Splash and Dash Searey Seaplane Delights                            Apr 30 6:45 Guest User - Request Membership Layout | Log In | Help | Videos | Site | Emails  Search:   Front Page Calendar Photos Add Photos News Add News File Cabinet Add File Cabinet History Add History * Searey Info * Add * Searey Info * Polls Add Polls Classifieds Add Classifieds Utilities Create a New Site  News View All News | Add News | Emoticons | Mark Unread Search News:      Category: 32,General BS Previous Item - re introduction This will go to the previous thread in this topic.       Favorite option: If you want this item to be marked as a favorite, click on the black heart.   Questions from the peanut gallery      Greg Spires - Dec 23,2003   Viewers  | Reply     For you guys on the tech site...<br /><br />About how many people are currently building?<br /><br />About how long does it take to build the SeaRey?<br /><br />What part of the design would you improve?<br /><br />At what part of the construction did you find the hardest?          Don Maxwell - Dec 23,2003   Viewers  | Reply     How many? All of us. A SeaRey is never completely finished.<br /><br />How long? Not long--and forever. (About 850 hours to certification for me.)<br /><br />What part? The docking module.<br /><br />Hardest part? Staying married.<br />          John Robert Dunlop - Dec 24,2003   Viewers  | Reply     Same as Don.<br />About 1200 to certification (including scratching my head.)<br />Gear and Gear supports.<br />Painting!<br /><br />          Frank Noordhuis - Dec 24,2003   Viewers  | Reply     My advice, when you get down to 90% done the last 10% takes as long as the first 90%.<br /><br />850 hrs for me plus 300-300 hrs in dreams and nightmares.<br /><br />(Hardest part? Staying married.)<br />Take the wife to a hypnotist first, have them implant the thought ' it's only money - Searey's are good'<br /><br />Covering and painting hardest... but was a joy to do.<br />          Chris Vernon-Jarvis - Dec 24,2003   Viewers  | Reply     Posted before but it went into cyberspace.<br />Still building ? Yes, probably forever<br />How long? 810 hrs. Evactly a year if I had not taken 3 months off.<br />Improve? Gear.<br />Hardest part? Getting it done.          Greg Spires - Dec 26,2003   Viewers  | Reply     Thanks for the responses, guys. I did notice a few of you stopped for an egg nog before getting to your PC. I think I could handle the construction fine. As a second and very long term project I plan to build a Skybolt or DR-109 from plans. That should have the wife and the dogs divorcing me.<br /><br />Dreams are great, but I really have to make something before long.          Frank A. Carr - Dec 29,2003   Viewers  | Reply     Greg, I have kit # 285, still building, and there may be earlier kit numbers in the actual construction phase as well I'm up to ~400 hours, with the fuselage, one wing, all control surfaces assembled; no covering, no painting yet, and only the design and cut out of the panel completed. I'd like a design that was fully compatable with a BRS at MGW and one that had no propensity to nose over in water. My hardest part was the year I've spent designing and building a home (and now, packing to move) in parallel with the SR. I really don't care how long it takes (since I enjoy building it) so long as I still have my medical in order to fly it and enjoy at the end of the tunnel. Frank in FMY          Greg Spires - Dec 30,2003   Viewers  | Reply     Thanks, Frank. Sounds like you are a very busy person and are about due for a break.<br /><br />How great of a propensity is there for a nose-over in water and how do all of the rest of you deal with it?<br /><br />Do you generally feel good about its water landing qualities or is it always wanting to smite you if aren't really vigilant?          Dan Nickens - Dec 30,2003   Viewers  | Reply     Well Greg, I hate to admit that Col. Gracy is right but he has cut to the chase. The SeaRey has absolutely no propensity for nosing over in the water. SeaRey pilots, on the other hand, have shown great inventiveness in coming up with wild ways to go swimming. The sad truth is that there is no seaplane that can't be sunk and no airplane that can't be crashed. It's a matter of risk management. Prudent, proficient partisans of planes can part the ponds with poise, panache and pride protected from a profusion of proverbial piloting perils.          Chet Tims - Dec 31,2003   Viewers  | Reply     Greg....ditto what Dan said, but with the following addition:<br />Proper planning prevents piss-poor performance.          Greg Spires - Jan 02,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Well said. I thought a little skill was all that was required. If you guys would spray just a little less when you pronounce your P's then I wouldn't have to wipe my monitor off as much. <br /><br />Hey, I thought of a nice gadget addition for your planes for those glassy days. Hang a laser measuring device out of the cockpit facing down to read the distance to the water. <br />Thanks again and have a fun day.          