Requirements for a future seaplane/amphibian transport system
Author Andrzej Majka
Department of Aircrafts and Aircraft Engines Rzeszow University of Technology
Wolfgang Wagner
Dornier Technologie GmbH & Co. KG
Rzeszow, Poland
Uhldingen-Mühlhofen, Germany
Keeper of Document Author or Coauthor Work Package(s) WP5 Status Draft
Identification
Programme, Project ID FP7-AAT-2007-RTD1 Project Title: FUture SEaplane TRAffic (FUSETRA) Version: V.0.1 File name: FUSETRA_D51_Requirements_v01.doc
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
2
01.08.2011 Department of Aircrafts and Aircraft Engines Rzeszow University of Technology 2, W. Pola str. 35-959 Rzeszow Poland Dornier Technologie GmbH & Co. KG Hallendorfer Str. 11 88690 Uhldingen-Mühlhofen Germany Author: Andrzej Majka Phone: +48 (17) 865 16 04 Fax: +48 (17) 865 19 42 mobile : +48 () 602 441 977 [email protected] www.fusetra.eu Wolfgang Wagner Phone: +49 7556 9225 20 Fax: +49-7556-9225-59 [email protected] http://www.dornier-tech.com/
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
3
Control Page This version supersedes all previous versions of this document.
Version Date Author(s) Pages Reason
V.0.1 30.06.2011 Andrzej Majka Initial write
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
4
Contents
List of tables ..................................................................................................... 11
Glossary ........................................................................................................... 12
1 Objectives ................................................................................................. 13
2 Possible Seaplane Base Locations in Europe ........................................... 24
3 Seaplane park structure including infrastructure ....................................... 30
3.1 Determining the structure of the aircraft fleet ...................................... 30
3.1.1 Performance evaluation ................................................................ 33
3.1.2 Task division ................................................................................. 35
3.2 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of hydroplanes in an
amphibian system ......................................................................................... 37
3.3 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of hydroplanes in an float
system .......................................................................................................... 49
3.4 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of modified land-based
aircrafts ......................................................................................................... 54
3.4.1 Modification assumptions ............................................................. 54
3.4.2 Technical characteristics comparative analysis ............................ 55
3.4.3 Transport capabilities comparative analysis ................................. 60
3.5 Seaplane park structure ...................................................................... 68
3.6 Seaplane park infrastructure ............................................................... 68
4 Integration aspects sea-air-land ................................................................ 69
5 Development of requirements for future European seaplane/amphibian
transportation system ....................................................................................... 70
5.1 Aircraft requirements ........................................................................... 70
5.2 Infrastructure requirements ................................................................. 71
5.2.1 General ......................................................................................... 71
5.2.2 Seaport Infrastructure ................................................................... 72
5.2.3 Aircraft Infrastructure .................................................................... 73
5.3 Regulation / Certification requirements ............................................... 74
5.3.1 CS 23.51 Take-off speeds ............................................................ 75
5.3.2 CS 23.75 Landing distance .......................................................... 75
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
5
5.3.3 CS 23.231 Longitudinal stability and control ................................. 75
5.3.4 CS 23.233 Directional stability and control ................................... 75
5.3.5 CS 23.237 Operation on water ..................................................... 76
5.3.6 CS 23.239 Spray characteristics .................................................. 76
5.3.7 CS 23.521ff Water loads .............................................................. 76
5.3.8 CS 23.751ff FLOATS AND HULLS ............................................... 77
5.3.9 CS 23.777 Cockpit controls .......................................................... 77
5.3.10 CS 23.807 Emergency exits ...................................................... 78
5.3.11 CS 23.901ff Power Plant ........................................................... 78
5.3.12 CS 23.905ff Propellers .............................................................. 79
5.3.13 CS 23.925 Propeller clearance ................................................. 79
5.3.14 CS 23.1322 Warning, caution and advisory lights ..................... 79
5.3.15 CS 23.1385ff Position light system installation .......................... 79
5.3.16 CS 23.1415 Ditching equipment ................................................ 80
5.3.17 CS 23.1501 General (OPERATING LIMITATIONS AND
INFORMATION) ........................................................................................ 80
5.3.18 CS 23.1541 General MARKINGS AND PLACARDS ................. 80
5.3.19 CS 23.1581 General (AEROPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL) ........... 81
6 Summary ................................................................................................... 82
7 References ................................................................................................ 83
8 Appendix A - Review of technical characteristics of future amphibians .... 85
8.1 L-471 ................................................................................................... 85
8.2 LA-8 .................................................................................................... 86
8.3 SA-20P(OSA) ...................................................................................... 87
8.4 SK-12 Orion ........................................................................................ 88
8.5 Istok-4 ................................................................................................. 89
8.6 Be-103 ................................................................................................ 90
8.7 A-25 .................................................................................................... 91
8.8 C-400 Captain ..................................................................................... 92
8.9 Pelican-4 ............................................................................................. 93
8.10 LAKE 250 RENEGADE ................................................................... 94
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
6
8.11 Thurston TA16 Trojan ...................................................................... 95
8.12 CENTAUR 6 .................................................................................... 96
9 Appendix B - Review of technical characteristics of future floatplanes ..... 97
9.1 Cessna 180 ......................................................................................... 97
9.2 Cessna 182 ......................................................................................... 98
9.3 Cessna 185 ......................................................................................... 99
9.4 Cessna 206 ....................................................................................... 100
9.5 Cessna 208 ....................................................................................... 101
9.6 de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III ................................................. 102
9.7 de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter ......................................................... 103
9.8 Piper PA-18 ....................................................................................... 104
10 Appendix C - Review of technical characteristics of modified versions of
existing land-based aircraft ............................................................................ 105
10.1 MORRISON 6 ................................................................................ 105
10.2 Cessna 172R ................................................................................. 106
10.3 Cessna 182T ................................................................................. 107
10.4 Cessna 206H ................................................................................. 108
10.5 Cessna 208 CARAVAN ................................................................. 109
10.6 GA-8 Airvan ................................................................................... 110
10.7 EXPLORER 500T .......................................................................... 111
10.8 T-101 GRACH ............................................................................... 112
10.9 VulcanAir P68C ............................................................................. 113
10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B ................................................................... 114
10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T ................................................................... 115
10.12 HAI Y-12 ........................................................................................ 116
10.13 M-28 .............................................................................................. 117
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
7
List of figures
Figure 1.1 Top 50 most constraining points in European airspace, PRR
2006, EUROCONTROL, Annex VI, p.95. ........................................................ 14
Figure 1.2 Road network in the EU27+2 prepared by ESPON Project 2.1.1
[21]. .................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 1.3 Railroad network in the EU27+2 [ESPON Project 2.1.1] extended
by the up-to-date information on High speed train (HST) [21]. .................. 16
Figure 1.4 Passenger transport performance, by main transport mode, EU-
25, 1995-2004 (in billion passenger-kilometers) [Panorama of Transport,
EUROSTAT, 2007, p.102] ............................................................................... 17
Figure 1.5 Transport infrastructure quality expressed as summed potential
accessibility of road, rail and air transport in the EU27+2, ESPON Project
1.2.1 by S&W, 2004. ........................................................................................ 18
Figure 1.6 All European airports location .................................................... 19
Figure 1.7 All European landing fields location (airports are included) .... 20
Figure 1.8 Distribution of the European airport pair distances .................. 20
Figure 1.9 Cumulative distribution function of the city distance to the
nearest airport ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 1.10 Cumulative distribution function of the population within
catchment’s areas of aerodromes ................................................................ 22
Figure 2.1 All European seaports location................................................... 24
Figure 2.2 Distribution of distances from seaport to the nearest airport .. 25
Figure 2.3 Example air routes realised by seaplanes ................................. 26
Figure 2.4 Distribution of distances from main European airports to
seaports .......................................................................................................... 27
Figure 2.5 Distribution of distances from seaport to the nearest city
(seaports accessibility) ................................................................................. 27
Figure 2.6 Number of cities within particular radius of seaports in Europe
(seaports accessibility) ................................................................................. 28
Figure 2.7 Population within particular radius of seaport in Europe
(seaports accessibility) ................................................................................. 28
Figure 2.8 Average catchment area of seaports in Europe (seaports
accessibility) ................................................................................................... 29
Figure 3.1 Aircraft fleet transport potential (alternate fields). .................... 31
Figure 3.2 Task division between planes within a fleet (system) ............... 36
Figure 3.3 Amphibian aircrafts distribution by take-off weight .................. 38
Figure 3.4 Empty plane mass ratios ............................................................. 39
Figure 3.5 Payload mass ratios ..................................................................... 39
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
8
Figure 3.6 Maximum flying ranges of the amphibian aircrafts ................... 41
Figure 3.7 Maximum cruising speeds of the amphibian aircrafts .............. 41
Figure 3.8 Power-to-weight ratios of the amphibian aircrafts .................... 43
Figure 3.9 Wing loadings of the amphibian aircrafts .................................. 43
Figure 3.10 Water to land take-off run ratios of the amphibian aircrafts... 46
Figure 3.11 Transport qualitative effectiveness of the amphibian aircrafts
......................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 3.12 Weight to number of passengers ratios of the amphibian
aircrafts ........................................................................................................... 47
Figure 3.13 Diagram of the transport capabilities of the light amphibian
aircrafts ........................................................................................................... 48
Figure 3.14 Float planes distribution by take-off weight ............................ 49
Figure 3.15 Empty plane mass ratios for float planes ................................ 50
Figure 3.16 Payload mass ratios for float planes ........................................ 50
Figure 3.17 Maximum cruising speeds of the float aircrafts ...................... 51
Figure 3.18 Power-to-weight ratios of the float planes ............................... 51
Figure 3.19 Wing loadings of the float aircrafts .......................................... 52
Figure 3.20 Water to land take-off run ratios of the float planes ................ 52
Figure 3.21 Transport qualitative effectiveness of the float aircrafts ........ 53
Figure 3.22 Weight to number of passengers ratios of the float aircrafts. 53
Figure 3.23 modification of single engined existing land-based aircraft .. 54
Figure 3.24 modification of twin engined existing land-based aircraft ..... 54
Figure 3.25 Single engined aircrafts distribution by take-off weight ......... 55
Figure 3.26 Twin engined aircrafts distribution by take-off weight ........... 55
Figure 3.27 Empty plane mass ratios for single engined aircrafts ............ 56
Figure 3.28 Empty plane mass ratios for twin engined aircrafts ............... 56
Figure 3.29 Payload mass ratios for single engined aircrafts .................... 57
Figure 3.30 Payload mass ratios for twin engined aircrafts ....................... 57
Figure 3.31 Power-to-weight ratios of the single engined aircrafts ........... 58
Figure 3.32 Power-to-weight ratios of the twin engined aircrafts .............. 58
Figure 3.33 Water to land take-off run ratios of the single engined aircrafts
......................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 3.34 Water to land take-off run ratios of the twin engined aircrafts59
Figure 3.35 MORRISON 6 - payload-range diagram .................................... 60
Figure 3.36 Cessna 172R - payload-range diagram .................................... 60
Figure 3.37 Cessna 182T - payload-range diagram ..................................... 61
Figure 3.38 Cessna 206H - payload-range diagram .................................... 61
Figure 3.39 Cessna 208 CARAVAN - payload-range diagram .................... 62
Figure 3.40 GA-8 Airvan - payload-range diagram ...................................... 62
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
9
Figure 3.41 EXPLORER 500T - payload-range diagram .............................. 63
Figure 3.42 T-101 GRACH - payload-range diagram ................................... 63
Figure 3.43 VulcanAir P68C - payload-range diagram ................................ 64
Figure 3.44 Britten-Norman BN-2B - payload-range diagram ..................... 64
Figure 3.45 Britten-Norman BN-2T - payload-range diagram ..................... 65
Figure 3.46 HAI Y-12 - payload-range diagram ............................................ 65
Figure 3.47 M-28 - payload-range diagram................................................... 66
Figure 3.48 Diagram of the transport capabilities of the modified versions
of land-based aircrafts ................................................................................... 67
