My Radical New Amphibious Design!

History of My Amphibious Design (Pontus)
This video covers the history about how my twin engine amphibious aircraft transformed from an idea into a CAD 3D model.
If you like what we are doing please consider becoming a Patreon or PayPal supporter. All money received will go to my CAD guy who lives in a 3rd world with very low pay. Here is the links if you wish to support this project:
www.paypal.com/paypalme/brigh...
/ brightstarassemblies
If you need to contact me directly you may do so by emailing me at: [e-mail]

[@jl_woodworks]

This is just awesome. I hope you do get to build, fly and then sell kits of your plane. I'm a Software Engineer and I've been the last couple of months obsessed with aviation. I'm even planning to become a pilot very soon. Your dream is inspiring. Keep going!

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you Josias for commenting. Being a Pilot is so much fun. For sure do it.. This plane will be built. Thanks.

[@michaelhille261]

Great video Danny. I definitely know the pain you’re going through with amphibious aircraft design. Keep up the great work 👍

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Wow Michael, Thanks for the comment. I've been fallowing your work and watching your videos. I really liked seeing you float test yours recently. Exciting stuff. Good on you mate. I will keep watching your progress.

[@vloogle4924]

What about a tri-hull? You could use the space in the center into an RV-like camper.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

I believe that would add to much drag and isn't the look I am going for. I am designing this aircraft more like they do in the auto world. Starting with a shape/look, then designing the wings, tail, and internal parts to work with the shape. As we progress, the shape will have small changes to it so that it is safe and efficient.

[@WillieYadiel1]

As an aerospace engineering graduate student I absolutely love this design! I designed and built a scale model of a ekranoplan for my undergraduate capstone design project, with the same mission, to travel between islands. If you need help with weight estimations, aerodynamics, geometry and surface definition I can collaborate.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Sounds great Willie, Can you please email me at [e-mail] Thanks

[@concpt.]

Hey, I too am planing to model some type of ground effect vehicle for my "pre-scientific paper" (part of graduating in Austria), but I do not really know where to begin. How did you approach it? Would love to hear from you!

[@ToyManFlyer1100]

Most. EXCELLENT!!!!...Bravo 👏 👏 Bravo...!!!👍👍👍💯💯😊😊

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you very much Toy Man Flyer. The design is coming along. This for sure is not the final design but it is getting very close. Please keep watching as I am working on the next video which will cover from the drawings up to today all the struggles and changes we have made. Then future videos will cover things like the goals of this design. This way people will have an idea of the weights, speeds, engines, and other performance related items.

[@siddharthayadav9331]

Really impressed by your hard work. I am an aeronautical engineer and recently I have been searching for a new aircraft design that can work with hydrogen fuel cell. You gave me hope to get a design and process too. Thank You so much.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thanks a lot! It is a really cool design. We are still working on it. It is my passion and will get done. I presently have a lot going on in my life right now as does my CAD guy. We spoke yesterday and will be getting back to work on the shape soon.

[@lcprivatepilot1969]

No doubt a winning design. Hoping it will come with side stick or yoke option. Looking forward to following your progress. Keep up the great work! (Love the T-tail too! Actually, I’ve yet to discover anything I don’t like about this design. Being surrounded by water, makes this design all the more exciting! Hilton Head Island, SC)

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you for the comment. It will have a yoke. In one of the sketched photos in my third video it shows it having a yoke. The shape of the aircraft is still changing a bit. Recently we added another foot to the tail section to give it a longer lever arm because this is a twin engine. We wanted the rudder and elevator to be more effective without making them a LOT bigger. My Aeronautical Engineer showed me how big the tail was going to have to be and I was like "No way" would anyone find that attractive. So we sketched the tail out and still make the rudder and elevator a little bigger. The pontoons/floats will be changed a lot.

[@lcprivatepilot1969]

@@BrightStarAssemblies love it … all of it! Looking forward to more!!