Don Maxwell - Jan 02,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Greg, I hadn't been keeping up with electronic tape measure development--but just now I found one that the manufacturer (lasermeters.com) claims will measure distances up to 200 meters +/- 3mm 'in any weather.' 200 meters is about 650 feet--meaning that if it really worked 'in any weather' it would be a (relatively) cheap low-level altimeter. <br /><br />Maybe. But I wouldn't want to need one for flying.          Greg Spires - Jan 02,2004   Viewers  | Reply     I wouldn't want to need one either, but after Dan's Lady of the Lake words from a few weeks ago ( 'The view from the cockpit told me I should have been on the water. There was, however, no welcoming bump. Instead there was only an impossible velvet smoothness.<br /><br />A furtive glance at the airspeed indicator provided a swift kick in the butt. It was pointing dangerously towards stall with no sign of being on the water. With a locking grip on the stick and deliberate application of throttle I escaped from the trap I put myself in') I figured a little additional instrumentation might have given him the answer. You should check out my ideas for devices to rough up glassy water. But devices might remove Dan's reasons for prose.          Chris Vernon-Jarvis - Jan 02,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Question: Do laser tapes measure to water surface?<br /><br />This opens a whole new area for discussion but is could be very, very interesting. I have no idea what a proper radar low level altimeter costs but I'll bet it is lots and lots.<br /><br />Has anyone gotr one of these things they can just go out and hold over the lake? (Our lake is covered in snao and I don't have one anyway.<br /><br />Why did we not think of this before?          Dan Nickens - Jan 03,2004   Viewers  | Reply     A micrometer laser for glassy water landings? Uh, no thanks. I'm not sure I could make an instrument approach with 200 foot ceilings and 1/2 mile visibility anymore. A glassy water landing relying on instrumentation would be like a zero-zero approach. The great thing about having a recreational amphibian is that you shouldn't have to make impossibly difficult or high risk approaches.          Dan Nickens - Jan 03,2004   Viewers  | Reply     In 'Seaplane Operations' by De Remer and Baj there is a section devoted to various schemes for roughing the surface of the water before landing. The authors advise against using any of them. They do seem to make an exception, however, for 'heavily armed' aircraft in times of war. Anybody know where desperate seaplane pilots can buy surplus bombs?          Chris Vernon-Jarvis - Jan 03,2004   Viewers  | Reply     I was not intending to do blind or instrument approaches. Don't know about you Dan but we get glassy water on the very finest of clear blue sky flying days. It just seemed to me that if you knew you were10 ft ........ 8 ft ....... 6ft........4 ft........ 2 ft,....... 1 ft.........0 ft off the water you would know when you were going to touch down. <br /><br />Seems to me there are two main problems about glassy water, first is that you can't tell how high you are, when I was training with Fred I was a good 10 ft out with prtetty well every estimation, ((he wasn't, but then he won't always be there,) and the other is the problem of hydraulic drag. We have to deal with the latter by using care and proper technique because modifying the plane is probably out of proportion, just maybe us novices could deal with the former by installing a simple laser tape. Can it hurt to see if they will work on a water surface?<br /><br />I know a lot of you guys just avaoid glassy water but the chaps flying tourists out of here don't really have the choice and they fly a whole load of glassy water stuff every year, just routine. Bit of a pain to get home after a two hour flight and have to decide to divert thirty miles with no ground transport available because there is no wind.<br /><br />          Dan Nickens - Jan 03,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Well, Chris, it is the considered opinion of some renowned seaplane pilots that landing on glassy water without visual clues is like an absolutely blind instrument approach. Adding another instrument won't make it any less so.<br /><br />Check it out: the most experience seaplane pilots are unanimous. 'Glassy water operations are the most dangerous in seaplane flying.' Water Flying, F. T. Kurt. 'Glassy water conditions are the most dangerous situation for those who fly from water...' Seaplane Operations, De Remer and Baj. 'Flat, or glassy, water is probably the single most dangerous water condition a floatplane pilot can face.' Flying a Floatplane, M. Faure. 'Glassy water, without the faintest ripple, especially if accompanied by a fog or haze which obscures the shore line or horizon, produces the most dangerous condition that a seaplane pilot is likely to encounter...' Seaplanes, Maneuvering, Maintaining Operating, Daniel Brimm, Jr.