Figure 3.49 Optimum specialization fields determined on the basis of
transport effectiveness criterion (3.12) ........................................................ 68
Figure 3.50 Optimum specialization fields determined on the basis of
Direct Operating Cost criterion (3.14) .......................................................... 68
Figure 5.1 Typical seaport configuration: .................................................... 72
Figure 5.2 Ramp configuration ..................................................................... 72
Figure 5.3 Real existing seaport (Russia). Source: Diagrams and picture
Beriev Presentation AERO Frierichshafen................................................... 73
Figure 8.1 Amphibian aircraft L-471 ............................................................. 85
Figure 8.2 Amphibian aircraft LA-8 ............................................................... 86
Figure 8.3 Amphibian aircraft SA-20P(OSA) ................................................ 87
Figure 8.4 Amphibian aircraft SK-12 Orion .................................................. 88
Figure 8.5 Amphibian aircraft Istok-4 ........................................................... 89
Figure 8.6 Amphibian aircraft Be-103 ........................................................... 90
Figure 8.7 Amphibian aircraft A-25 AEROPRAKT ....................................... 91
Figure 8.8 Amphibian aircraft C-400 Captain ............................................... 92
Figure 8.9 Amphibian aircraft Pelican-4 ....................................................... 93
Figure 8.10 Amphibian aircraft Lake 250 Renegade ................................... 94
Figure 8.11 Amphibian aircraft Thurston TA16 Trojan ............................... 95
Figure 8.12 Amphibian aircraft CENTAUR 6 ................................................ 96
Figure 9.1 Floatplane Cessna 180 ................................................................. 97
Figure 9.2 Figure 9.3 Floatplane Cessna 182 ............................................... 98
Figure 9.4 Floatplane Cessna 185 ................................................................. 99
Figure 9.5 Floatplane Cessna 206 ............................................................... 100
Figure 9.6 Floatplane Cessna 208 ............................................................... 101
Figure 9.7 Floatplane de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III ....................... 102
Figure 9.8 de Havilland DHC-6 Floatplane Twin Otter ............................... 103
Figure 9.9 Floatplane Piper PA-18 .............................................................. 104
Figure 10.1 MORRISON 6............................................................................. 105
Figure 10.2 Cessna 172R ............................................................................. 106
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
10
Figure 10.3 Cessna 182T ............................................................................. 107
Figure 10.4 Cessna 206H ............................................................................. 108
Figure 10.5 Cessna 208 Caravan ................................................................ 109
Figure 10.6 GA-8 Airvan .............................................................................. 110
Figure 10.7 Explorer 500T............................................................................ 111
Figure 10.8 T-101 Grach .............................................................................. 112
Figure 10.9 VulcanAir P68C......................................................................... 113
Figure 10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B ........................................................... 114
Figure 10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T ........................................................... 115
Figure 10.12 HAI Y-12 .................................................................................. 116
Figure 10.13 M-28 ......................................................................................... 117
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
11
List of tables
Table 8.1 L-471 specifications ....................................................................... 85
Table 8.2 LA-8 specifications ........................................................................ 86
Table 8.3 SA-20P(OSA) specifications ......................................................... 87
Table 8.4 SK-12 Orion specifications ........................................................... 88
Table 8.5 Istok-4 specifications .................................................................... 89
Table 8.6 Be-103 specifications .................................................................... 90
Table 8.7 A-25 AEROPRAKT specifications................................................. 91
Table 8.8 C-400 Captain specifications ........................................................ 92
Table 8.9 Pelican-4 specifications ................................................................ 93
Table 8.10 Lake 250 Renegade specifications ............................................. 94
Table 8.11 Thurston TA16 Trojan specifications ......................................... 95
Table 8.12 CENTAUR 6 specifications ......................................................... 96
Table 9.1 Cessna 180 specifications ............................................................ 97
Table 9.2 Floatplane Cessna 182 specifications ......................................... 98
Table 9.3 Cessna 185 specifications ............................................................ 99
Table 9.4 Cessna 206 specifications .......................................................... 100
Table 9.5 Cessna 208 specifications .......................................................... 101
Table 9.6 de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III specifications ................... 102
Table 9.7 de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter specifications .......................... 103
Table 9.8 Piper PA-18 specifications .......................................................... 104
Table 10.1 MORRISON 6 specifications ..................................................... 105
Table 10.2 Cessna 172 R specifications ..................................................... 106
Table 10.3 Cessna 182T specifications ...................................................... 107
Table 10.4 Cessna 206H specifications ...................................................... 108
Table 10.5 Cessna 208 Caravan specifications ......................................... 109
Table 10.6 GA-8 Airvan specifications ....................................................... 110
Table 10.7 Explorer 500T specifications .................................................... 111
Table 10.8 T-101 Grach specifications ....................................................... 112
Table 10.9 VulcanAir P68C specifications ................................................. 113
Table 10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B specifications .................................... 114
Table 10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T specifications .................................... 115
Table 10.12 HAI Y-12 specifications ........................................................... 116
Table 10.13 M-28 specifications .................................................................. 117
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
12
Glossary
FUSETRA Future Seaplane Traffic
EU European Union
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
13
1 Objectives
Europe is one of the densely populated continents on Earth, it occupies the
area of 4,324,782 sq km and its population is 497,198,740 inhabitants (forecast
for the year of 2011) [10, 22]. Its meridional extension is 4,200 km and its
parallel extension is 5,600 km. The highest peak is 5,642 m above the sea
level. These dimensions also characterize the field of functioning of the
European transport market.
Transport is an activity aimed at overcoming the space. The aviation transport is
one of the branches of transport. The criterion of division into branches strictly
depends on labour facilities the use of which conditions the technological
process properties and organization. In the aviation transport the basic labour
facilities are planes, airports and means of safety and control of air traffic. All
these means make up a certain system and their characteristics should be
adjusted.
The field of transportation over long distances is considered to be a sphere of
the air transport in passenger transportation, the field of medium and short
distances competes with rail and car transport. Although over medium distances
the air transport has a dominating position.
An airport as a part of passenger transportation sector is characterized by a
definitely higher average service speed, which is undoubtedly its advantage in
comparison to other means of transport. The infrastructural requirements are
limited mainly to the airports as the so-called point infrastructure. In order to use
the mobility and the potential of the transport performed by a plane to the full it
is necessary to define possible reachable places of take-offs and landings, i.e.
location, operational-technical data, availability and so on.
A characteristic feature of the European air transport service market is co-
existence of several but large communication centres performing trans-
continental links and dense net of local links between the majority of small cities
and tourist resorts. In Europe there are 43 main airports (large and medium
hubs) and 450 country and regional airports (commercial service airports)
(Figure 1.1). European airports have 1336 hard take-off runways (concrete or
asphalt) and 737 airports have necessary equipment to perform IFR flights [9,
13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 27].
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
14
Figure 1.1 Top 50 most constraining points in European airspace, PRR 2006, EUROCONTROL,
Annex VI, p.95.
Taking into account short distances between the European cities transportation
on the territory of Europe is performed mainly over short and medium distances,
with the domination of the first ones. The European transport market is, thus,
the area of competition between the road, rail and air transport.
The vehicular transportation is a branch of transport in which the loads and
passengers travel on land roads with the help of vehicle means of transport.
The most important characteristics and advantage of the vehicular
transportation is its ability to transfer loads directly from the departure point to
the delivery point without reloading or changing the means of transport. The
European road net consists of roads which combined length is 4.8 mln km and
60,000 km of motorways. According to the data published by Eurostat in the
years of 1990-2003 1 million kilometers of roads were built. The number of cars
reaches 220 million and increases annually by 5 million. The vehicular
transportation consumes 83 per cent of the total energy consumed by the
industry connected with the transport.
This type of transportation of loads is costly which is usually compensated by a
developed infrastructure and speed of delivery. It should be stressed that it is
the most dangerous transport type. Additionally it causes the most damage to
the environment.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
15
Figure 1.2 Road network in the EU27+2 prepared by ESPON Project 2.1.1 [21].
The popularity of the vehicular transportation results from its character, such as:
the best spatial access which results from the developed, dense road net;
the possibility of door-to-door transportation without indirect reloading
activities;
the best adjustment of the road net to the location of the sales market, the
most profitable offer for transportation companies, which results from the
quickness and exploitation accessibility of the road net;
the best abilities of delivering to other types of transport operators;
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
16
the transport column is adjusted to carry different loads taking into account
the manageability of transport;
the ability to adjust the means of transport to carry different types of goods.
Figure 1.3 Railroad network in the EU27+2 [ESPON Project 2.1.1] extended by the up-to-date
information on High speed train (HST) [21].
The rail transport is one of the branches of the land transport. Its most important
characteristic feature is the ability to carry a lot of load over long distances. The
principle is as follows: the farther, the cheaper. When travelling by train we do
not exposed to traffic jams or bad weather conditions. Railroad lines are well
developed and very safe. The coefficient of accidents is very low. The speed of
transportation depends on the kind of the transported goods and the operator.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
17
One of the few drawbacks is the risk of theft during the stops at the stations or
lay-bys. The goods also may be damaged during possible shunting (stops or
pounding). The railroad is multipurpose; it can carry people, animals or very
heavy loads. It is mostly used for transportation of raw materials, such as coal
or wood. The railroad for distant passenger journeys is not as popular as it was
several years ago. The rail network has a cumulative length of 199,000 km
(2003), mainly in densely populated territories of the Central Europe (France,
Germany, Poland). The dynamics of changes show an annual 8 per cent
decrease in the rail length.
The total volume of passenger transportation in Europe generated by the three
dominating branches of transport reached the level of 5 trillion passenger-
kilometers. The highest growth was noted for the road transport, increasing the
volume of transportation in the years 1995-2004 by 18 per cent. The growth
dynamics of the air transportation at the same time was 49 per cent, but in the
whole amount of transportation it is only a 6-8 per cent growth. The share of the
railroad transport in the total volume of transportation is presented by a number
of passenger-kilometers is slightly decreasing (Figure 1.4).
Figure 1.4 Passenger transport performance, by main transport mode, EU-25, 1995-2004 (in billion
passenger-kilometers) [Panorama of Transport, EUROSTAT, 2007, p.102]
The total length of roads and rails does not give the answer to the question of
the transport infrastructure in Europe. The main problem of the infrastructure
level is neglecting its quality. The infrastructure quality is estimated on the basis
of the regional potential and the cost of transport between the regions is shown
in Figure 1.5 [21].
The analysis of the European transport market helps come to the following
conclusion:
Europe needs new, supplementary modes of transport
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
18
Figure 1.5 Transport infrastructure quality expressed as summed potential accessibility of road,
rail and air transport in the EU27+2, ESPON Project 1.2.1 by S&W, 2004.
Europe is an exceptional area with unique properties favoring regional
development of the air transport system of light amphibian aircraft with the use
of small and medium airports and natural water landings. Europe has a huge
partly unused potential of airports and landing grounds which can be the basis
for creating a competitive travel offer around Europe by light passenger
amphibian aircraft using less busy airports and adjusted and re-qualified landing
grounds as well as natural landing fields on water. On the territory of Europe
there are 1270 airports and 1300 landing fields (Figure 1.6 and Figure 1.7).
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
19
Figure 1.6 All European airports location
The possibility of flight operations on a straight line using RNAV navigation is
often limited by marked, reserved, limited or dangerous areas. The air corridors
of RNAV are laid mostly in the zones which do not collide with TSA and TRA.
The higher the flight level is the easier the possibility of the direct flights
planning is. From a certain height there is, however, dense air traffic with regard
to regular flights of passenger jet planes. Taking into account the unlimited
possibility to operate direct flights between particular airports it is possible to
determine the distances between the airport pairs as gear-circle distances from
the dependence:
1 2 1 2111.12arccos sin sin cos cos cosL (1.1)
where: 1, 2 - the geographical latitude of the initial and final points,
- the difference of the geographical longitude.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
20
Figure 1.7 All European landing fields location (airports are included)
Figure 1.8 Distribution of the European airport pair distances
Figure 1.8 shows the distribution of distances between the European airports –
the distribution of potential airport links. The maximum for the distribution of
distances between the airports is about 1000 km, and there are a few potential
links for the distances over 3000 km. It is true that for the distances up to 300
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
21
km the air transport cannot compete with other means of transport due to the
cost and time of realization, however, in the regions with poor a transport
infrastructure (Figure 1.5) they can become a good alternative for other
branches of transport.
