A few questions for anyone and all. Seaplanes and airplanes. The aircraft deals with the one environment while the seaplane deals with both. From the unknowing point of view.(mine).
It seems to me that hull designs aren't what they should be. While heavy general aircraft can enjoy a power upgrade to get a stable hull airborne. For an U/L. Efficiency is the correct choice .Sometime sacrificing stability for weight . But what is the correct choice?
The dynamics of the water would say streamline cutting hull low drag.
Or Should we be using a flying hull .like a hydroplane? I looked at many attempts to turn U/L into seaplanes before I made my choices. Frankly I didn't succeed there. My plane sucks in the water literally.It works but only barely. My plane[Norms flying boat] for those that may read this only.
I am redesigning the hull and looking for a better way to get it done.
Question why do you think the weight shift Zodiac float plane gets airborne at all???
Is it by Power alone or is there something else at work here? A tunnel hull effect maybe?
If a person can ski on there bare feet at X miles per hour behind a boat.
Then there must be a factor out there that says exactly what amount of square ft of surface. For a given speed, for a given weight.
Is there a chart or calculation table out there some where?
I studied A boat called the Talon a pickle fork tunnel hull.This boat fly's over the water not in it. it lifts on the air trap between the hulls and rides on very small surface .70 mph with a 1/8th inch of ice was a cold but short ride to the oyster beds. 1 and only ride in it.
I plan something to transfer this effect to my plane with a like configuration skiing on narrow outboard hull with a proper concave tunnel rather than a boat hull.
Your comments and contributions to the problem will be well appreciated .confirming or descending views.