<br /><br />I know this topic has been thoroughly disgusted on the technical side and John has summarized most of it in his tips files. It ultimately boils down to just another risk analysis. I wonder how many of those paying passengers understand the 'routine' risk. If they did, would they mind the diversion?          Chris Vernon-Jarvis - Jan 04,2004   Viewers  | Reply     I think your'e making my point Dan.<br /><br />The worst part of glassy water work is not being able to judge height just before touchdown. What if you can provide a very precise height guide right at that point, and cheaply too?(well relatively.) I am not talking about instrument approaches, IFR, foggy days, landing in cloud etc. I am just saying that knowing your exact height during the last few feet would be a huge advance.<br /><br />We have to get someone to check if Laser tapes actually reflect from water surface first, all this argument might be moot if it does not. <br /><br />Anyway why are you so dead against just seeing if it helps? Is there some massive taboo about making glassy water landings a little less risky? When we had a problem with landing gear we looked at several ways of lowering the risk, Might be a bit of a breakthrough, not just for Seareys but for all floatplanes!<br /><br /><br />          Dan Nickens - Jan 04,2004   Viewers  | Reply     There are many pages associated with the topic in the cited sources, Chris. I only quoted the conclusion. Hazards associated with glassy water are many and varied. Is judging height above the water the 'worst' part? It certainly is a factor, but not the only hazard. My point is this: the laser range finder (if it worked perfectly) would just be another instrument to be used in making the approach. Is it worthwhile to tug on the Lady's skirt relying on technology to make a landing that isn't necessary? I'm not against getting all the help I can get. Like Frank, I just can't see that a perfectly functional range finder is going to reduce the risk of glassy water landings to a level making it acceptable for 'routine' landings in a recreational vehicle. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.          Chris Vernon-Jarvis - Jan 04,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Thing is Dan, a good part of the reason those sources had for citing the danger was that they could not judge the height off the water and apart from very, very expensive radar altimeter technology there was nothing around to help them. Sooner or later someone comes along with a reasonable solution. Trouble is by then we are all so tied into the culture we just say no without asking whether it could work. By the same token we should not have stall warnings, AoA indicators, gear horns, etc etc etc,,,,,,,,,,          Dan Nickens - Jan 05,2004   Viewers  | Reply     As you pointed out, Chris, judging height above water is just one of the problems. And there are many questions and reliability issues to be addressed with the range finder. I'm pretty sure it would be fun to test it out, but I'm also sure it's not necessary to my enjoyment of the SeaRey.<br /><br />If you want a fully capable airplane you can deck it out with instruments and have a full IFR platform. It's not a bad idea, it's just not what I'd want in a recreational toy. And that's my point: do you want something fun to fly? From what I've seen that's where the KISS principal becomes important. Do you want an all purpose, go anywhere any time machine? Like Frank says, 'Buy a Caravan.' (Well, okay, I admit that'd be fun too!)          Greg Spires - Jan 05,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Boy, I guess I kicked the fire ant mound pretty well. By the way, if laser doesn't work then sonar might. The predecessor to the laser tape was a sonar tape. Of course, the device would like you to put a piece of sheetrock on the water first just so it feels at home.<br /><br />On water cohesion and adhesion in glassy water, here are my lunatic ravings... 1. extendible fingers in theforward part of the hull that would rough water for the rear (not enough to disturb pitch though) 2. a porous hull that could have air expelled through it as tiny bubbles. 3. small ridges in the hull surface so that contact is not with a flat surface. This also traps air to act like the compressed air in #2. 4. an Alka Seltzer coated hull (many bugs to work out with this one) 5. a biodegradable detergent release from the front of the hull at time of touchdown (boy wouldn't the ecologists love that one?)<br /><br />I'll go back to sleep now and wait for the guys in the white uniforms to come pick me up.          Don Maxwell - Jan 05,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Dan, I agree that KISS is (or ought to be) the motto for SeaReys. On the other hand, fun comes in lots of varieties, and what's unnecessary for one person might be indispensable to another. The main thing to keep in mind, I think, is what options can work safely and effectively on all SeaReys. Then each person chooses his own options.