[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




Let me preface by saying this thread will sadly die.
I was recently reading on how the US Air Force was testing the concept of C-130s as sea planes by adding pontoons to them to assist in a potential pacific island hopping camping in the event of a conflict with China.
Now the C-130 is fairly massive and it got me thinking, wouldn’t it also make sense to have a smaller, more agile sea plane to ferry in light supplies or ferry out casualties. Why not make a modernized version of the PBY Catalina with modern materials and more efficient turbo prop engines. The original airframes were flying well into the 90s, I’m sure some modern take on it would be useful in the war zone or even for humanitarian use.
So tell me /k/ sisters, am I fucking idiot or is this a reasonable thought?
>>
Seaplane drones bruv.
>>
the speed that two turboprop engines produce would rip the wings off a PBY
>>
>>54678933
Even then, why not take the same concept of a modern Catalina style airframe and have it drone capable?
>>
>>54678938
Im not saying using the identical airframe but a similar airframe style and with modern alloys
>>
>>54678927
I don’t see why not. I mean, I’m general a PBY sized sea plane would make sense. As some other anon said, you can have it drone capable or at least optionally manned. Sounds like a no brained concept, I’m sure it’s in the works somewhere
>>
>>54678927
I think I saw that exact bird in the picture years ago at the 2008 or 9 Geneseo Air Show, gosh it was cool.
>>
>>54679155
Definitely one of the more underrated birds of the era. Quirky yet sexy, I wish someone would anime this thing…f-for educational purposes of course
>>
>>54678927
Honestly I'm on board just because I'd like to one day own a fucking seaplane, and I could live vicariously through whoever gets to pilot the kickass modern incarnations of them.
I haven't ever flown shit because I'm dirt-ass poor, but someday...
>>
>>54679291
the nips have a modern one in service J think
>>
File: ac-235.jpg (71 KB, 2200x1080)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>54678949
Because you could do the same thing with a C-130 or a C-235 with floats
>>
>>54679316
Easier to own a smaller military plane. For the PBY Catalina itself, surplus Catalina’s were sold and used as “luxury” family air campers (google SeaLandAir).

For a more modern example you can buy surplus Crashawks and even jet trainers for a subjectively reasonable amount
>>
File: Consolidated_PBY-6A.jpg (890 KB, 1684x1266)
890 KB
890 KB JPG
>>54678927
I'd turn it into an AEW aircraft like the E-2 hawkeye. Even without modern engines the PBY has better range than the E-2 and can stay on station much longer.

This isn't even a major deviation of the PBY-6A which already had a radar and PBYs were often used for naval recon. Hell, when the Bismark slipped away from the British Navy it was a PBY that picked them up.
>>
>>54679316
Sorry >>54679365
was meant for >>54679291
>>
File: US2USB.gif (43 KB, 590x423)
43 KB
43 KB GIF
>>54679306
They sure do! Shinmywa US-2.
It's fucking rad too, uses compressed air sent through the wings and over the control surfaces to create a "blown flaps" effect to allow for control at low speeds, as well as creating an "upper surface blowing" effect for super short takeoff (picrel).
At it's max takeoff weight of 43 tons, it can apparently get up in the air in only 280 meters.

It costs like 113M USD though so unless I win the mega millions it's out of my price range unfortunately. :(
>>
>>54678927
this has already been done. I read that article and I wondered why floats on a C-130. There is no way that is a good option
>>
>>54678949
Because drones are vulnerable to EW. We've already lost one to Iran somehow. Besides, a mid sized seaplane can carry drone operators to keep them in signal range.
>>
I won't let this thread die. I live by the Catalina. My grandfather was a navigator in them during the war in the Pacific. I would love to see one up close some day.

As for the thread topic, it would depend on the versatility of the new aircraft. The Catalina was slow and vulnerable, but it could fill the role of ASW, S&R, and Patrol/Recon which made it invaluable. It could go night glide bombing on ships and it's loitering time was very long so it could stay on station for a long time without having to refuel.
>>
>>54679418
Another better option than a float C-130
>>
>>54679418
yes
>>
File: Alman-lede-1-1024x654.jpg (69 KB, 1024x654)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
>>54679431
https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/a-japanese-seaplane-could-be-the-difference-maker-for-the-u-s-military/
>>
>>54679316
OPs point was making a smaller airframe similar in size to a Catalina. I think his point is it’s probably better to have smaller more agile and more fuel efficient options to supplement a C-130 seaplane. Same reason why we don’t only have chinooks or ch53s for transport options I guess
>>
File: 1658523925817766.png (373 KB, 700x827)
373 KB
373 KB PNG
>>54679365
That would be really nice
>>
>>54679425
> It could go night glide bombing on ships
It's got
The original PBY could carry 4000 lbs of bombs and the LRASM weighs 2500 lbs.
>>
>>54679519
Im sure a modern take on it could carry significantly more. The closest thing to that right now is the Shinmaywa which has the ability of up to 100 thousand pound take off weight.

