- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,888
- Reaction score
- 21,589
I would say it is simply part of the design trade off - if you step the aft fuselage you change the volume and likely increase the weight of the aft fuselage , especially if part of the designer's goal is to keep the horizontal stabilizer high up like the Petrel. The Rotax 912 is a reasonably powerful motor for its size/weight too.If the prof.'s notes are accurate - making planning tails so much better - why is anyone still building seaplanes with short hulls?
Is it something to do with short hulls (e.g. Petrel) being lighter?
Do short hulls perform better at the very low airspeeds of Petrel?
Is porpoising less of an issue on slow hulls?
Is Petrel powerful enough to blast its way through that sharp "hump" in water-drag?
Getting rid of the step certainly reduces cruise drag. It's probably more of an issue of fast seaplanes, at low cruising speeds it may not be worth the trouble. There are probably other considerations, but in general deep steps help the seaplane run 'clean' on the water.Is there any take-off / un-stick benefit from 'blowing' the step(s) ??
Or does the necessary hardware out-weigh the gains for small-ish aircraft ??