The accessibility of the land infrastructure will determine the possibility of
development of the given branch of transport. The accessibility of the natural
water landing fields is shown in Part 2.
Figure 1.9 presents the distribution function of the distance from the European
city centres with the population over 50 thousand inhabitants to the nearest
airport. It follows from the Figure that for 80 per cent of the European cities the
nearest airport is in the distance of not more than 20 km. Such a short distance
gives people a possibility to travel faster between the city centres and the
airports; it also speaks for the fact that their accessibility is high in Europe.
Figure 1.9 Cumulative distribution function of the city distance to the nearest airport
An airport should cover the area of economic transport value (a city, a place of
people concentration, tourist areas) in order to attract a certain target group of
passengers, which can be an element of development of the given region
included in the fast air transport.
In the territory of Europe with regard to numerous airports, a strong competition
between them develops in order to gain passengers, new carriers and new air
links. The zone of competition between the airports is the covering gravitation
area of the neighboring airports. The value of the gravitation area of an airport –
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
22
the area where passengers start their air travel from a certain airport or the
point where they reach their destination – is determined mainly by the time
factor of getting to the airport. The value of the gravitation area which influences
the potential increase in the number of passengers, raising its competitive
position depends also on other factors, such as: convenience of the
connections with the land transport etc.
Figure 1.10 Cumulative distribution function of the population within catchment’s areas of
aerodromes
Taking a simplified assumption that the value of gravitation areas is influenced
mainly by the time factor, and the travel time is the function of distance, the
gravitation areas were determined for four categories of the European airports
(Figure 1.10). The results analysis lets us say that for the airports which can be
the basis of the light passenger amphibious aircraft transport system the value
of the gravitation area is about 60 km. In this area there might be competition
between GA Airports and GA Towered Airports which have a twice as large
gravitation area. However, between the other two airport types cooperation is
quite possible because of a different range of transport services offered.
The work consists of 5 parts. The first part is the reason for development of a
supplemental kind of transport using amphibian aircraft, especially in the system
of flying amphibians. The second part presents the analysis of the existing land
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
23
infrastructure and natural conditions favoring the development of this branch of
transport. On the basis of the land (ports) infrastructure and natural conditions
(lakes, rivers) analysis it is possible to determine the constructional and
utilizable limits to which the new plane will be submitted (e.g. the required take
off length, the ascending shear rate, etc.). Part 3 includes the characteristic
analysis of currently used amphibian aircraft. The analysis of the characteristics
does not, however, give the answer to the question how the plane should look
like in the future, but rather the research on the tendency of their changing [2, 7]
lets forecast the future requirements. Part 4 includes the analysis concerning
the possible market for transport services offered by transportation companies
using the amphibian aircraft. The analysis of conditions which can favor the
development of this means of transport in order to improve the accessibility of
the airports and amphibian aircraft bases was made. Part 5 includes a number
of conditions and requirements which amphibian aircraft designed in the future
should meet.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
24
2 Possible Seaplane Base Locations in Europe
The potential places for take-off and landing operations are port pools located
on the coast of the sea, lake and big rivers. In Europe there are 1400 ports (sea
and river) and some hundreds of lakes where amphibian aircraft can take-off
and land.
Figure 2.1 All European seaports location
Three alternative variants of amphibian aircraft use in the local passenger
transport are:
1. the flight from the nearest land airport to the seaport (or the return flight);
2. the flight between two water landing fields;
3. the flight from the land airport to the seaport located in a far distance
(transportation between the selected large European airports and local
tourist resorts).
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
25
Assuming the above mentioned methods of the amphibian aircraft use and
analyzing performance characteristics of amphibian aircraft of different systems
(Part 3), it was stated that to realize the transport services only amphibian
aircraft (boat-type or float-type) will be used.
The distribution of distances between the major selected land airports and
seaports is presented in Figure 2.2. It follows from it that the maximum
distribution of distances is 20 km, and maximum distance is 120 km. These
values define wider sets of tasks realized by amphibian aircraft for variant 1 of
the amphibian aircraft use.
Figure 2.2 Distribution of distances from seaport to the nearest airport
Figure 2.3 shows the selected example routs realized by amphibian aircraft
when performing tasks according to variant 3. The distribution of distances of
the flights is given in Figure 2.4.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
26
Figure 2.3 Example air routes realised by seaplanes
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
27
Figure 2.4 Distribution of distances from main European airports to seaports
Figure 2.5 Distribution of distances from seaport to the nearest city (seaports accessibility)
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
28
Figure 2.6 Number of cities within particular radius of seaports in Europe (seaports accessibility)
Figure 2.7 Population within particular radius of seaport in Europe (seaports accessibility)
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
29
Figure 2.8 Average catchment area of seaports in Europe (seaports accessibility)
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
30
3 Seaplane park structure including infrastructure
3.1 Determining the structure of the aircraft fleet
The characteristic feature of the technical objects used in aviation (and not only)
is their multipurpose and multitask character. This property concerns single
planes as well as their sets which constitute a certain aircraft fleet. It shows
itself in different aims which this aircraft fleet is to fulfill (e.g. an airline) and in
different conditions of its functioning. For example, for passenger airplanes the
set of lanes of different length, intensity and other characteristics is a set of
tasks, and a variety of conditions of use is determined by technical,
geographical, climate and other differences of the gateway airport. This defines
the multipurpose (universal) character of the plane use.
A lot of tasks performed using the planes determine the necessity of using
different factors to estimate their effectiveness. Quality assessment of reaching
the aim on the basis of these factors has such a trait that for a plane with the
determined parameters (geometric, aerodynamic and performance) the highest
quality is reached as a rule in a single task. Although when performing all other
tasks, homogeneous or non-homogeneous, the plane always loses the quality
from the point of view of reaching the aim in comparison to its highest value.
This type of loss characterizes the level of universalism when performing certain
tasks. The way to increase the effectiveness of achieving the aim is to use the
plane not in the whole range of possible applications but in a narrower range
(specialization).
Every plane can perform a limited range of tasks. For transport planes the
typical task is delivering a certain load (payload weight) over a given distance.
To guarantee air transportation load aircraft fleets which consist of different
types of airplanes are used, and their effective selection decides on the quality
of the whole fleet. Cooperation of the planes within the fleet appears in the fact
that capabilities of different planes as a rule are partially covered. Thus,
alternative fields are created 12, 123, 23 (Figure 3.1) [2] to cover which two or
more types of planes are used. A lack of uniqueness which appears in this case
causes the necessity of distributing the tasks from the alternative fields between
the “compeeting” aircraft and determining the fields of the most effective use for
each of them.
It is difficult to estimate the effectiveness of the complex aircraft fleet as a whole
which performs the full range of tasks. However, it is possible to estimate a
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
31
single task performed by one plane. In the majority of cases only with strong
limitation of the requirements it is possible to estimate the goal achievement
with the help of one quality criterion. In practice certain points of view must be
determined with different quality criteria (see 3.1.2.). In this approach, different
variants of dividing the task sets between the planes included in the aircraft fleet
are obtained, better regarding one indicator and worse regarding the others.
Figure 3.1 Aircraft fleet transport potential (alternate fields).
If the system elements (Figure 3.1) can be treated as independent, then solving
the complex task of optimizing is reduced to solving two simple tasks which are
solved separately [2]. The first task is to find the optimal fields of specialization
of the planes which are a consisting part of a system. The second task is to the
find optimal parameters of the plane performing tasks assigned to it. In order to
solve the first task, the algorithm was worked out; it uses specific properties of
the aviation system and the defined coefficient of effectiveness.
The solving procedure consists of alternate looping for Fields of specialization
for the present aircraft fleet and looping for parameters of an optimal plane in its
set of tasks. The first task is solved with the method described in point 3.1.3.
The solution to the second task is beyond the scope of this research.
From the described aircraft fleet properties:
1. existence of different conditions of functioning and task performing,
2. using many quality coefficients to estimate the aircraft fleet,
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
32
3. the complex aircraft fleet structure consisting of many different planes
(autonomous elements) between which a particular task performing is
divided
follows that the mathematical model of the aircraft fleet can be a multitask
system [2].
3.1.1 Multitask aviation system
Each multitask system consists of a certain finite number m of elements which
make set A called a set of system elements. The set of all elements xi, which
can potentially enter the system structure, is determined by X, i.e.
, , i
x X dla i 1 m (3.1)
and set A is defined as:
, ,iA x X gdzie i 1 m
(3.2)
It is supposed that set Y will be set. The integral function E(y) was determined
in this set which takes values 1, 2,..., m – it is called the distribution function [2].
The field of specialization Di, of the element xi A for i = 1,..., m, will be called
a subset of the set Y in points of which the distribution function has values equal
to i:
: , ,iD y Y yE i dla i 1 m
(3.3)
The fields of specialization must fulfill two criteria:
1. Fields of specialization for different elements cannot have common parts
; , , , ;
i kD D i k 1 m i k
(3.4)
2. The sum of all Fields of specialization must be equal to external multitude Y
iD Y
m
i 1
(3.5)
Three main elements of the presented model <A, Y, E(y)> are called the
multitask system.
The vector of quality of the multitask non-vector system [2] can be defined as
follows:
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
33
, ,F F E A Y y (3.6)
Putting the mathematic multitask system into the notion of local quality function f
[x, y, (D)] of the field of specialization Di of the aircraft xiA, it is possible to
express the coefficient of the multitask system quality (3.6) in terms of its values
in particular fields of specialization Di of certain elements xiA [2]:
, , , ,i
m m
i i i
i 1 x D
F x f x yi 1
X A E D X D (3.7)
where: (Di) - field of specialization measure Di [2].
3.1.1 Performance evaluation
The analysis of scientific literature [2, 7] helps distinguish some types of criteria
of performance evaluation of planes with different range of their use and
capability.
Simple technical criteria – technical criteria describe performing and bulk
characteristics of the plane. The following values can act as criteria: maximum
speed, maximum rate of climb, service ceiling, range, takeoff distance, landing
distance, payload weight, and gross weight. These criteria are irrelative; they
have nothing to do with the dimensions, weight or category of the plane. They
determine only “isolated” facts.
Complex technical criteria [2, 7] connect some Simple characteristics of the
plane and give somehow more “meaningful” estimation of the quality, however
limited, to a selected plane category with not so distant technical features.
These criteria have a relative character. The range of velocity is often used as
an indicator of quality
max
min
VV
V (3.8)
which determines approximate dynamic properties of the plane. Another simple
technical (irrelative) indicator is mass effectiveness which helps estimate the
plane construction:
usefuluseful
TO
mm
m (3.9)
or the criterion which is an addition (3.9)
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
34
1empty
empty useful
TO
mm m
m
(3.10)
Technical criterion taking into account transport capacities is the indicator of
transport effectiveness:
zuseful useful crue
bl
LW m m V
t
(3.11)
where:
tbl - total time of task performing together with ground procedures,
Vcrue - average flight velocity of the plane.
The criterion derivative in relation to (3.11) is the criterion called transport
qualitative effectiveness and is defined as:
useful cruet useful crue
TO
m VW m V
m
(3.12)
The indicator of transport effectiveness is proportional to the work required for
cargo transportation over a given distance in a given time (it is proportional to
the average transport capacity). Relating it to the power of the engine unit an
indicator of capacity usage was received:
useful crueP
m VW
Power
(3.13)
Economic criteria – originally appeared for the needs of airlines (transport
companies) [2, 7] using them to optimize the aircraft fleet, setting rational (and
competitive) traffic tariff rates and so on. Despite the compilation and necessity
to take into account a lot of components based on statistic data or given data
these criteria are currently a basic form of estimation of the planes used
commercially.
The most widened and most general economic criterion is the complete life
cycle cost of a plane (LCC – Life Cycle Cost) [7] consisting of costs of
development, research, production, acquisition, utilization and disposal of the
majority of planes of a particular type. The LCC of a plane is a sum of four
components:
RDTE ACQ OPS DISPLCC C C C C (3.14)
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
35
where:
CRDTE - costs of research, development, tests and evaluation
CACQ - costs of acquisition
COPS - operating costs
CDISP - costs of disposal after use
Thus the form of the criterion is especially useful when estimating functioning of
aviation companies, types of military aviation, because it helps determine
general costs of development and operation of the plane as well as annual
expenditures on maintenance of the aircraft fleet.