I can’t imagine retooling to make something similar, but intentional utilitarian (MIC I know will squash that portion) being that crazy expensive though
>>
>>54679488
With god as my witness if I ever have enough cash to purchase a US-2 as a private citizen, I will do my absolute best to purchase a US-2.
>>
>>54678938
Where do you get that idea? Lots of aircraft originally configured with twin radials have had turboprop conversions, pic related.
>>
>>54679589
You and me both. Being a seaplane owner would be the coolest part of surp owner possible, even surpassing tank and fighter planes. It is its own transportation and luxury
>>
HU-16 Albatross is the answer, they already designed and made a turbo conversion. The Albatross has less corrosion issues, more powerful, faster, and much, much easier to maintain.

But I've been saying that for years.
The US should have never gotten away from seaplanes. They offer advantages that you can't get from helicopters especially in the arena of rescue.

A good movie on the subject is Flight from Ashiya.
>>
>>54678927
The math is simple here. COMMUNIST CHINA is producing flying boats and we aren't. WE CANNOT ALLOW A FLYING BOAT GAP!
>>
>>54679824
>>54679589
The problem with a privately owned flying yacht is you're combining the two most expensive rich people hobbies (yachts and private aircraft) into one giant flying, swimming money hole.
>>
>>54680097
STOP KILLING MY DREAMS
>>
File: New Seaplane AG600.jpg (58 KB, 900x452)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>54678927
Its pointless for the US to have a seaplane if they have amphibious assault ships.

In the region only Japan & China operates seaplanes. Japan uses them for maritime patrol, while China uses them to supply & ferry passengers in those Artificial Island bases of theirs in the SCS, where Seaplanes would land off-shore, amphibiously offload their cargo/passengers, and then take off, all without occupying limited tarmac space in them bases.
>>
>>54680054
Unfortunately, the Russians have everyone beat.
>>
File: H-4_Hercules_2.jpg (659 KB, 1840x1470)
659 KB
659 KB JPG
Gentlemen, it's time to revive a dream...
>>
>>54680338
Since the Spruce Goose could never climb above Ground Effect, is it technically an Eraknoplan?
>>
>>54680312
>Jet Seaplane
The absolute state of Russia
>>
>>54680054
Jesus christ.
So the Chinks ripped off the Japs' flying boat now too, huh?
Presumably the thing functions, but is a corners cut, shittier version of the US-2.
Let me guess: lower payload, longer takeoff distance because they can't get the blown flaps to work right, significantly lower maintenance intervals, and lower efficiency/range per fuel quantity?
I'm betting half of those are accurate.
>>
>>54680351
>Eraknoplan
Sort of, and ekranoplan are the actual answer to some of these questions about maritime mobility.
>>
>>54680384
>A larger aircraft than the Nip patrol seaplane
>Ripoff.
>>
>>54678927
What you *really* want is an amphibious variant of the Pelican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican
>>
Cargo ships are the way to go
Not autistic planes
>>
>>54680664
Whoops, >>54680501 beat me to it.
>>
>>54679395
>They sure do! Shinmywa US-2.
/thread
>>
>>54680017
>HU-16
Thank you. We are forgotten.
>>
>>54680664
>>54680501
Hivemind is real.
Seriously, there are certain applications at certain scales for wing-in-ground-effect that make a lot of sense. Most of the tech has been developed, just produce it. Anyone interested, look up the AirFish.
>>
File: g11t-Amphibian aerospace.jpg (511 KB, 2500x1117)
511 KB
511 KB JPG
>>54678927
An australian company is proposing remaking the HU-16 with modern avionics and turboprops
>>
>>54678927
How about a flying boat but it also has VTOL capabilities? To me the flying boats of WW2 are some of the most beautiful aircraft ever made by man and very versatile.
>>
>>54679418
>>
>>54678927
Mid air refueling and modern engines have really killed seaplanes as far as interest goes. It'd be very interesting to see a low cost modern PBY for Pacific SA/carribean countties. It'd be really the only shot they have at any EW deployable assets
>>
>>54680548
>larger aircraft than the Nip patrol seaplane
A whole whopping 18 feet wider and ten feet longer, but only giving it 4,000lbs more in capacity apparently (they won't publish empty weight, so who knows if that's actually accurate or not).
1,500 meter takeoff distance, which is obviously a joke (really couldn't figure out the blown flaps I guess).
The engine service stuff might not be fair because apparently it uses Russian designed engines, so presumably they're at least respectable or useful at bare minimum.
1200 meters less in service ceiling, same range and maximum speed.

