Marty_d

Both the Harrier and F4 Phantom (and probably many others) have HS with so much anhedral that they're almost an inverted swallow tail.

Tail strike would be an issue, but with this particular aircraft the position of the prop itself is also a worry!

Vision was apparently not a requirement??

Silly buggers installed the nosegear backwards. 

Unless it's an optical illusion, there seems to be a small hinged door on the port side of the front cockpit visible in the yellow one.

So according to one of those pics, Qantas flew these?

The Curtiss looks good for married couples.   Passenger is too far away to be a backseat driver.

Only 2 rows of 9.

"The Avid Amphibian and Catalina could also be built without water operations capability. This variation of the aircraft was dubbed the "Landphibian"..."

Why???

Amazingly narrow wings and tiny HS.  Looks like the whole fuselage is a lifting body.

Nice looking amphib. 

Why couldn't Westland think of a different name,  given they'd already built a Whirlwind?

Jeez, you could grow tomatoes in that greenhouse. 

Service ceiling:  16 ft.  Love it.

At that altitude the top of the tail is 5x higher than the service ceiling.

That's a pretty plane.  

8 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Sorry don't like the tail plane shape; looks wrong.

Hmmmm... no... like that too!

That's ok.  It'd be a boring old world if we found the same aircraft attractive.

I like it.  If Santa were to bring me one I wouldn't say no.

Obviously a couple of different variations of the type - check out the difference in tail in picture 3, which features an all-flying tail exactly like the 701, compared to the fat-ass fin and rudder of the other 3 pics.  Also full flaperons rather than the internal flaps/ailerons of the others.

She's a beauty for sure, but MTOW is fairly low at 472.5kg.  If it takes 70L of fuel that's around 50kg, leaves only 125kg for pilot, passenger and luggage.  

Not sure I can fit passenger and luggage in 25kg!

Certainly bears a remarkable resemblance to the C-17.

27 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

From memory most of it is fabric over an aluminium tube frame

 

Glad no-one took that bet then!

There's not much to it when you look at how he's done it.  Underside of the fuselage pod is triangular section, those tail booms (which look like boxy air intakes but actually separate from the fuse pod) appear to be almost 2-dimensional, ie very thin.  I'd almost be tempted to call that wing "swept back" rather than delta (despite the straight TE) as it's got a reasonable span vs chord.  The front strakes appear to be flat too.

Willing to bet it's mostly out of thin aluminium, 0.016" or 0.020" at the max.

You could always shoehorn a 912 in it.  Might need a short 5-bladed prop to clear the tailbooms though.

I like that aluminium version.  That's very schmick.  Possibly a good candidate for polishing instead of painting.

" The standard undercarriage is of tricycle configuration, though a conventional undercarriage is an option. "

I think taildragger was "conventional" up until about 1950.... 

That's very pretty. I like the British racing green fuse with silver wings & HT, spectacular scheme.