A less general criterion is the DOC (Direct Operating Cost) expressing the cost
of a time unit of operation of a given type of plane [7]. The DOC is a sum of
costs directly connected with performing an aviation task. It consists of flight
costs (fuel, personnel salaries, amortization, repairs, airport charges,
navigation, etc.) which fall on each plane and calculation unit.
The economic criteria unlike simple technical criteria, which estimate separate
plane characteristics, have “integral” properties, taking into account flight
characteristics, construction of the fuselage, driving system, operation and
market factors. Thus, it is a better, although not sufficient, measure of the
general features of a plane.
3.1.2 Task division
Input data for the algorithm:
Achievable task fields D(xi) of planes in fleet A.
Resource vector R = {R1, R2,..., Rm+1} of the planes of all types. Each
component of vector R determines the number of hours which can be logged
by a single unit of a determined type in an analyzed time period.
Unit costs of performing the task yj, j = 1,...,n for all types of the planes, as
presented in the matrix
n,1m2,1m1,1m
n22221
n11211
ij
CCC
CCC
CCC
C
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
36
The elements of the matrix Cij = C1ij Nij show effectiveness of performing of all j-
type tasks by i-type planes (Nij – number of flights of the planes which is enough
to perform a j task.
Figure 3.2 Task division between planes within a fleet (system)
Algorithm of division
1. The matrix [Cijf ] of the (mxn) size was input, its elements will be filled with
performing cost values of all the tasks Y.
2. In every column of the matrix [Cijf ] a minimal element is selected
1min
j iji
C minC , j , ,n (3.15)
a line with minimal elements (3.15) presents the minimal costs of performing
all task types by the planes i *( j ).
3. In line (3.15) the minimal element is selected
min min
j jj
C minC (3.16)
and the number of task type j * corresponding to it as well as the number of
plane type i ( j*). The found couple (i (j *), j *) are an optimal solution in the
first step.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
37
4. Costs of flight Ci1( j *)j * for this solution is written in a corresponding matrix cell
Cijf
5. The j *- column of the matrix Cij is modified, decreasing Ci ( j *)j * by a “used”
cost flight value Ci1( j *)j *
1
i( j ) j i( j ) j i( j ) jC C -C
(3.17)
Further steps of the process are marked with index “+”. The rest of the
elements of the j *- column are decreased by the value of one flight cost of
the plane for corresponding plane types.
6. Then the condition of presence of the period for all-type planes
1
ijn
j i
j
T R
(3.18)
nij – number of flight of the i – type plane, Tj – time of onwards flights of the
j – flight. If for a certain plain type the operating life Ri for all units is epired,
the given type is excluded from the further analysis.
7. The condition of completing the task of the set Y is checked.
1
1 1 1
n mq
j i
j i q
N N
(3.19)
N qi – the number of carried passengers by i – type of the plane in q - task,
–number of complete tasks by i – type plane. If all the tasks are
completed, the process of division is considered to be finished. Otherwise it
is necessary to return to point 2 of this algorithm.
3.2 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of hydroplanes
in an amphibian system
The main performance characteristics of all the amphibian aircraft analyzed in
this work are presented in Appendix A.
Weight characteristics of aircraft. Figure 3.3 gives a clearer overview of the
take-off weights of the aircraft analyzed in this review. As we can see, among
the whole analyzed array of planes, three types of Russian-made planes – LA-8
”Flagman”, Be-103 and OSA (SA-20P) – are distinguished, whose take-off
weights are approximately 2300 kg. Other Russian-made planes - SK-12 Orion
and Pelican-4 are considerably smaller by their take-off weight (1000 kg or
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
38
slightly over). The USA and GB-made planes by their dimensions are within the
medium range, and their take-off weights are within the range between 1400 kg
and 1800 kg. Obviously, bigger amphibian aircraft possess certain advantages
in such important characteristics as load-lifting capacity (payload weight), as
well as a possibility to equip the plane with more complete set of different
equipment (electrical equipment, hydraulic system, flight and navigation
equipment, meteorological radar, air-conditioning system, life rafts, etc.).
Installation of a fairly complete set of the above mentioned equipment on light
aircraft with the take-off weight of approximately 1000 kg is not possible due to
their low load-lifting capacity.
Figure 3.3 Amphibian aircrafts distribution by take-off weight
Meanwhile, the presence of a fairly complete set of airborne equipment widens
the functional capabilities of a plane in terms of its all-season (all-year), all-
weather and all-day capability of its operation, which means that the plane
becomes more competitive and attractive for its potential customers. A higher
load-lifting capacity of the plane allows for installation of different special
airborne equipment for using the plane in such operations as environmental
monitoring, resource exploration, search and rescue operations, border control
operations and many other special operations.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
39
Figure 3.4 Empty plane mass ratios
Figure 3.5 Payload mass ratios
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
40
The plane load-lifting capacity, as well as its other characteristics – the flying
range and flight endurance – depends not only on the plane dimensions (take-
off weight), but also on the level of the weight cleanness of the construction. As
the weight cleanness measurement, the factor of the empty plane mass ratio,
which is the ratio of the empty plane to its take-off weight (3.10). The diagram of
the amphibian aircraft distribution by this factor is presented in Figure 3.4.
The empty plane mass ratio of light landplanes of the analyzed weight class is
usually within the range of values between 0.55 and 0.6. This factor of light
amphibian aircraft must not be better in any way taking into account the higher
requirements to the strength and tightness of the body (hull), the presence of
additional structural members, such as wing floats, sometimes engine mounting
pylons, landing gear retraction and extension mechanism and a number of other
elements. Generally, the diagram in Figure 3.4 proves this statement – the
arithmetic mean value of the empty plane mass ratio calculated for the group of
11 types of aircraft is 0.637.
However, the weight characteristics of the one plane of the analyzed group –
“Istok-4 raise questions. To create a light aircraft (particularly an amphibian
aircraft) meeting the AP-23 requirements in terms of strength, with the empty
plane mass ratio of 43% is not possible under any circumstances. In general,
the extremely high weight characteristics, i.e. a very low empty plane mass
ratio, are mostly explained by two reasons – either the plane does not meet the
strength requirements, or it lacks even minimum required set of airborne
equipment, or both.
The weight characteristics of the remaining eight planes do not cause doubts
and are fairly explainable. In particular, the big empty plane mass ratio of the
Be-103 (0.759) is explained mainly by its abundance of different airborne
equipment. Possible, the point is that the Be-103 was designed in a
professional development design office using the standards for creating big
airplanes which influenced the choice of the equipment set (everything must be
like in a big airplane). The weight characteristics of the LA-8 “Flagman”, which is
currently under development, do not cause any doubts considering its rather
rational aerodynamic and design arrangement and the absence of
“unnecessary” structural elements (such as, engine mounting pylons). It is quite
possible to build a plane with the empty plane mass ratio within the 0.6-0.61
range with the take-off weight of 2300 kg, without compromising the set of
equipment and comfort of the passenger cabin. It would be most likely
impossible for aircraft of 1000 kg in dimensions.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
41
Figure 3.6 Maximum flying ranges of the amphibian aircrafts
Figure 3.7 Maximum cruising speeds of the amphibian aircrafts
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
42
The weight cleanness level of the three USA and BG-made amphibian aircraft
can be estimated as very high, especially of the TA-16 “Seafire” (0.556) and
“Warrior Centaur” (0.563) planes. When estimating the weight cleanness of
these planes, one should take into account that these planes are equipped with
a complete set of airborne equipment, electric and hydraulic systems, and have
automatic controllable pitch negative thrust propellers.
The diagram showing distribution of the payload mass ratios of the equipped
empty planes (including the service load) is presented in Figure 3.5. One should
note that the payload weight is obtained on the basis of the equipped empty
plane subtracted from the take-off weight. In the materials available on some
planes, the empty plane weight is used instead of the equipped empty plane
weight. As a result, the useful loads (and payloads) are usually overstated.
The cruising characteristics – the flying range and the flight endurance. The
flying range, the cruising speed, and for completion of certain tasks – the flight
endurance are rather important characteristics of any aircraft, including light
amphibious aircraft. The diagram showing distribution of the maximum flying
range for all the planes analyzed in this part is presented in Figure 3.6.
The maximum flying ranges of the light amphibian aircraft are within a rather
wide range between 900 km and 2220 km (the maximum flying range arithmetic
mean value is 1287 km). With this, as seen, the maximum flying ranges of the
Russian-made planes do not exceed 1275 km, whereas these values for USA
and GB-made planes are within the range between 1600 km and 2220 km.
This is mainly explained by a high maximum fuel mass ratio within the wet
weight of the plane (0.17 – 0.195 of the USA and GB-made planes and 0.1 –
0.11 of the Russian-made planes), but also, probably, by more economical
engines and better aerodynamics of the planes and propellers.
The diagram in Figure 3.7 shows distribution of the maximum cruising flight
speeds of the amphibian aircraft. As seen, the cruising speeds are not very high
and do not differ considerably from those of conventional (land) light planes of
the same weight class. The cruising speeds are higher for the group of heavier
Russian-made planes (LA-8 “Flagman”, Be-103), and for the group of the USA
and GB-made amphibian aircraft. The cruising speeds of the lighter planes with
the take-off weights of approximately 1000 kg are within the range between 170
–200 km/h. The average maximum cruising speed value for the selected planes
of 198 km/h is just based on the presence of this low-speed group of planes.
The USA and GB-made planes have better cruising speed characteristics
(approximately 240 km/h).
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
43
Figure 3.8 Power-to-weight ratios of the amphibian aircrafts
Figure 3.9 Wing loadings of the amphibian aircrafts
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
44
The level of maximum cruising (as well as maximum) flight speeds of an
airplane is determined mainly by four parameters:
power-to-weight ratio of a plane, i.e. the ratio of the plane engine power
to the take-off weight (or by the inverse ratio of the plane weight to the
power installed, the so called load per unit of power),
wing loading, i.e. the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of
the wing,
the plane aerodynamic property at normal cruise operation,
the propeller(s) efficiency.
As the power-to-weight ratio has a considerable effect on such characteristics
as the climbing capability of a plane, take-off characteristics, maneuvering
capabilities, it is interesting to estimate the value of this parameter for all the
planes under analysis. With this we use the
takeoff
takeoff
TO
NN
m (3.20)
factor, i.e. the ratio of the take-off (or maximum) output of the plane’s engines to
its take-off weight.
The diagram of distribution of the power-to-weight ratios in Figure 3.8 shows
that the power-to-weight ratios of all these planes are not high, not exceeding
the value of 0.16 kW/kg. The An-2 plane has about the same power-to-weight
ratio. It is interesting that the USA and GB-made planes’ power-to-weight ratios
are not higher than those of the Russian-made planes, but their cruising flight
speeds are higher on average. The low power-to-weight ratio also explains the
low climbing capabilities of the light amphibian aircraft (5–6 m/s on average).
As far as safety is concerned, it would be desirable to have higher levels of the
power-to-weight ratios; at least, on the twin-engine planes this would ensure a
sufficient climbing capability in the event of failure of one of the engines.
Take-off and landing characteristics of the planes. The take-off and landing
characteristics (the take-off run, landing run, useful take-off and landing
distances) are the most important characteristics for any airplanes, but in
particular, for light amphibian aircraft as they are operated on basically prepared
landing grounds or rivers and lakes. Considering the low power-to-weight ratios
of the planes, which, in particular, should have an effect during take-off from
water, first of all, it is worthwhile considering and estimating the take-off
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
45
characteristics of the planes. Such comparative evaluation is presented in the
diagram in Figure 3.10, which shows the take-off runs of the planes at take-off
from a land aerodrome and from the water surface.
The scatter of the take-off runs of the amphibian planes, as seen, is rather wide,
especially considering near values of the power-to-weight ratios of the planes
and the wing loading (Figure 3.9) of the majority of the aircraft. Unfortunately,
for two planes there are no data on the water take-off run, and for other two
planes it’s not indicated if it’s takeoff run or full takeoff length. In such cases the
take-off run figures were considered to be for the take-off run.