<br /><br />Well, duh. That's obvious enough.<br /><br />I'm curious about whether a laser thingie really would work as an altimeter for water ops--but not enough to go buy one today.<br /><br />On the other other hand, water conditions are different in different places. In central Florida, there are lots of open lakes, with few trees to break the wind--so there are often ripples on the surface. (You might be tempted to say I'm just breaking wind now!) <br /><br />In central Virginia, however, the situation is very different. There are only two natural lakes in the whole state, and most of the terrain is wooded. So (aside from the Chesapeake Bay) most of the waterways here are rivers, and most lakes are long, narrow, winding, and surrounded by acres of 100-foot trees. That means smooth water is more the norm here than in Florida. <br />So if I lived on one of those lakes, as Jeff does, and if I wouldn't fly off glassy water, I'd almost never fly at all!<br /><br />Jeff would have to hire someone to run past on a jetski, just so he could take off, and arranging to land would be a big pain in the, uh, tail assembly.<br /><br />Not bragging--in fact, this stat worries me a bit--but I've logged 8 glassy-water landings since September, and there were probably 8 or 10 others in which the water was very, very smooth. <br /><br />Each time, at 200 feet the water surface looked 'visible,' but on short final it disappeared completely. And each time I did a standard glassy-water landing--approached over an LVR, 3500 rpm and 150 fpm--and just kept right on flying until seeing spray at the sides.<br /><br />That technique worked because there was lots of water and I was able to be patient. Patience, I think, is the real key to a successful glassy-water landing. Those landings ate up MILES of water! In fact, my one scary glassy-water experience came when I lost patience and tried to land the thing. <br /><br />(In that same period I also aborted at least a dozen water landings because I didn't know my height and hadn't prepared for that possibility.)<br /><br />Now, the question is: Would some kind of laser, sonar, or radar altimeter, displaying my absolute height +/- 3 mm, have helped in those landings?<br /><br />I'm not sure--but probably not.<br /><br />It would have been nice to know absolutely when I was, say, 10 feet above the surface. Or 5, or 2. But the landing wouldn't have been any different. It still would have required the same power setting and gradual sink rate. And patience.<br /><br />But then, this is just a low-time SeaRey pilot's idle speculation on a rainy day. We'll never know anything for sure until someone actually tries it and reports back.          Bret Smith - Jan 05,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Chris. This group is like a bucket of crabs. One tries to crawl out and the others grab him and pull him back in. If I had listened to comments from this group I would have never installed my stall tab. It works wonderfully and is right as rain all the time. Words like gilhooley, KISS, weight, waste of time, and the famous 'SeaRey is not an IFR machine' are very familiar around here and are to me just an excuse to not do anything.<br /><br />I am very interested in the laser idea even though I am not very interested in doing glassy water landings. I hope you try it out (not in glassy water) and report back.<br /><br />And even though we all seem to agree that glassy water landings are an advanced manuver in any seaplane, it is informative to get reports from Don and Dan about their glassy water operations in a SeaRey.          Don Maxwell - Jan 05,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Bret, as you know, Dan is the one with Experience. He knows The Lady of the Lake intimately. I'm just a beginner with a C hull, which no matter what anyone says about it is a lot more forgiving--and therefore requires somewhat less expertise--than the A and B hulls.          Rick Oreair - Jan 05,2004   Viewers  | Reply     As my memory focuses as well as it can focus (less than 20/20) glassy water has two distinctly different problems, one more manageable than the other. First is the depth of perception problem which is probably the most dangerous, and then the 'suction' problem. As best as I can remember from my float plane training, the suction problem was more of an 'unsticking' problem that is it was harder to takeoff. I have landed on the waterways behind my house, which are always glassy. There isn't any depth perception problem as there is marsh grass within a wingtips distance. Landings are incredibly smooth, and so far no tendency to nose over. I think to say never to land on glassy water is not taking into account all situations. Perhaps never landing on glassy water with NO visual references would be more appropriate. What do yo say Colonel??          John Robert Dunlop - Jan 05,2004   Viewers  | Reply     My turn! My turn! My turn!