WesWorld

An un-named flying boat I'm considering for Chile as a replacement of the older biplane flying boats currently in service. Intended role is naval SAR, scouting, etc.

I have a drawing in progress, but wanted to post this first. Specs are based off a larger, four-engined Boeing XPBB Sea Ranger.

[SIZE=4]Flying Boat[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]General characteristics[/SIZE]
Crew: eight (pilot, co-pilot, navigator-radio operator, flight engineer, bombardier, 3+ gunners)
Length: 33.9 m (111.2 feet)
Wingspan: 39 m (127.95)
Height: 10.11 m (33.2 feet)
Wing area: 156.85 m² (1,688.32 ft²)
Empty weight: 22,689 kg (50 020.7 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 45,000 kg (99,208 lb)
Powerplant: 4 × Austral Incitatus-IIa radials, 1677.8 kW (2,250 hp) each

[SIZE=3]Performance[/SIZE]
Maximum speed: 402.3 km/h (217 knots, 250 mph)
Ferry Range: 5,750 km (3,104.8 nm, 3,572.9 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,500 m (27,887 ft)
Rate of climb: 6.985 m/s (1,375 ft/min)
Endurance: 15 hours

[SIZE=3]Equipment[/SIZE]
- Radio Receiver/transmitter
- HF/DF
- Sperry autopilot
- Rescue dinghy
- Potential for surface-search radar (ASV)

[SIZE=3]Armament[/SIZE]
- 2 × 20 mm in dorsal gun turret
- 4 × 13mm machine guns
- 4 × hardpoints; 6,000 kg warload (torpedoes, depth charges; mines; bombs)

The aircraft is of all-metal construction with a single-step hull, a high-set wing, a high-set dihedralled taiplane with endplate vertical surfaces, and retractable tricycle landing gear with single-wheel main units and a twin-wheel nose unit. The wing has a flat, constant-chord centre section that includes the inner two engines, and then increasing anhedral on the two tapered outer panels on each side.

Quoted

Specs are based off a larger, four-engined Boeing XPBB Sea Ranger

I'm not quite sure I follow. It seems a pretty similar size to the XPBB (less wing area but longer) but with about double the power available. There's also the landing gear which is a bit strange; I'm not sure how practicable it would be on an aircraft this size.

In short I'm not really sure.

A quick think lead me to think that long range is what Chile needs but I'm not so sure now. Pretty much all the shipping traffic is up the coastline (well <300nm). With only a couple of seaplane bases you can cover most of it with around 500nm radius. It might be nice to search the Pacific for raiders (based from Fiji? might as well stay there and enjoy the sun) which would drive up the range requirement, but it's a really big ocean.

I think I'd be looking at Sunderland sized aircraft. Easier to build and operate, especially the engines. Four engines probably necessary for Chile given the consequences of failure.

I took the specs of the Harbin SH-5 and the Boeing Sea Ranger and used the average of the dimensions and weights. I wanted a four-engine flying boat - I agree that four engines is preferable to two for Chilean purposes - and so used the Harbin as it seems more representational of the four-engine type. Range is as much for loiter time as actually going places; but there is quite a bit of range required for getting a plane to Easter Island. (Currently, Easter Island is only accessible by ship or airship - Chile has no aircraft capable of 2,300 miles of flight.)

Why is the landing gear strange? It's on the Catalina and practically every 1930s flying boat I've seen (perhaps with the exception of the Sunderland)

Quoted

Range is as much for loiter time as actually going places; but there is quite a bit of range required for getting a plane to Easter Island.

I'd go for quite a bit bigger wing then, and less powerful engines. You'll get better loiter performance with the wing and save weight from the smaller engines. Speed will reduce a bit, but really you're going to be spending all your time at ~180mph and 10,000ft and there's so much drag from the thing you're never going to make it fast.

Quoted

Why is the landing gear strange? It's on the Catalina and practically every 1930s flying boat I've seen (perhaps with the exception of the Sunderland)

I was only really aware of it on the PBY but looking around there are another few examples. There probably isn't much in it whether you use landing gear or a dolly for out of water operations.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Range is as much for loiter time as actually going places; but there is quite a bit of range required for getting a plane to Easter Island.

I'd go for quite a bit bigger wing then, and less powerful engines. You'll get better loiter performance with the wing and save weight from the smaller engines. Speed will reduce a bit, but really you're going to be spending all your time at ~180mph and 10,000ft and there's so much drag from the thing you're never going to make it fast.

Okay then, I'll fiddle with it some more. Maybe try to make it a wee bit smaller, too.

Quoted

Okay then, I'll fiddle with it some more. Maybe try to make it a wee bit smaller, too.

I'm thinking 5000-6000hp should be sufficient.

Next question is whether it's worth spending the money developing the aircraft for a small production run or whether you can buy off the market. Looking around, the only other available option are the H6Y or H8Y if the long range is really an issue.

Italy's going down the land based route for a maritime patrol aircraft. The India Bomber project got shunted into the Navy air force and they've been adjusting the design to make it more suitable for their requirements. It can still bomb stuff but is more optimised for loitering around rather than range. It's rather over specced for the new role, but with it already in flight test I didn't think cancelling it and going with a smaller more optimised aircraft was worth it. Might need the very long range at a later date (for when Italy really does need to bomb India?)