Let us look at the take-off characteristics of some of the planes mentioned in
this work.
1) Be-103. The data is provided according to the KnAAPO application data
sheet. As the plane has been in operation since 1997, its take-off
characteristics are actual performances, but not scheduled performances.
The plane’s take-off run is 440 m along the runway, and 620 m on the water,
which is 1.5-2 times the average values for the whole array of the light
amphibian aircraft. Such characteristics become quite explainable, if we
consider the take-off speed (lift-off speed) of the Be-103: 137 km/h at the
land take-off and 130 km/h at the water surface take-off. The Be-103 at the
declared take-off weight of 2269 kg and the wing area of 25.1 m2 has the
wing loading of 91 kg/m2, which is rather high for the analyzed class of
aircraft. At take-off at the speed of 137 km/h the wing-lift coefficient CLW =
0.99 –1.0. The wing of the plane does not have flaps, but still such values of
CLW are very small. At the water take-off the take-off speed is a bit lower
(130 km/h), the wing-lift coefficient CLW = 1.1. Note that the declared stall
speed of the Be-103 is 109 km/h, which corresponds to CL MAX= 1.57. Thus,
the Be-103 at take-off has approximately a time and half stall margin
coefficient of CLW. As far as take-off safety is concerned, this is very good,
but it results, as seen, in a considerable increase in the take-off run.
2) LA-8 “Flagman”. The plane is currently under development; therefore its
characteristics are scheduled. According to the project data, the plane will
have the land/water take-off runs of 300/350 m. The LA-8 with the take-off
weight of 2300 kg and the wing area of about 18.6 m2 has the wing loading
of 124 kg/m2, which is the highest among all the planes analyzed in this
report. The take-off speed for the plane is expected to be about 95 km/h at
the land take-off, and 100 km/h at the water take-off. Such take-off speeds
will require very high values of the wing-lift coefficient CLW = 2.6-2.65. Note
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
46
that for light planes, the used wing-lift coefficient at take-off is generally
substantially smaller. Theoretically, on the straight wing with efficient flaps,
with blowing the wings with the air-stream from the propellers, and using
drooped ailerons it is possible to obtain the necessary values of wing-lift
coefficient. But an increase in the aerodynamic drag of the plane during the
run also becomes too big and offsets the advantages of the reduced take-off
speed. Apparently, the developers take this fact into consideration.
Figure 3.10 Water to land take-off run ratios of the amphibian aircrafts
Characteristics of the aircraft transport capabilities. Transport capabilities of the
plane can be estimated by the indicator of transport effectiveness (eq. 3.11,
Figure 3.11). Transport capacities can be partially estimated by the mass to
passenger ratio (Figure 3.12). This factor estimates also plane construction
efficiency.
The most general characteristics of the plane transport capabilities is the plane
transport capabilities diagram showing the payload versus the range.
Figure 3.13 includes such diagrams for some of the planes analyzed in this
report.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
47
Figure 3.11 Transport qualitative effectiveness of the amphibian aircrafts
Figure 3.12 Weight to number of passengers ratios of the amphibian aircrafts
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
48
Figure 3.13 Diagram of the transport capabilities of the light amphibian aircrafts
The aircraft transport capabilities diagrams are created on the basis of the data
from the application data sheets, reference books and other sources of
information. As seen, at a flight range up to 1200 km the LA-8 “Flagman” has an
essential advantage over the other planes in terms of the payload weight
(provided the declared characteristics are met). With ranges over 1200 km USA
and GB-made amphibian aircraft have the advantage of the payload weight with
the maximum flying range up to 1600-2220 km. At small ranges, the Russian-
made planes Be-103 and OSA have an advantage over the American LA-250
“Renegade”, but underperform as compared with the more modern ТА-16
“Seafire” and “Warrior Centaur”. It should be taken into consideration, that the
USA and GB-made amphibian aircraft which the Russian-made planes are
compared with have a 1.3-1.5 times lower take-off weight that the Russian-
made planes. They have an advantage over the Russian-made planes due to
their higher weight cleanness level, better aerodynamics and more economical
engines.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
49
According to the information available, it is expected to equip the LA-8
“Flagman” with two additional fuel tanks 150 l each. This will give a possibility to
almost double the maximum fuel on board, increasing it to 460 kg, if necessary.
With such fuel range the plane will have the transport capabilities diagram as
shown with a broken line in Figure 3.13, i.e. the maximum flying range of 2400
km with the payload of 300-350 kg. At the economic flight speed, its flying
range, in this case, can be 12-14 hours.
3.3 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of hydroplanes
in an float system
The main performance characteristics of all the float planes analyzed in this
work are presented in Appendix B
Figure 3.14 Float planes distribution by take-off weight
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
50
Figure 3.15 Empty plane mass ratios for float planes
Figure 3.16 Payload mass ratios for float planes
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
51
Figure 3.17 Maximum cruising speeds of the float aircrafts
Figure 3.18 Power-to-weight ratios of the float planes
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
52
Figure 3.19 Wing loadings of the float aircrafts
Figure 3.20 Water to land take-off run ratios of the float planes
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
53
Figure 3.21 Transport qualitative effectiveness of the float aircrafts
Figure 3.22 Weight to number of passengers ratios of the float aircrafts
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
54
3.4 Comparative analysis of the characteristics of modified
land-based aircrafts
The main performance characteristics of all the modified versions of land-based
aircrafts analyzed in this work are presented in Appendix C.
3.4.1 Modification assumptions
Figure 3.23 modification of single engined existing land-based aircraft
Figure 3.24 modification of twin engined existing land-based aircraft
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
55
3.4.2 Technical characteristics comparative analysis
Figure 3.25 Single engined aircrafts distribution by take-off weight
Figure 3.26 Twin engined aircrafts distribution by take-off weight
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
56
Figure 3.27 Empty plane mass ratios for single engined aircrafts
Figure 3.28 Empty plane mass ratios for twin engined aircrafts
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
57
Figure 3.29 Payload mass ratios for single engined aircrafts
Figure 3.30 Payload mass ratios for twin engined aircrafts
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
58
Figure 3.31 Power-to-weight ratios of the single engined aircrafts
Figure 3.32 Power-to-weight ratios of the twin engined aircrafts
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
59
Figure 3.33 Water to land take-off run ratios of the single engined aircrafts
Figure 3.34 Water to land take-off run ratios of the twin engined aircrafts
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
60
3.4.3 Transport capabilities comparative analysis
Figure 3.35 MORRISON 6 - payload-range diagram
Figure 3.36 Cessna 172R - payload-range diagram
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
61
Figure 3.37 Cessna 182T - payload-range diagram
Figure 3.38 Cessna 206H - payload-range diagram
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
62
Figure 3.39 Cessna 208 CARAVAN - payload-range diagram
Figure 3.40 GA-8 Airvan - payload-range diagram
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
63
Figure 3.41 EXPLORER 500T - payload-range diagram
Figure 3.42 T-101 GRACH - payload-range diagram
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
64
Figure 3.43 VulcanAir P68C - payload-range diagram
Figure 3.44 Britten-Norman BN-2B - payload-range diagram
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
65
Figure 3.45 Britten-Norman BN-2T - payload-range diagram
Figure 3.46 HAI Y-12 - payload-range diagram
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
66
Figure 3.47 M-28 - payload-range diagram
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
67
Fig
ure
3.4
8 D
iag
ram
of
the
tra
ns
po
rt c
ap
ab
ilit
ies
of
the
mo
dif
ied
ve
rsio
ns
of
lan
d-b
ase
d a
irc
raft
s
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
68
3.5 Seaplane park structure
Figure 3.49 Optimum specialization fields determined on the basis of transport effectiveness
criterion (3.12)
Figure 3.50 Optimum specialization fields determined on the basis of Direct Operating Cost
criterion (3.14)
3.6 Seaplane park infrastructure
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
69
4 Integration aspects sea-air-land
in progress
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
70
5 Development of requirements for future European
seaplane/amphibian transportation system
5.1 Aircraft requirements
The conducted comparative analysis of the characteristics of selected types of
light amphibian aircrafts helped to identify some requirements and persistent
advantages of the new amphibian seaplane.
Rather large dimensions (take-off weight) of the plane – approximately
2300 kg, which makes it possible to equip the plane with a modern set of
flight and navigation equipment, transport 6-7 passengers with the
necessary comfort level in its passenger version, transport cargo (including
long cargo) up to 500-600 kg over a distance up to 1000-1200 km in its
freighter version, and equip the plane with the appropriate equipment in its
special application versions, having a payload mass reserve (fuel range).
The rational aerodynamic and design-layout diagram (a conventional
aircraft, high-wing, with two engines on a wing). The presence of two
engines will considerably increase reliability and flight operating safety,
provided the flight continues with one working engine at any flight stage. The
high-wing diagram is more efficient aerodynamically than the low-wing
diagram due to positive interference between the wing and the fuselage,
providing at the same time improvement of the roll stability of the plane. The
high-positioned wing not touching the water at take-off and landing stages
makes it possible to equip the wing with efficient take-off and landing
devices. The engines and propellers are moved away from the runway or
water surface without any additional weight costs, as they are installed on
the high-positioned wing. The high-positioned wing improves the view from
the cockpit downwards and makes it possible to install various equipment for
observation of the land or water surface (for instance, sideward-looking
antennas) alongside the fuselage.
It is expected to use highly reliable certified and quite economical engines
with certified variable pitch propellers on the plane. The use of certified
engines is a very valuable advantage making it potentially possible to
operate the plane without territorial limitations. Another important advantage
of the selected engines is low-octane gasoline which does not simply make
the operation cheaper, but also makes it more reliable and independent on
fuel supplies.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
71
The new amphibian plane declared performances should exceeds those of
all other amphibian aircraft analyzed in this work, which was mentioned
above in chapter 3 or appendixes. In the process of making the plane the
advantages of its design should to be realized, and first of all passed the
weight limits and confirmed the declared take-off and landing characteristics.
In this case the new amphibian plane should have advantages over other
planes considering not only declared, but also practically implemented
performances.
5.2 Infrastructure requirements
5.2.1 General
During the Fusetra related discussions, it has been found that the infrastructure
for Seaplane/Amphibian operation is not totally different to the operation of land
based airplanes.
The major operation is in a day VFR environment. Based on this the request
has been stated that no marked landing area on a seaport shall be used.
This circumstance and this request is adapted to the state of the art of today.
Based on the non-availability of avionics a night operation or IFR up to CAT II
operation is not possible in the moment. but technically feasible for future
seaplane transport systems.
For future seaplane/amphibian operation in connection with scheduled flights
under nearly all weather conditions, it is requested to improve this situation.
For such an advanced operation a seaport with marked take-off and landing
strips seems to be beneficial.
This does not mean that an infrastructure, like a typical land airfield, is required.
The advantage to keep the infrastructure low shall not drop away.
Anyhow, to fulfil the request of all-weather operation the seaport shall be
equipped with the typical ILS features like localizer and glide slope. These
devices may be based on a pontoon.
Beside the infrastructure of the seaport an adapted infrastructure in the aircraft
is also requested.
This is more or less the standard ILS equipment.
In addition to that a new type of wave configuration measurement may be used.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
72
5.2.2 Seaport Infrastructure
The following example shows a general layout of a seaport.
Figure 5.1 Typical seaport configuration:
Figure 5.2 Ramp configuration
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
73
Figure 5.3 Real existing seaport (Russia).
Source: Diagrams and picture Beriev Presentation AERO Frierichshafen
In cases where no ramp or parking area can be installed or if seaplanes instead
of amphibians are operated, an adequate pontoon system shall be available for
passenger boarding and refuelling.
5.2.3 Aircraft Infrastructure
The major difference between a touch down on land and water is the unknown
surface of the landing strip.
The waves caused by wind or swell may cause a danger to the aircraft.
Based on this, especially if we think about a CAT II landing, there must be
features to know details about the waves and the wind. This is beside the wave
direction the wave frequency and the wave energy accompanied by the wind
direction and strength.
During the Fustera meetings it could be demonstrated that the Russian
participants (Beriev Aircraft Company) do have advanced sensors and
mathematics to determine the wave configuration.
