm hooked, hopelessly.. Nev 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark11 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Thanks HITC for taking the time to provide your very informative reply. I love flying trikes and I'll keep mine as long as I live... But Ive got a burning ambition to get a Seamax, Searey, Superpetrel or if they ever actually deliver one, an Icon A5... I'm going to have to go second hand as I'm not going to have $160k to spend on one... Not having been in any of them- I have no idea of what might be the right one for me... Saw the ad for the Osprey and was keen to get some feedback - and great feedback indeed! Much appreciated Mark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now