<br /><br />So there I was in Picton following Doug and Dave in multiple splashes in a large calm area near the Sand Banks. Day was quickly fading into evening.<br />Then I had a bad one and the tail wheel caught with a thump. By the time I got sorted out they were way ahead and I cut the corner to catch up.<br /><br />The next hurried landing was still cutting the corner and I found myself 'heading out to sea' so to speak with the last 20 feet (to my unplanned astonishment) without any depth or lateral reference. And my distraction let me forget my bleeding airspeed (As the Brits say 'watch your bleed'n airspeed!!')<br /><br />But as I automatically added power and looked ahead to the horizon, it was there! The HUD transparently indicated a steady 50 mph and the female voice in my headset was a luscious: '10', '5', '2', '1' swishhhhhhhhhh...... <br /><br />HUD data display with laser-actuated voice warning available soon, at Canadian Light Amphibians (as soon as I get my daughters voice-trained.)<br />          Dan Nickens - Jan 05,2004   Viewers  | Reply     “Gilhooley, KISS, weight, waste of time, and the famous 'SeaRey is not an IFR machine' are words signifying an excuse not to do anything? <br /><br />Well, EXCUSE ME, Bret. Have you looked at my airplane recently? It has satellite weather, solid state IFR, AOA, multiple GPS navigators, and that’s the just the start! The only thing it lacks is an autopilot. You really cut it, Man! Bring it on! Anytime, anywhere! You’ve been talking like you have a big hat but you ain’t got no cattle. I know you’ve been ducking me. Now it’s me and you, Bubba.<br /><br />I speak from experience when I say that for my recreational enjoyment none of these toys improved my SeaRey experience. I just want to have fun. The junk I’ve added only makes me think of work. And I’m not saying I won’t add a laser, though I may mount it horizontally so as I can shoot at you, Bret.<br /><br />Rick nailed the crux of the problem here. Let me see if I can make this point in plain ENGLISH: you don’t have to make glassy water landings without visual references in the SeaRey. Okay, anyone that don’t understand that can stand in line with Bret for a whipping.<br /><br />Now for the record, I do make landings on glassy water KNOWING full well there is a higher level of risk. I try to minimize the risk by taking full use of available visual references. I have never seen a situation where adequate references weren’t available.<br /><br />It should be known up front that depth perception is just one of the problems. It’s been well stated that dramatically increased hydrodynamic drag is another factor. The C hull does offer improved resistance to the submarine tuck, but it doesn’t offer immunity. Lord help the poor C hull pilot that lets the thing porpoise on glassy water.<br /><br />And there are other problems to consider. Can you spot the obstacles lying below a mirrored surface? Maybe we can find us some X-ray spectacles to solve that problem. Do you know the right speed for the weight to prevent excessive float and extended exposure to the hazards? Is the airspeed indicator operating normally? How about the VSI? When did you check them last? What about the loss of horizon if there is mist or fog? What about conditions leading to the appearance of a false horizon? Or how about the many optical illusions inherent to the mirrored water phenomena? How many can even remember what they are from seaplane school? What if a passenger disturbs your trim by shifting to get her pocketbook out of the back? And the list goes on.<br /><br />The author of “Water Flying,” Franklin Kurt, says it best. “In forty two years of flying, with at least half the hours flown in seaplanes, I have often practiced and checked others on instrument let downs to glassy water in such places as the middle of Long Island Sound, Lake Ontario, and off the Cuban shore. However, I have never HAD to make even one. The reason should be obvious. No one ever has a flight objective to such places. There is nothing out there to go to. (Perhaps there is an exception; several times after a practice session, we have all gone overboard and taken skinny-dips.) We use seaplanes to fly to where we want to go. Always, in daytime, that is a visual objective we can use to set up a safe letdown. Does that answer the question?”<br /><br />Hah! It may be obvious to his readers. This site, however, is a whole nother experience!<br />          Dan Nickens - Jan 05,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Well, Greg, while we wait for Frank aka “Dee King” Gracy to set up the big show, and John finishes his work on the sexy HUD-Lite, I want to address the foolishness that led to this diatribe. You referenced the flippant posting that I made concerning a glassy water landing. I mentioned that I had lost my reference to height, and I had. It all started innocently enough with a calculated landing based upon a variety of references including reeds, shoreline and a patch of slightly rippled water. The problem was that I out flew my references and the rippled water faded to glass. The trap I made for myself was to try to continue the approach. It is a fundamental law of seaplane operation that you cannot mix visual and attitude (instrument approach) landing techniques for glassy water landing. The appropriate response to losing visual reference is to go around. A super duper laser range finder won’t change the prescribed response under those circumstances.          