So they've matched Japan's capabilities, a decade and a half later, after a development time period of FIVE YEARS. It only took them FIVE YEARS to design an entire plane from the ground up.
Wonder how they pulled that off!
>>
>>54678927
North American should've made a copy; it would be designated PBJ.
>>
>>54679488
If only the wing floats folded into the wingtip....
>>
>>54680362
P6M
>>
>>54681355
Jet powered seaplanes are such a neat concept
>>
>>54680915
she's gorgeous
>>
>>54680312
Look at the shape of Be-200.
This plane is the same role as Canada's CL-415, which lands on lakes and inland waters to carry water for firefighting.
Be-200 isn't owned by the Russian military but by the Ministry of Emergency Situations.
To operate in the Pacific Ocean with high waves, you need a shape like the Catalina, US-2, or AG-600.

…Well, if you think about it calmly, the most necessary amphibian for the US may be CL-415.
>>
>>54680307
>Its pointless for the US to have a seaplane if they have amphibious assault ships.
There are several advantages a sea plane has over ships, the most obvious being speed.
>>
>>54681125
>Still chimping out over 2 different aircraft with 2 different roles because muh China.
Rent Free.
>>
>>54678927
h8k is better in everyway tho
>>
>>54679155
Geneseo Airshow…my man! The best show on turf. I go every year.
>>
>>54678927
The US has a million carrier groups, helicopters and friendly airbases abroad that make this useless
>>
"Island hopping" only existed in WW2 because they lacked modern logistics and long range aircraft. It makes zero sense in the 2020s.
>>
>>54682803
Allied pilots respected it too this thing was armed to the teeth. 5x20mm cannons & 5x7.7mm machine guns.
>>
>>54682813
Been a long time for me, would love to again. Especially that BBQ place with the drive in. Dang that was fun
>>
>>54682739
Stupid chinks ripping off foreign industry again, and doing a shitty job, again.
With all the manufacturing your retarded people do you'd think at some point you'd be able to make something that actually outperforms the original, or at least matches it's performance adequately, but I guess the chabuduo is part of your DNA now.
>>
>>54682739
Enjoy those 50 cents faggot.
>>
>>54678927
I AM THE BEARER OF THE MONKEY PAW

YOUR WISH IS GRANTED…

…THE NAVY VERSION OF THE AIRTRACTOR WILL HAVE PONTOONS ADDED AND BE RENAMED CATALINA 2.
>>
>>54682803
Never knew the Emily had landing gear
>>
>>54682877
You don't know what "island hopping" is.
>>
>>54683230
I think that is an external undercarriage for parking and movement. Note there is no tail or nose wheel.
>>
>>54683230
I don’t think that’s landing gear, looks like they put those wheels on so they could move it around on land.
>>
>>54682877
>Yeah let’s totally bypass all enemy held islands with their radar stations and SAMs and naval outposts and just have our ships sail and planes fly all the way across earth’s largest ocean bro, we got this.

Fwiw, considering we have a foothold in Japan and Korea, we probably will avoid much of the island capturing we had to do in WW2, so you’re right but for the wrong reasons.
>>
>>54678927
If not for call of duty and war thunder you would never even know this plane existed.
>>
>>54683023
>You
>You're
Projection.
>>
>>54681059
The whole point of VTOL is to let you land in narrow/confined spaces on land because there's no suitably large airstrip and thus avoid conventional landings; the point of a flying boat is you can use large bodies of water as an airstrip for conventional landings. These two design concepts don't exactly synergize.
>>
>>54684145
for me it was Heroes of the Pacific



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.