With the existing method it is easily possible to calculate the requested data as
stated above.
This means in combination with adequate sensors and processing units it would
be possible to provide to the pilot the requested data for a safe landing.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
74
The first approach for such a solution could be the use of a radar based sensor
unit located at the wingtips of the airplane.
Based on this a 3D picture of the waves can be created. With the mathematics
mentioned above the calculation can be achieved and presented to the pilot.
This feature may be supported by additional sensors located near the landing
strip.
For further details about the wave energy calculation see also the Presentation
FUSETRA Workshop 3 April 2011 Friedrichshafen by Vadim V. Zdanevich Beriv
Russia
This idea of an aircraft internal wave computing system may be developed
further if other external senor systems like satellites are used in addition.
With general wave informations from such Satellites in combination with GPS
date a flexible and optimized landing strip may be determinded and shown to
the pilot as an artifizial localizer beam.
After a fly over and a final verification for obstacles in this computed landing
strips by the internal radar system a save touch down can be performed.
5.3 Regulation / Certification requirements
The Investigation has been made according the certification requirement of
EASA CS23. This certification configuration is currently the preferred one of the
Fusetra involved parties.
Anyhow a certification for future seaplane/ amphibian developments according
to the CS 25 regulations is in the same range of probability. In that case the
relevant paragraphs of CS 25 shall be considered.
The following statements consider not the entire CS 23 requirements; only the
specific requirements for seaplanes and amphibians are pointed out.
In some cases additional requirements are stated. These statements are written
in cursive letters.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
75
5.3.1 CS 23.51 Take-off speeds
Requirement:
For seaplanes and amphibians taking off from water, VR, must be a speed that
is shown to be safe under all reasonably expected conditions, including
turbulence and complete failure of the critical engine.
Means of Compliance:
A twin engine aircraft shall be preferred which can show compliance with the
remaining engine after a fault of the first engine.
For single engine application an ELOS (Equivalent level of Safety) shall be
shown by procedures and special requirements to the sea port.
5.3.2 CS 23.75 Landing distance
Requirement:
The landing must be made without excessive vertical acceleration or tendency
to bounce, nose-over, ground loop, porpoise or water loop.
Means of Compliance:
During certification, especially during flight test, it has to be demonstrated the
aircraft has no uncontrollable porpoise and is free of water loop
5.3.3 CS 23.231 Longitudinal stability and control
Requirement:
A seaplane or amphibian may not have dangerous or uncontrollable purpoising
characteristics at any normal operating speed on the water.
Means of Compliance:
During certification, especially during flight test, it has to be demonstrated the
aircraft has no uncontrollable porpoise.
5.3.4 CS 23.233 Directional stability and control
Requirement:
Seaplanes must demonstrate satisfactory directional stability and control for
water operations up to the maximum wind velocity specified in sub-paragraph
(a).
Means of Compliance:
To consider 90° Crosswind, waves and special cases like single engine on a
twin airplane an adequate water rudder is recommended if other means are not
available
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
76
5.3.5 CS 23.237 Operation on water
Requirement:
Allowable water surface conditions and any necessary water handling
procedures for seaplanes and amphibians must be established.
Means of Compliance:
Beside the directional control according CS 23.233 the operation in waves shall
be defined and approved during flight test.
New technologies for wave energy calculation may be included in the
definitions.
5.3.6 CS 23.239 Spray characteristics
Requirement:
Spray may not dangerously obscure the vision of the pilots or damage the
propellers or other parts of a seaplane or amphibian at any time during taxying,
take-off and landing.
Means of Compliance:
It shall be demonstrated during flight test that the shape of the aircraft nose, the
sponsen or floats do not create a spay which does cause reduces vision of the
pilot or may damage any part of the airplane.
5.3.7 CS 23.521ff Water loads
This paragraph includes:
CS 23.521 Water load conditions
CS 23.523 Design weights and centre of gravity positions
CS 23.525 Application of loads
CS 23.527 Hull and main float load factors
CS 23.529 Hull and main float landing conditions
CS 23.531 Hull and main float take-off condition
CS 23.533 Hull and main float bottom pressures
CS 23.535 Auxiliary float loads
CS 23.537 Seawing loads
Requirement:
The paragraphs mentioned above consider the design and test loads for
seaplanes and amphibians.
For details see CS 23
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
77
Means of Compliance:
The loads and design data stated in the requirements shall be considered
during design. An adequate documentation shall be prepared.
Note:
The load determination is a major task for the seaplane and amphibian design.
High additional aircraft mass may be caused by these requirements.
On the basis on the request of high efficiency and low CO² emission modern
technologies shall be applied to optimize the relation between, structure
weights, aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, safety against obstacles in the water
e.t.c.
5.3.8 CS 23.751ff FLOATS AND HULLS
This paragraph includes:
CS 23.751 Main float buoyancy
CS 23.753 Main float design
CS 23.755 Hulls
CS 23.757 Auxiliary floats
Requirement:
The paragraphs mentioned above consider the design floats and hulls for
seaplanes and amphibians in general.
For details see CS 23
Means of Compliance:
The design data shall be considered during design. An adequate documentation
shall be prepared.
See also the note stated in CS 23.521ff
5.3.9 CS 23.777 Cockpit controls
Requirement:
No specific requirements for seaplanes or amphibian airplanes are stated in the
regulation.
For amphibians the following paragraph is important:
The landing gear control must be located to the left of the throttle centreline or
pedestal centreline.
It describes only the location. But the erroneous operation of the landing gear
handle may case catastrophic accidents.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
78
Based on this a specific control system is recommended
This shall require a double action of the pilot to alert him not to select the wrong
landing gear configuration on water or on land. A master switch with a blue light
is recommended to give a clear indication about the intended landing case.
Means of Compliance:
The general requirements and the additional recommendations shall be
considered during design and test.
5.3.10 CS 23.807 Emergency exits
Requirement:
(e) For twin-engined aeroplanes, ditching emergency exits must be provided in
accordance with the following requirements, unless the emergency exits
required by sub-paragraph (a) or (d) s already comply with them:
(1) One exit above the waterline on each side of the aeroplane having the
dimensions specified in sub-paragraph (b) or
(d), as applicable; and
(2) If side exits cannot be above the waterline; there must be a readily
accessible overhead hatch emergency exit that has a rectangular opening
measuring not less than 51 cm (20 in) wide by 91 cm (36 in) long, with corner
radii not greater than one-third width of the exit.
Additional requirements:
It shall be considered that CS 751ff requires special buoyancy for seaplanes
and amphibians
Means of Compliance:
It shall be demonstrated by test or calculation.
5.3.11 CS 23.901ff Power Plant
CS 23.901 Installation
CS 23.903 Engines and auxiliary power units
Requirement:
No specific requirements for seaplanes or amphibian airplanes are stated in the
regulation. For seaplanes and amphibians the following is very important:
Based on the operation in water the water spray requirements shall be more in
the focus. This is combined with the requirement do deal in addition to normal
water with sea water.
Special water separation devises are recommended in the air intake of the
engine. Also the cleaning of the engine shall be considered to prevent corrosion
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
79
Means of Compliance:
The general requirements and the additional recommendations shall be
considered during design and test.
5.3.12 CS 23.905ff Propellers
CS 23.905 Propellers
CS 23.907 Propeller vibration
5.3.13 CS 23.925 Propeller clearance
Requirement:
No specific requirements for seaplanes or amphibian airplanes are stated in the
regulation.
For seaplanes and amphibians the following is very important:
The water sprays or in worse case the collision of a propeller blade with “Green”
Water creates much higher stability requirement then propeller for land based
airplanes.
Also the vibration prevention of the propeller may cause more effort because of
the water impact encouragement
Means of Compliance:
Compliance shall be shown by special tests.
5.3.14 CS 23.1322 Warning, caution and advisory lights
Requirement:
No specific requirements for seaplanes or amphibian airplanes are stated in the
regulation.
For seaplanes and amphibians the following is very important:
The erroneous operation of the landing gear handle may case catastrophic
accidents. Based on this a special warning system is recommended using a
blue light for the operation on water (see also 23.777)
Means of Compliance:
Compliance shall be shown by special equipment and adequate tests.
5.3.15 CS 23.1385ff Position light system installation
CS 23.1385 Position light system installation
CS 23.1387 Position light system dihedral angles
CS 23.1389 Position light distribution and intensities
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
80
Requirement:
No specific requirements for seaplanes or amphibian airplanes are stated in the
regulation.
For seaplanes and amphibians the following is additionally required:
Special lights according the maritime requirements shall be installed in the
airplane.
Means of Compliance:
Compliance shall be shown by special equipment and adequate documentation.
5.3.16 CS 23.1415 Ditching equipment
Requirement:
No specific requirements for seaplanes or amphibian airplanes are stated in the
regulation.
For seaplanes and amphibians the following shall be considered:
Ditching of a seaplane may be a landing configuration outside the normal
operation condition (i.e. abnormal wave height, cross wind or wave direction)
and outside the seaport vicinity. For such cases the equipment shall be similar
that for land based airplanes.
Means of Compliance:
Compliance shall be shown by special equipment.
5.3.17 CS 23.1501 General (OPERATING LIMITATIONS AND INFORMATION)
Requirement:
No specific requirements for seaplanes or amphibian airplanes are stated in the
regulation.
For seaplanes and amphibians the following shall be considered:
The operating limits on waves hare difficult to be described. This is caused by
the high number of parameters.
New technologies like “Wave Energy Calculation” may be considered to give
the pilot clear indication about his operating limits.
Means of Compliance:
Compliance shall be shown by special equipment and tests.
5.3.18 CS 23.1541 General MARKINGS AND PLACARDS
Requirement:
No specific requirements for seaplanes or amphibian airplanes are stated in the
regulation.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
81
For seaplanes and amphibians the following shall be considered:
Additional placards shall be installed to consider the special requirements.
Especially for Take off and landing, boarding and deboarding.
Means of Compliance:
Compliance shall be shown by documentation.
5.3.19 CS 23.1581 General (AEROPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL)
See comments to CS23.1501
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
82
6 Summary
It should be assumed that the development of local communication using
amphibian aircraft will have the following aims:
Simplification of plane production and decrease in its costs. It is firstly
connected with the search of new constructional conceptions (plane design
regarding their further development by modification, model construction and
so on).
Decrease in direct operating costs and increase in profitability of the user. It
requires the use of computer software which gives the possibility of complex
plane design.
Increasing the lifespan and safety of the plane.
Improving flight and piloting characteristics influencing the increase in the
safety level. It is connected with the development of supervision systems in
connection with the above mentioned works.
Improving the comfort. Apart from improving the airborne systems (e.g. air-
conditioning) or designing a cockpit with larger dimensions it is connected
with working out aerodynamic systems assisted by active steering systems
guaranteeing minimization of negative feelings of passengers during the
flight in turbulent air.
To make the development of this kind of transport possible and to make it more
competitive in comparison to other branches and fulfill its tasks, the following is
required:
Adjustment of the flight training system to new needs.
Adjustment of the infrastructure and air traffic rules to the increased flight
intensity and the use of air area. It is connected with building and equipping
new small airports and water landing fields as well as creation of information
service system.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
83
7 References
1. W. Nelson. Seaplane design. New York : McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1934.
2. W. Brusow. Optymalne projektowanie wielozadaniowych statków latających.
Warszawa : Instytut Lotnictwa, 1996.
3. Remer D. Cesare B. Seaplane Operations: Basic and Advanced Techniques
for Floatplanes, Amphibians, and Flying Boats from Around the World. New
Castle : brak nazwiska, 2004.
4. Remer, Dale De. Water Flying Concepts: An Advanced Text on Wilderness
Water Flying (ASA Training Manuals). Washington : Aviation Supplies &
Academics, 2002.
5. Mees, Burke. Notes of a Seaplane Instructor: An Instructional Guide to
Seaplane Flying (ASA Training Manuals). Washington : Aviation Supplies &
Academics, 2005.
6. M. Langley. Seaplane float and hull design. London : Sir Isaac Pitman and
Sons, 1935.
7. E. Torenbeek. Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design. Delft : Delft University
Press, 1976.