John Robert Dunlop - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     To be quite serious for once.<br />Professional pilots the world over have it repeatedly drilled into them that when you lose visual reference low on an approach you go around (on instruments.) (Unless you are CATIII)<br />Why would anyone in a SeaRey, losing visual reference low on a water approach simply transition to instruments and attempt a landing?<br />As Ripleys said: (There's one born ....... .........!)          Don Maxwell - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     I guess the REALLY serious question, John, would be What do you do if you're too low on fuel to risk going around? <br /><br />Not that anyone ought to put himself in that kind of predicament! But, then, we train for engine failure, in-flight fire, and other emergencies, too.          John Robert Dunlop - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     You said it Don! And the working pilots have the same answer. And Dan might say that the SeaRey is for 'fun'. I'll let you know if I ever put myself in that position (honest!)<br />I do have an AH and it is not there for IFR approaches.<br />It's just for looks (Yeah Right!) (Right Dave??)          Don Maxwell - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     I have a horizon, too, John, but that doesn't mean I'm confident in my ability to alight using it. <br /><br />Aw, shoot. Now that I've said that, do I have to go out and practice blind landings? No, thanks.          Chris Vernon-Jarvis - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     I understand Dan's point about Searey flying being for fun etc but Florida isn't everywhere. There are lots of places in BC where float planes are an essential transport and there is no airfield locally to land, nearest one is a hundred odd miles away. Most of our lakes are also skirted by trees and mountains.<br /><br />Not trying to start an argument either way, just pointing out avoiding glassy water in Florida might not affect your program the same wasy it might in BC.<br /><br />I also understand that some of the prime books on water flying advise us to eschew glassy water but pilots in BC and other places where planes are used more for utility than pleasure land on it all the time.          Jon Ladd - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     I went fishing with an old skydiving buddy in South Florida this weekend. He has over 20,000 hours with many of them in a Twin Otter floatplane. He flys in Alaska in the summers and St. Croix in the winters. Hate him yet?<br />He said that he lands on glassy water alot, especially in Alaska. He sets up the final approach at a descent rate of 150 fpm and never looks outside the cockpit. (For part 121 operations a copilot is a requirement, presumably he is looking out for Orca or whatever they have up there.) He said the Otter sticks pretty well as long as you don't carry much flaps. <br />I didn't learn anything applicable to landing a Searey on glassy water from this discussion. <br />Personally I try to keep the shoreline weeds in my peripheral vision or land in the waterski course bouys.          Dan Nickens - Jan 07,2004   Viewers  | Reply     How much can a guy who jumps out of airplanes say about risk analysis? Isn't the accident rate in Alaska about 10 times the rest of the country? Hmmm. Could it be all that glassy water? Or is it the orcas?          Chet Tims - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     HELL.....instead of Smackdown 2004, somebody borrow one of the laser hootuses ( hoot-eye ? ), roll the boat out and then while holding the hootus over the side, RAISE and lower the sensor while observing the readout !!!!!<br />Flame suit ON.......<br />(....just like my grandpappy Cantrell ( Kaint - Trell' ) said: 'rave on catsh*t....somebody will come along and cover you up '          Jeff Arnold - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Gosh, what a great thread! I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks to all who contributed.<br /><br />To quote John, 'My turn my turn!'<br /><br />I received my seaplane traning in OliverII at Jack Brown's. My instructor was Richard Johnson. He tought me to do glassy water landings by crossing the shore line at a 90 degree angle as low as possible (often less than 5 feet), then set up Don's 3500 / 150 approach till touchdown.<br /><br />Unfotunately, that technique doesn't work well up here where all the water is surrounded by hills and trees.