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Next question is whether it's worth spending the money developing the aircraft for a small production run or whether you can buy off the market. Looking around, the only other available option are the H6Y or H8Y if the long range is really an issue.

For just the 16-18 planes I'd need to order? No, it's not. It'd be nice for someone like France or Atlantis to field the development as their own, and for me to buy from them (and indeed I'm hoping just for that).

Quoted

It'd be nice for someone like France or Atlantis to field the development as their own, and for me to buy from them (and indeed I'm hoping just for that).

I don't think either of them really need the range though. Atlantis being in the middle of the Atlantic solves quite a lot of issues.

Italy could offer a land based aircraft for 1941/42 that would comfortably meet the range requirement. It just depends whether you really need a flying boat or can build some longer runways.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

It'd be nice for someone like France or Atlantis to field the development as their own, and for me to buy from them (and indeed I'm hoping just for that).

I don't think either of them really need the range though. Atlantis being in the middle of the Atlantic solves quite a lot of issues.

Presumably Atlantis and France would require long ranges for similar reasons for the Italian aircraft. *Shrugs*

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Italy could offer a land based aircraft for 1941/42 that would comfortably meet the range requirement. It just depends whether you really need a flying boat or can build some longer runways.

Mebbe. The attraction of flying boats is that I can base them from bases in the Chilean fjords; a similarly-sized land-based aircraft is going to be more limited in its basing capabilities.

I agree flying boats would be better and easier to base for Chile than large landplanes. More flexible too.

Quoted

Presumably Atlantis and France would require long ranges for similar reasons for the Italian aircraft. *Shrugs*

Atlantis and France can easily do with shorter ranged planes. That way they can carry more stuff to drop on the heads of the Italians.

The choice for Italy would be either red (France) or white (Atlantean), meaning which wine would they like with their spagetti and meatballs.

Surely you're not going to waste wine on the Italians?

Quoted

Presumably Atlantis and France would require long ranges for similar reasons for the Italian aircraft. *Shrugs*

I don't think so. Atlantis being stuck in the middle of the Atlantic can do with a radius of ~1000nm to cover most of the North and middle Atlantic. That sort of distance nicely covers the Caribbean from Venezuela as well. France - mostly focused in SEA, where again ~1000nm would be fine.

Italy needs to do the Indian Ocean, which is pretty big, meaning you need ~2000nm to do something useful, preferably more. This means a fairly large, powerful aircraft.

Quoted

Mebbe. The attraction of flying boats is that I can base them from bases in the Chilean fjords; a similarly-sized land-based aircraft is going to be more limited in its basing capabilities.

That's one of the attractive things with flying boats, as you just need a tender (preferably a ramp and land base as well for sustained ops). I'm not sure how usable the Chilean fjords would be - most I've seen have quite a few icebergs which would hamper flying operations. The land based planes need permanent airfields - but you can always use these for other aircraft as well. Maintenance and weather protection likely a lot easier as well.

Quoted

I'm not sure how usable the Chilean fjords would be - most I've seen have quite a few icebergs which would hamper flying operations.

I've just been thinking about Nordish patrol requirements, and have come to much the same conclusion, although about Norwegian rather than Chilean fjords. Which is a shame, I really like the PBB Sea Ranger. That's one of the problems with the warmest, most hospitable part of your country being Newfoundland...

I dare say that Chile could find use for a long-range flying boat to patrol around the islands - Easter Island is, after all, nearly 2,000 miles away, and you need to get back once you're there. Mind you, that's a job for sending a cruiser by every couple of months.

Quoted

I've just been thinking about Nordish patrol requirements, and have come to much the same conclusion, although about Norwegian rather than Chilean fjords.

The geography is somewhat different. I can't think of any Norweigian fjords that have glacial outflow but plenty in Chile. Usually the glaciers cave out into lakes and rivers rather than the sea. Norway's fjords should be pretty much ideal as they're big and sheltered. Might get a bit of pack ice occasionally up near Nordkap but you probably don't want to be operating up there much anyway. I'd suggest Biggles Defies the Swastika for some related reading - it's probably my favourite Biggles story.

The interior Chilean fjords see ice from glacier calving, but from my research it doesn't seem to pose a particular problem except in regions I wouldn't bother basing flying boats anyway.

In any case, in 1940 I've got plans for a string of starter airfields in the Magellanes region. They'll be for STOL cargo planes, not four-engine heavies, though.

If I maintain a good airstrip at Punta Arenas and Puerto Montt, on the ends of that territory, it'll probably be sufficient - if I buy a plane with sufficient range to cover the entire coast.

Unfortunately that results in a loss of air-sea SAR capabilities, which, quite frankly, is unacceptable. So I'll still need some flying boats.

I had a quick look at what the distances were. Black is 500nm radius, red is 1000nm. Definitely need a long range aircraft.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral


I had a quick look at what the distances were. Black is 500nm radius, red is 1000nm. Definitely need a long range aircraft.

Yup, that's about the size of it.