8. Dale De Remer Cesare Baj. Seaplane Operations: Basic and Advanced
Techniques for Floatplanes, Amphibians, and Flying Boats from Around the
World (ASA Training Manuals) . Washington : Aviation Supplies & Academics,
2003.
9. Brusow W. Klepacki Z., Majka A. Airports and Facilities Data Base, EPATS
technical report, Project no: ASA6-CT-2006-044549. Warsaw : Institute of
Aviation, 2007.
10. Central Statistical Office. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland
2010. Warsaw : Central Statistical Office, 2010.
11. U.S. Department of Transportation. Seaplane, Skiplane and Float/Ski
Equipped Helicopter Operations Handbook. Washington : Federal Aviation
Administration, 2004.
12. Seaplane companies. [Online] May 2010.
http://www.seaplanecompanies.com/.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
84
13. Polish Air Navigation Services Agency. [Online] December 2010.
http://www.pata.pl.
14. International Civil Aviation Organization. [Online] December 2010.
http://www.icao.int.
15. International Air Transport Association. [Online] December 2010.
http://www.iata.org.
16. German Airports Association. [Online] December 2010. http://www.adv-
net.org.
17. Federal Aviation Administration. [Online] December 2010.
http://www.faa.gov.
18. European Civil Aviation Conference. [Online] December 2010.
http://www.eraa.org.
19. European Communities. Europe in figures, Eurostat yearbook 2008. s.l. :
European Communities, 2008.
20. Eurocontrol. [Online] December 2010. http://www.eurocontrol.int.
21. ESPON. [Online] April 2011. http://www.espon.eu/.
22. Central Statistical Office. Demographic Yearbook of Poland 2010.
Warsaw : Central Statistical Office, 2010.
23. Civil Aviation Office, Poland. [Online] December 2010. http://www.ulc.gov.pl.
24. AOPA. AOPA Online. AOPA. [Online] May 2011. http://www.aopa.org.
25. ICAO. Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Aerodromes, Volume I, Aerodrome Design and Operations. brak miejsca :
ICAO, 1990.
26. Airports Council International. [Online] December 2010. http://www.aci-
europe.org.
27. POLISH AIR TRAFFIC AGENCY. Aeronautical Information Publication AIP
Poland, EUR ANP – ICAO, Doc 7754, Part VII AIS. brak miejsca : POLISH AIR
TRAFFIC AGENCY, 2010.
28. ICAO. Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 1, Runways. s.l. : ICAO, 1983.
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
85
8 Appendix A - Review of technical characteristics of
future amphibians
8.1 L-471
Figure 8.1 Amphibian aircraft L-471
Wingspan, [m] 13,50
Length, [m] 11,80
Height, [m] 4,10
Wing area, [m] 26,30
Empty weight, [kg] 1420
Gross weight, [kg] 1850
Payload weight, [kg] 400
Fuel weight, [kg] 330
Power plant М14P-ХDK
Power, [kW] 265
Maximum speed, [km/h] 215
Cruising speed, [km/h] 175
Range, [km] 1275
Service ceiling, [m] 4000
Crew 1
Pax 3-4
T-O run land / water, [m] 360/470
Table 8.1 L-471 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
86
8.2 LA-8
Figure 8.2 Amphibian aircraft LA-8
Wingspan, [m] 13,08
Length, [m] 11,10
Height, [m] 3,40
Wing area, [m] 18,60
Empty weight, [kg] 1701
Gross weight, [kg] 2300
Payload weight, [kg] 739
Fuel capacity, [litres] 380
Power plant LOM PRAHA M-337C
Power, [kW] 2x184
Maximum speed, [km/h] 260
Cruising speed, [km/h] 220
Range, [km] 1200
Service ceiling, [m] 4500
Crew 1
Pax 7
T-O run land / water, [m] 300/350
Table 8.2 LA-8 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
87
8.3 SA-20P(OSA)
Figure 8.3 Amphibian aircraft SA-20P(OSA)
Wingspan, [m] 12,72
Length, [m] 10,45
Height, [m] 3,75
Wing area, [m] 25,10
Empty weight, [kg] 1670
Gross weight, [kg] 2270
Payload weight, [kg] 400
Fuel capacity, [kg] 216
Power plant М-14Х
Power, [kW] 265
Maximum speed, [km/h] 210
Cruising speed, [km/h] 180
Range, [km] 900
Service ceiling, [m] 4700
Crew 1
Pax 5
T-O run land / water, [m] 300/600
Table 8.3 SA-20P(OSA) specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
88
8.4 SK-12 Orion
Figure 8.4 Amphibian aircraft SK-12 Orion
Wingspan, [m] 12,54
Length, [m] 7,94
Height, [m] NDA
Wing area, [m] 18,10
Empty weight, [kg] 670
Gross weight, [kg] 1150
Payload weight, [kg] 360
Fuel capacity, [kg] 144
Power plant Rotax-912ULS
Power, [kW] 2x74
Maximum speed, [km/h] 220
Cruising speed, [km/h] 160
Range, [km] 1000
Service ceiling, [m] 4000
Crew 1
Pax 3
T-O run land / water, [m] NDA
Table 8.4 SK-12 Orion specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
89
8.5 Istok-4
Figure 8.5 Amphibian aircraft Istok-4
Wingspan, [m] 13,20
Length, [m] 8,00
Height, [m] 3,10
Wing area, [m] NDA
Empty weight, [kg] 600
Gross weight, [kg] 1400
Payload weight, [kg] 380
Fuel capacity, [kg] 150
Power plant Rotax 912UL
Power, [kW] 2x58
Maximum speed, [km/h] 200
Cruising speed, [km/h] 180
Range, [km] 1000
Service ceiling, [m] NDA
Crew 1
Pax 3
T-O run land / water, [m] 140/200
Table 8.5 Istok-4 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
90
8.6 Be-103
Figure 8.6 Amphibian aircraft Be-103
Wingspan, [m] 12,72
Length, [m] 10,65
Height, [m] 3,76
Wing area, [m] 25,10
Empty weight, [kg] 1730
Gross weight, [kg] 2280
Payload weight, [kg] 385
Fuel capacity, [kg] 245
Power plant ТСМ 10-360 ES4
Power, [kW] 2x155
Maximum speed, [km/h] 250
Cruising speed, [km/h] 220
Range, [km] 1180
Service ceiling, [m] 5000
Crew 2
Pax 5
T-O run land / water, [m] 300/555
Table 8.6 Be-103 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
91
8.7 A-25
Figure 8.7 Amphibian aircraft A-25 AEROPRAKT
Wingspan, [m] 10,60
Length, [m] 7,95
Height, [m] 2,96
Wing area, [m] 14,85
Empty weight, [kg] 700
Gross weight, [kg] 1225
Payload weight, [kg] 320
Fuel capacity, [kg] 190
Power plant Lycoming IO-540-C485
Power, [kW] 155
Maximum speed, [km/h] 260
Cruising speed, [km/h] 200
Range, [km] 1000
Service ceiling, [m] NDA
Crew 1
Pax 3
T-O run land / water, [m] 290/400
Table 8.7 A-25 AEROPRAKT specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
92
8.8 C-400 Captain
Figure 8.8 Amphibian aircraft C-400 Captain
Wingspan, [m] 12,30
Length, [m] 7,80
Height, [m] 2,80
Wing area, [m] 16
Empty weight, [kg] 740
Gross weight, [kg] 1230
Payload weight, [kg] 240
Fuel capacity, [kg] NDA
Power plant Rotax912ULS
Power, [kW] 2x74
Maximum speed, [km/h] 220
Cruising speed, [km/h] 180
Range, [km] 1200
Service ceiling, [m] 4000
Crew 1
Pax 3
T-O run land / water, [m] 120/150
Table 8.8 C-400 Captain specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
93
8.9 Pelican-4
Figure 8.9 Amphibian aircraft Pelican-4
Wingspan, [m] 11,00
Length, [m] 6,90
Height, [m] 2,50
Wing area, [m] 15,80
Empty weight, [kg] 650
Gross weight, [kg] 1053
Payload weight, [kg] 240
Fuel capacity, [kg] 165
Power plant Rotax 912ULS
Power, [kW] 2x76
Maximum speed, [km/h] 170
Cruising speed, [km/h] 140
Range, [km] 1200
Service ceiling, [m] 3000
Crew 1
Pax 3
T-O run land / water, [m] 150/NDA
Table 8.9 Pelican-4 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
94
8.10 LAKE 250 RENEGADE
Figure 8.10 Amphibian aircraft Lake 250 Renegade
Wingspan, [m] 11,58
Length, [m] 8,64
Height, [m] 3,05
Wing area, [m] 15,80
Empty weight, [kg] 839
Gross weight, [kg] 1383
Payload weight, [kg] 465
Fuel capacity, [kg] 265
Power plant Lycoming IO-540-C4B5
Power, [kW] 186
Maximum speed, [km/h] 258
Cruising speed, [km/h] 240
Range, [km] 1668
Service ceiling, [m] 4480
Crew 1
Pax 5
T-O run land / water, [m] 268/381
Table 8.10 Lake 250 Renegade specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
95
8.11 Thurston TA16 Trojan
Figure 8.11 Amphibian aircraft Thurston TA16 Trojan
Wingspan, [m] 11,28
Length, [m] 8,28
Height, [m] 3,28
Wing area, [m] 17,00
Empty weight, [kg] 885
Gross weight, [kg] 1450
Payload weight, [kg] 460
Fuel capacity, [kg] 265
Power plant Lycoming O-540-A4D5
Power, [kW] 186
Maximum speed, [km/h] 280
Cruising speed, [km/h] 240
Range, [km] 1600
Service ceiling, [m] 5500
Crew 1
Pax 3
T-O run land / water, [m] 198/260
Table 8.11 Thurston TA16 Trojan specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
96
8.12 CENTAUR 6
Figure 8.12 Amphibian aircraft CENTAUR 6
Wingspan, [m] 13,65
Length, [m] 11,15
Height, [m] NDA
Wing area, [m] NDA
Empty weight, [kg] 1207
Gross weight, [kg] 1920
Payload weight, [kg] 545
Fuel capacity, [kg] NDA
Power plant Lycoming IO-540-C
Power, [kW] 220
Maximum speed, [km/h] NDA
Cruising speed, [km/h] 235
Range, [km] 2220
Service ceiling, [m] NDA
Crew 1
Pax 5
T-O run land / water, [m] 286/362
Table 8.12 CENTAUR 6 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
97
9 Appendix B - Review of technical characteristics of
future floatplanes
9.1 Cessna 180
Figure 9.1 Floatplane Cessna 180
Wingspan, [m] 10,92
Length, [m] 7,85
Height, [m] 2,36
Wing area, [m] 16,20
Empty weight, [kg] 908
Gross weight, [kg] 1292
Payload weight, [kg] 385
Fuel capacity, [kg] 162
Power plant IO-540
Power, [kW] 170
Maximum speed, [km/h] NDA
Cruising speed, [km/h] 239
Range, [km] NDA
Service ceiling, [m] NDA
Crew 1
Pax 3
T-O run land / water, [m] 231/343
Table 9.1 Cessna 180 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
98
9.2 Cessna 182
Figure 9.2 Figure 9.3 Floatplane Cessna 182
Wingspan, [m] 11,00
Length, [m] 8,84
Height, [m] 2,80
Wing area, [m] 16,20
Empty weight, [kg] 927
Gross weight, [kg] 1406
Payload weight, [kg] 295
Fuel capacity, [kg] 162
Power plant IO-540
Power, [kW] 170
Maximum speed, [km/h] NDA
Cruising speed, [km/h] 217
Range, [km] NDA
Service ceiling, [m] 4270
Crew 1
Pax 3
T-O run land / water, [m] 310/440
Table 9.2 Floatplane Cessna 182 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
99
9.3 Cessna 185
Figure 9.4 Floatplane Cessna 185
Wingspan, [m] 10,92
Length, [m] 7,85
Height, [m] 2,36
Wing area, [m] 16,20
Empty weight, [kg] 1025
Gross weight, [kg] 1519
Payload weight, [kg] 499
Fuel capacity, [kg] 192
Power plant IO-520
Power, [kW] 224
Maximum speed, [km/h] NDA
Cruising speed, [km/h] 239
Range, [km] NDA
Service ceiling, [m] NDA
Crew 1
Pax 5
T-O run land / water, [m] 231/343
Table 9.3 Cessna 185 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
100
9.4 Cessna 206
Figure 9.5 Floatplane Cessna 206
Wingspan, [m] 10,97
Length, [m] 8,61
Height, [m] 2,83
Wing area, [m] 16,30
Empty weight, [kg] 1206
Gross weight, [kg] 1720
Payload weight, [kg] 513
Fuel capacity, [kg] 250
Power plant IO-540
Power, [kW] 224
Maximum speed, [km/h] 263
Cruising speed, [km/h] 233
Range, [km] NDA
Service ceiling, [m] 3765
Crew 1
Pax 5
T-O run land / water, [m] 285/540
Table 9.4 Cessna 206 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
101
9.5 Cessna 208
Figure 9.6 Floatplane Cessna 208
Wingspan, [m] 15,88
Length, [m] 12,67
Height, [m] 4,32
Wing area, [m] 26,00
Empty weight, [kg] 2547
Gross weight, [kg] 3795
Payload weight, [kg] 1264
Fuel capacity, [kg] 1010
Power plant PT6A-114A
Power, [kW] 497
Maximum speed, [km/h] NDA
Cruising speed, [km/h] 306
Range, [km] 1522
Service ceiling, [m] 6100
Crew 1
Pax 9
T-O run land / water, [m] 335/584
Table 9.5 Cessna 208 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
102
9.6 de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III
Figure 9.7 Floatplane de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III
Wingspan, [m] 14,63
Length, [m] 9,22
Height, [m] 2,74
Wing area, [m] 23,20
Empty weight, [kg] 1704
Gross weight, [kg] 2769
Payload weight, [kg] 972
Fuel capacity, [kg] 672
Power plant Pratt & Whitney R-985
Power, [kW] 405
Maximum speed, [km/h] 374
Cruising speed, [km/h] 346
Range, [km] 1234
Service ceiling, [m] NDA
Crew 1
Pax 7
T-O run land / water, [m] 228/294
Table 9.6 de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver Mark III specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
103
9.7 de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter
Figure 9.8 de Havilland DHC-6 Floatplane Twin Otter
Wingspan, [m] 19,81
Length, [m] 15,09
Height, [m] 6,10
Wing area, [m] 39
Empty weight, [kg] 3846
Gross weight, [kg] 6276
Payload weight, [kg] 2045
Fuel capacity, [kg] 1358
Power plant Pratt & Whitney PT6-34
Power, [kW] 2x552
Maximum speed, [km/h] NDA
Cruising speed, [km/h] 260
Range, [km] NDA
Service ceiling, [m] NDA
Crew 2
Pax 19
T-O run land / water, [m] NDA
Table 9.7 de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
104
9.8 Piper PA-18
Figure 9.9 Floatplane Piper PA-18
Wingspan, [m] 10,73
Length, [m] 6,88
Height, [m] 2,02
Wing area, [m] 16,58
Empty weight, [kg] 571
Gross weight, [kg] 806
Payload weight, [kg] 186
Fuel capacity, [kg] 106
Power plant Lycoming O-320
Power, [kW] 112
Maximum speed, [km/h] NDA
Cruising speed, [km/h] 157
Range, [km] NDA
Service ceiling, [m] NDA
Crew 1
Pax 1
T-O run land / water, [m] 179/237
Table 9.8 Piper PA-18 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
105
10 Appendix C - Review of technical characteristics of
modified versions of existing land-based aircraft
10.1 MORRISON 6
Figure 10.1 MORRISON 6
Category Base Amphibious
floatplane
Engine, [kW] 298 298
Wing span, [m] 10.92 10.92
Length overall, [m] 9.12 9.12
Weight empty, [kg] 1181 1394
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 410 410
Max. payload, [kg] 466 466
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 2018 2232
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 383 358
Service ceiling, [m] 3460 2146
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 460 580
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 670
T-O run (on land), [m] 308 399
T-O run (on water), [m] 489
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km] 1598 1296
Crew / Pax 1/5
Table 10.1 MORRISON 6 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
106
10.2 Cessna 172R
Figure 10.2 Cessna 172R
Category Base Amphibious
floatplane
Engine, [kW] 119 119
Wing span, [m] 11.00 11.00
Length overall, [m] 8.28 8.28
Weight empty, [kg] 724 850
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 165 165
Max. payload, [kg] 273 273
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 1090 1216
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 233 201
Service ceiling, [m] 3634 1955
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 335 429
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 532
T-O run (on land), [m] 200 267
T-O run (on water), [m] 371
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km] 877 673
Crew / Pax 1/3
Table 10.2 Cessna 172 R specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
107
10.3 Cessna 182T
Figure 10.3 Cessna 182T
Category Base Amphibious
floatplane
Engine, [kW] 172 172
Wing span, [m] 10.97 10.97
Length overall, [m] 8.84 8.84
Weight empty, [kg] 845 1012
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 271 271
Max. payload, [kg] 316 316
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 1377 1543
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 304 274
Service ceiling, [m] 3679 2095
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 368 474
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 572
T-O run (on land), [m] 231 308
T-O run (on water), [m] 405
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km] 1265 1018
Crew / Pax 1/3
Table 10.3 Cessna 182T specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
108
10.4 Cessna 206H
Figure 10.4 Cessna 206H
Category Base Amphibious
floatplane
Engine, [kW] 231 231
Wing span, [m] 10.97 10.97
Length overall, [m] 8.61 8.61
Weight empty, [kg] 950 1142
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 271 271
Max. payload, [kg] 307 307
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 1593 1772
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 387 356
Service ceiling, [m] 4381 2978
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 359 455
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 523
T-O run (on land), [m] 229 299
T-O run (on water), [m] 367
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km] 1098 943
Crew / Pax 1/5
Table 10.4 Cessna 206H specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
109
10.5 Cessna 208 CARAVAN
Figure 10.5 Cessna 208 Caravan
Category Base Amphibious
floatplane
Engine, [kW] 503 503
Wing span, [m] 15.88 15.88
Length overall, [m] 11.46 11.46
Weight empty, [kg] 1703 2057
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 1009 1009
Max. payload, [kg] 822 822
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 3495 3850
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 430 381
Service ceiling, [m] 9080 6399
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 576 718
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 887
T-O run (on land), [m] 386 492
T-O run (on water), [m] 661
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km] 2668 2426
Crew / Pax 1/9
Table 10.5 Cessna 208 Caravan specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
110
10.6 GA-8 Airvan
Figure 10.6 GA-8 Airvan
Category Base Amphibious
floatplane
Engine, [kW] 224 224
Wing span, [m] 12.28 12.28
Length overall, [m] 8.95 8.95
Weight empty, [kg] 1158 1356
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 270 270
Max. payload, [kg] 536 536
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 1787 1986
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 324 287
Service ceiling, [m] 5066 3514
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 398 505
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 605
T-O run (on land), [m] 252 330
T-O run (on water), [m] 431
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km] 1351 1161
Crew / Pax 1/7
Table 10.6 GA-8 Airvan specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
111
10.7 EXPLORER 500T
Figure 10.7 Explorer 500T
Category Base Amphibious
floatplane
Engine, [kW] 447 447
Wing span, [m] 14.43 14.43
Length overall, [m] 9.68 9.68
Weight empty, [kg] 1430 1701
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 818 818
Max. payload, [kg] 675 675
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 2517 2788
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 430 367
Service ceiling, [m] 9845 6735
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 533 679
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 747
T-O run (on land), [m] 367 479
T-O run (on water), [m] 547
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km] 2342 2048
Crew / Pax 1/9
Table 10.7 Explorer 500T specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
112
10.8 T-101 GRACH
Figure 10.8 T-101 Grach
Category Base Amphibious
floatplane
Engine, [kW] 706 706
Wing span, [m] 18.20 18.20
Length overall, [m] 15.06 15.06
Weight empty, [kg] 2432 2847
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 950 950
Max. payload, [kg] 1400 1400
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 4875 5290
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 318 283
Service ceiling, [m] 5912 4768
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 500 598
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 752
T-O run (on land), [m] 329 402
T-O run (on water), [m] 556
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km] 1636 1520
Crew / Pax 1/9
Table 10.8 T-101 Grach specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
113
10.9 VulcanAir P68C
Figure 10.9 VulcanAir P68C
Category Base Amphibious floatplane
Amphibian
Engine, [kW] 2x157 2x157 2x157
Wing span, [m] 12.00 12.00 12.00
Length overall, [m] 9.55 9.55 9.55
Weight empty, [kg] 1427 1700 1507
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 543 543 543
Max. payload, [kg] 477 477 477
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 2192 2465 2272
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 315 290 307
Service ceiling, [m] 4320 2922 3894
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 551 706 597
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 786 662
T-O run (on land), [m] 272 364 299
T-O run (on water), [m] 443 364
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km]
1371 1191 1324
Crew / Pax 1/5
Table 10.9 VulcanAir P68C specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
114
10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B
Figure 10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B
Category Base Amphibious floatplane
Amphibian
Engine, [kW] 2x224 2x224 2x224
Wing span, [m] 14.94 14.94 14.94
Length overall, [m] 10.86 10.86 10.86
Weight empty, [kg] 2076 2396 2161
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 354 354 354
Max. payload, [kg] 840 840 840
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 3066 3386 3152
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 343 318 334
Service ceiling, [m] 5074 3920 4720
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 532 656 565
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 711 611
T-O run (on land), [m] 260 334 280
T-O run (on water), [m] 389 327
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km]
581 524 564
Crew / Pax 1/9
Table 10.10 Britten-Norman BN-2B specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
115
10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T
Figure 10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T
Category Base Amphibious floatplane
Amphibian
Engine, [kW] 2x298 2x298 2x298
Wing span, [m] 14.94 14.94 14.94
Length overall, [m] 10.86 10.86 10.86
Weight empty, [kg] 1854 2155 1929
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 635 635 635
Max. payload, [kg] 1069 1069 1069
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 3202 3503 3277
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 438 397 423
Service ceiling, [m] 10747 9514 10352
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 488 587 514
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 651 570
T-O run (on land), [m] 231 286 246
T-O run (on water), [m] 350 302
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km]
1324 1133 1237
Crew / Pax 1/9
Table 10.11 Britten-Norman BN-2T specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
116
10.12 HAI Y-12
Figure 10.12 HAI Y-12
Category Base Amphibious floatplane
Amphibian
Engine, [kW] 2x462 2x462 2x462
Wing span, [m] 17.24 17.24 17.24
Length overall, [m] 14.86 14.86 14.86
Weight empty, [kg] 2636 3112 2794
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 1230 1230 1230
Max. payload, [kg] 1700 1700 1700
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 4834 5310 4992
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 452 417 431
Service ceiling, [m] 10967 8804 9966
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 641 784 690
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 873 770
T-O run (on land), [m] 325 408 355
T-O run (on water), [m] 498 434
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km]
2141 1934 2013
Crew / Pax 2/18
Table 10.12 HAI Y-12 specifications
Future Seaplane Transport System - Requirements
FUSETRA – Future Seaplane Traffic Version V.0.1
117
10.13 M-28
Figure 10.13 M-28
Category Base Amphibious floatplane
Amphibian
Engine, [kW] 2x810 2x810 2x810
Wing span, [m] 22.06 22.06 22.06
Length overall, [m] 13,10 13,10 13,10
Weight empty, [kg] 4438 4925 4628
Max. fuel weight, [kg] 1200 1200 1200
Max. payload, [kg] 2546 2546 2546
Max. T-O weight, [kg] 7564 8051 7754
Max. operating speed, [km/h] 365 332 346
Service ceiling, [m] 7625 6100 7432
T-O to 15 m (on land), [m] 682 776 720
T-O to 15 m (on water), [m] 843 782
T-O run (on land), [m] 354 409 377
T-O run (on water), [m] 475 440
Range with max fuel, 45 min reserves, [km]
1126 916 986
Crew / Pax 2/18
Table 10.13 M-28 specifications