<br /><br />During my check ride, my Examiner, Chuck Brown tought me a different technique. We landed along a shoreline using it as a visual reference from which to set up a 3500 / 150 descent.<br /><br />A couple of months later, I am ready to go out and try my first glassy water work. We have a 2 story dock and I figured I would be able to use it to set up the flare.<br /><br />For my first landing, I tried using the dock to set up a normal flare. IT DIDN'T WORK! I flared about 5 feet up and dropped in. Very ugly, but I didn't break anything, so I went around to try again.<br /><br />This time I used the dock and shoreline to set up a 3500 / 150 approach from an altitude of 5 feet or so. The result was a beautiful touchdown. I then went on to do about 10 more beautiful Glassy water landings.<br /><br />My experience tells me that good glassy water landings are not too difficult if I stick to my training and stay close to a visual reference.<br /><br />I must say, however, I have great respect for Dan and Frank and the experience they bring and share with us. Factoring their input, cauction is the best course of action.          Bret Smith - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Game on! <br /><br />Dan, me and my big hat would be glad to accomodate your request. And with respect to your clarification about your theories on glassy water landings in a SeaRey... I won't do it because 'I have to' but with good visual reference, I'll do it just for good sport.<br /><br />OK, excuse the attitude. I've just returned from a week in TN. The wife and I combed over multiple 100+ acre tracts of land that would accomodate our living and flying needs. Our favorite... 130 acres on a plateau overlooking the Cumberland river at an asking price $1,200 an acre... 30 minutes from town and my mommas house. Lots to check and confirm and think about before we put money where the mouth is. Thus, my agitated state. Sorry if the end result is an ass whuppin for you Dan.          Dan Nickens - Jan 06,2004   Viewers  | Reply     You buy that place and I'll fly up with a double helping of butt whuppings for you, Bret! (That will make it Smackdown 2004 Part Deux, Chet. You know, along the lines of Rocky XVI.)          Robert Lee - Jan 07,2004   Viewers  | Reply     I bet Brett puts cattle on that land..............My last glassy water landing was in my bath room, I stayed about a foot above the water but still made a splash. I raved about it anyway.....and you know.... Chet was right, my wife started throwing things at me trying to cover me up!          Rob Loneragan - Jan 07,2004   Viewers  | Reply     OK, I surrender. The peanut gallery wins. This topic thread has taken the record. I have never before seen so many contributions on a single subject. Mind you, we could test this theory and try another discussions on exhaust systems. When the Col's blood is up, which can be the case at this time of the year, this is the only subject that could possibly better the 'Peanut Gallery topic'. <br /><br />Holy porpoising 'C' hulls. What with blokes in big hats, laser arrivals, men with and without cattle, dreams &amp; nightmares, IFR SeaReys, Long Island approaches (what is that?) nose over propensitity, PPP's (Proverbial Piloting Perils and then there is a reference to the other PPP's Piss Poor Perfromance), Alka Seltzer coated hulls......I am obviously way over due for a check ride and as for that training syllabus I wrote a few years ago, the section on glassy water is desperately in need of revision. All this fancy new terminology should be incorporated within its pages without delay otherwise there is sure to be a rash of nose overs.??!%&amp;. Is there any limit to the number of theories applicable to SeaRey operations in Glassy Water, I think not. One thing for sure is I know I am NO practical expert at Glassy Water alightings and I plan to keep it that way.          Darrell Lynds - Jan 07,2004   Viewers  | Reply     Well I was wondering where you guys were hiding. Fine then... my two bits cometh forth.<br /><br />I figure I (and Rolf cause he was with me in his Rey) am THE worlds record co-holder of the longest Searey step taxi known to Man at 45 minutes on the step in rough Lake Superior water thru IFR (1/4 mile MAX vis) until we came out on VFR on the other end. During the process I figure I was partial porpoise about 300 times, airborne about 50 times and just plain cruisin for a brusin. I figure the Lady of the Lake didn't dunk me cause she just couldn't stop laughing long enough to concentrate.<br /><br />At any rate... put me down as a big fan of the C hull.

	- About Searey.us -      - Contact Searey.us -	- Privacy Statement - - Terms of service -	Copyright © 2024 Searey.us & Brevard Web Pro, Inc. - Copyrights may also be reserved by posters and used by license on this site. See Terms of Service for more information.
	- Please visit our NEW Chapter Place Website at: chapterplace.com or Free Chapter Management Website at: ourchapter.org. Good for all chapters, groups or families.