Re: MARS
Sat Aug 14, 2021 11:01 am
JohnB wrote:Can someone do the stress analysis?
If you were serious about getting it to Pima, how about landing it on grass...or even a well-foamed runway at D-M?
Strip it down, use minimal fuel. Land at Lake TR and defuel if need be.
I have heard tales of Amphibs landing gear up with no damage...except maybe shaving a 1/4 inch off the keel.
Since it wouldn't fly again, not much to loose structure wise...and arguably better for it than dismantling it at a remote (non-equipped) site and breaking it down into small enough pieces for road transport journey of 140 miles.
This is quite possibly the stupidest comment that i can recall in recent history........wow.....
Re: MARS
Sat Aug 14, 2021 11:31 am
It would be a very dangerous undertaking to land a flying boat on land but it has been done.
Sunderland 'M' flying too low during a flying display at the opening of Rongotai airport. Wellington.
The pilot scraped the hull on the tarmac but landed safely at RNZAF Station Hobsonville.
And a Dornier 18 used to escape the advancing Russians and landed in a field in American/British occupied territory
Sunderland 'M' flying too low during a flying display at the opening of Rongotai airport. Wellington.
The pilot scraped the hull on the tarmac but landed safely at RNZAF Station Hobsonville.
And a Dornier 18 used to escape the advancing Russians and landed in a field in American/British occupied territory
Re: MARS
Sat Aug 14, 2021 12:13 pm
Since it's not uncommon for seaplanes to land on grass strips (getting them off the water before winter freeze), I'd be interested in hearing an explanation as to the great danger of landing a flying boat the same way.
Just a few examples of many on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg323O2ebps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR483bK_6Js
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_xzFDTne2E
Just a few examples of many on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg323O2ebps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR483bK_6Js
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_xzFDTne2E
Re: MARS
Sat Aug 14, 2021 2:58 pm
Dan K wrote:Since it's not uncommon for seaplanes to land on grass strips (getting them off the water before winter freeze), I'd be interested in hearing an explanation as to the great danger of landing a flying boat the same way.
Even if it could be done you will not find any grass within 500 miles of Tucson save for the occasional golf course.
Re: MARS
Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:43 pm
In 1944 a PBM landed on the Willcox Playa, which is about 80 miles west of Tucson. I would not really expect that to be done with the Mars, but it is fun to think about: https://www.aerospacearchaeology.com/pb ... -1944.html
Re: MARS
Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:39 pm
Mick G wrote:
This is quite possibly the stupidest comment that i can recall in recent history........wow.....
It's nice to have a fan.
Tell me, what is so stupid about it?
-Landing a flying boat on land, which any amount of research will tell you has been done before (see the posted photos)...
-or my assertion/question that it would not likely cause any damage...
-or my skepticism about the feasibility landing it at a remote lake, dismantling it and trucking the pieces 140 miles through the desert?
Try reading my comment carefully, I was asking whether it could be done, asking others here about the feasibility of it.
What's with the insult?
If you don't like the idea say so, but calling my asking the question stupid doesn't speak well for you.
Since you seem to be smarter than the rest of is, please give us your expert opinion or suggestion.
It's easy to call names from the cheap seats, let's hear your solution.
Like it or not, your the Navy doesn't want it, Pima might be the best place for the aircraft...any plan that gets it there beats sitting in a remote part of B.C. or facing the scrapper.
Last edited by JohnB on Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: MARS
Sun Aug 15, 2021 9:13 am
those utubes were float planes, not sea planes.
Re: MARS
Sun Aug 15, 2021 9:49 am
I'm wondering what a football field or 2 of foam over sand would cost? With about another 100 or 200 yrds of sand to runoff into after that...things that make you go hmmmmmnnn... 
Re: MARS
Sun Aug 15, 2021 10:39 am
Re: MARS
Sun Aug 15, 2021 12:27 pm
Stoney wrote:those utubes were float planes, not sea planes.
Mea culpa.
Thank you for the gentle reprimand, Mr. Stonich.
I knew what I wanted to write, I just didn't write it right.
float plane
float plane
float plane
float plane
float plane...
Re: MARS
Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:17 pm
Paul Stroud wrote:Gerry Anderson had the right idea way back in the 1960's..
https://youtu.be/2lWNZowvWEk?t=108
Linky no worky...
Re: MARS
Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:34 pm
Re: MARS
Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:13 pm
airnutz wrote:I'm wondering what a football field or 2 of foam over sand would cost? With about another 100 or 200 yrds of sand to runoff into after that...things that make you go hmmmmmnnn...
I wonder if D-M go along with...?
Pima seems to have good relationship a with D-M, considering the number of civil aircraft that landed there before being towed across the highway.
An option would be to land in the grass (or as close to grass as you get in a non-irrigated area there) strip between runway 12/30 and the parking ramp.
Yes, the pilots might dismiss it out of hand, but if possible, it would save Pima a lot of money, possibly making the acquisition of a MARS possible instead of "not worth the cost".
Worth asking the question.
Re: MARS
Sun Aug 15, 2021 6:58 pm
It's been a few years since I've visited Pima and D-M, but I don't recall grass as really being a "thing" there.
Scrub and sand...tho that brings to mind an alternate bedding material for the Mars. Gather up a 20 foot deep pile of tumbleweeds and netting about 200 yards long and foam that down. Lotsa ideas here..holler if ya'll need more!!!
PS
There are a coupla' reservoirs and lakes relatively close by, but the drought out west may have reduced those to shallow ponds.(worth a google check) Tho, the silver lining there is the Lake Meade B-29 is only 140 feet deep now.
Scrub and sand...tho that brings to mind an alternate bedding material for the Mars. Gather up a 20 foot deep pile of tumbleweeds and netting about 200 yards long and foam that down. Lotsa ideas here..holler if ya'll need more!!!
PS
There are a coupla' reservoirs and lakes relatively close by, but the drought out west may have reduced those to shallow ponds.(worth a google check) Tho, the silver lining there is the Lake Meade B-29 is only 140 feet deep now.
Re: MARS
Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:06 am
Okay, I'll chime in. The optimum way to get it to Pima may be to fly it to the nearest port where it can be landed safely, dry docked and disassembled. The huge pieces would have to be sent to Pima by rail and reassembled. This would cost a few hundred thousand dollars or more.
The cheapest would be to land it on the runway and then have it hoisted by crane onto a trailer and moved onto the lot. Let's look at that option.
1) Grass landing. My dad's mentor, Paul Booth, a WW II veteran, once told me that grass was less ideal than pavement as there are rocks, lumps and divots that do great damage to the surface of a light airplane. He said it's far preferable to put it on a hard surface.
2) Foam or other soft prep, like sand. My understanding is that foam is put down to reduce the friction, sparks, static electricity, etc. and reduce the chance of fire. The purpose isn't to save the aircraft. Foam is very expensive. Often, when foam is applied, the aircraft slides th4rough it and onto the dry runway for a distance, anyway.
3) I have had two belly landings in flying boats. The first was a 1300 lb. Thurston Teal TSC-1/M. The gear collapsed and it slid down the runway a hundred feet or so. It was extremely unstable as it's weight was balanced on one or two rivets on the chine. If I hadn't been a taildragger and glider pilot, it probably would have been a major groundloop. I Kept the wings level as long as possible and when the right sponson came down, it only needed some touch up paint. Sliding abut 120', the large rivets on the keel were ground down flush with the aluminum. They were promptly replaced and the keel was repainted.
More recently, while flying the Lake LA-4 Buccaneer, the left landing gear retracted. what started as a normal landing evolved into the left gear collapsing and us sliding along on the belly and the left sponson. I had directional control as it was trying to groundloop to the left. I maintained directional control ( with right brake)and trended to the left side of runway until speed decreased to about 10 mph. Intending to exit the runway between runway lights so as to come to a stop without having to close the runway. As it slowed down to say, 5 mph, the keel dug into the dirt , and put the airplane into a nasty 1/4 groundloop. We were able to jack the airplane, get the airplane gear down and locked, and fly it the next day. What appeared to be slight damage at 4 mph, was quite expensive to repair and make the plane seaworthy again.
4) A problem with the Mars is it's extreme weight. It also has the softer aluminum, not the tougher stuff used on airliners today. When landing on water, even if it's dropped in from a few feet, the water will compress and displace as the hull is settling into and moving forward on the water. The keel is never supporting 100% of it's weight as you would be asking it to do with a landing on concrete. Even if the hull held together, I estimate it would slide 1,000' to 2,000'. Would it even slide or would it start to deconstruct the fuselage? Worst case it it could end up on the side of the runway, on its back, and on fire. Have there been any successful gear up landings of early aircraft of similar weight? Pics of B-29's, B-50's, KC-97's, or DC-7's might give us a clue.
The cheapest would be to land it on the runway and then have it hoisted by crane onto a trailer and moved onto the lot. Let's look at that option.
1) Grass landing. My dad's mentor, Paul Booth, a WW II veteran, once told me that grass was less ideal than pavement as there are rocks, lumps and divots that do great damage to the surface of a light airplane. He said it's far preferable to put it on a hard surface.
2) Foam or other soft prep, like sand. My understanding is that foam is put down to reduce the friction, sparks, static electricity, etc. and reduce the chance of fire. The purpose isn't to save the aircraft. Foam is very expensive. Often, when foam is applied, the aircraft slides th4rough it and onto the dry runway for a distance, anyway.
3) I have had two belly landings in flying boats. The first was a 1300 lb. Thurston Teal TSC-1/M. The gear collapsed and it slid down the runway a hundred feet or so. It was extremely unstable as it's weight was balanced on one or two rivets on the chine. If I hadn't been a taildragger and glider pilot, it probably would have been a major groundloop. I Kept the wings level as long as possible and when the right sponson came down, it only needed some touch up paint. Sliding abut 120', the large rivets on the keel were ground down flush with the aluminum. They were promptly replaced and the keel was repainted.
More recently, while flying the Lake LA-4 Buccaneer, the left landing gear retracted. what started as a normal landing evolved into the left gear collapsing and us sliding along on the belly and the left sponson. I had directional control as it was trying to groundloop to the left. I maintained directional control ( with right brake)and trended to the left side of runway until speed decreased to about 10 mph. Intending to exit the runway between runway lights so as to come to a stop without having to close the runway. As it slowed down to say, 5 mph, the keel dug into the dirt , and put the airplane into a nasty 1/4 groundloop. We were able to jack the airplane, get the airplane gear down and locked, and fly it the next day. What appeared to be slight damage at 4 mph, was quite expensive to repair and make the plane seaworthy again.
4) A problem with the Mars is it's extreme weight. It also has the softer aluminum, not the tougher stuff used on airliners today. When landing on water, even if it's dropped in from a few feet, the water will compress and displace as the hull is settling into and moving forward on the water. The keel is never supporting 100% of it's weight as you would be asking it to do with a landing on concrete. Even if the hull held together, I estimate it would slide 1,000' to 2,000'. Would it even slide or would it start to deconstruct the fuselage? Worst case it it could end up on the side of the runway, on its back, and on fire. Have there been any successful gear up landings of early aircraft of similar weight? Pics of B-29's, B-50's, KC-97's, or DC-7's might give us a clue.