[@iforce2d]

I only make model planes so take this with a grain of salt, but here are my impressions. The large flat duck-bill style nose seems very risky, what is the reasoning for that? ('sexy' is not a valid answer). It's like having a horizontal stabilizer on the front that's larger than the one at the back and also further from CG by the looks of it. That's the opposite of what you want for pitch stability and the sharp edge only amplifies the problem, as you showed with the footage of those powerboat crashes. The overall upward slope over the windscreen will cause significant down-force which would need to be overcome by flying at a much higher nose-up attitude than normal. It might not be so bad if the underside of the fuselage had an counteracting downslope, but the underside overall slopes up as well. Better to have the fuselage forward of CG as blunt and aerodynamically neutral as possible. Speaking of the fuselage underside, since it starts low and slopes up at the back with sealed sides around the pontoons, you are creating a lower pressure effect similar to downforce-inducing rear diffusers on Formula 1 cars, very popular for sticking a car to the road but probably not what you want. The pontoons seem larger than necessary, between the two of them they look like they'd have almost as much aerodynamic effect as the fuselage itself, with large side area ahead of the CG. Having them sealed to the side of the fuselage might look nice and be good for getting in and out, but it opens up an enormous can of worms for strong ground effect interactions. You basically have a biplane with an extremely complex lower wing that I doubt even experience plane designers would want to figure out. I would suggest that the float Cessna you showed that 'looked too high' was done for a very good reason ('looks too high' is not any kind of scientific approach). Most likely there are sudden changes in behavior when allowing the whole aircraft to get very low to the water. Water also has bumps and splashes everywhere. With more separation between fuselage and floats the aerodynamic interaction between them drops to insignificance and the behavior of each will be easier to calculate and predict separately. It will also be easier to swap out the floats with different designs. For example, floats that have a blunt front like I was just saying about the fuselage, instead of the sharp-nosed yaw instability inducing ones in your pictures. I'm also not sold on having the wheels in the floats. Seems like it would be better to have them in the fuselage, that way the floats can be made completely 'dumb' ie. a simple lump of buoyancy with no linkages, doors, electrics etc. and they would be easy to remove when not needed, and much easier to construct. If you're serious about selling these, it might be more attractive to a potential buyer if they can buy the plane without floats at first and then get them later, rather than be forced to have floats attached permanently. Many people might like the plane but have zero interest in water landing. Gaining enough speed on water to lift off requires way more power than on wheels. I don't know how much of it those two motors have, but they seem kinda small. I think it would be better to face them forward ahead of the wing so the flaps will give lift at lower speed, since you'll be needing every ounce of lift you can get. As one other commenter here mentioned, that would also help to keep the props out of water spray. It's also much easier to work around a nose heavy design than a tail heavy one. The position of the props is way too close to the trailing edge of the wing, this will be extremely inefficient and noisy and I don't know what's supposed to happen when you want to use flaps... The acute angle where the wing and fuselage join is not good for interference drag, and makes the join weaker. Would be better to beef it up and fair in the join more. I've never seen suspension linkage like that and I'm having trouble vizualizing how it's supposed to work. Seems like it allows a lot of sway forward to back, and unless the linkage arms were widely spaced side-to-side it would probably have trouble tracking straight too. Make a simple model and check this. Elevator looks too small to provide the torque necessary for rotation, given the downforce on the nose. The high position of the motors will also be pushing the nose down, and water drag will be sucking away a lot of energy. I would be surprised if it could rotate at all actually. Overall I think you need to focus less on sexy renderings and try simulating this with a proper software package. In other comments here I see you're content to let other people make RC models and tell you how it went, but this seems like a terrible idea. For one thing you don't really know if they'll actually do it at all, or whether their model will be accurate, or whether they are competent pilots. Unless they live nearby you will not be able to inspect or tweak the model to make changes. You will also not gain any experience in building, which it kinda seems like you need, especially if you are thinking about composites and even producing kits for others to build. Working with composites is a huge pain in the ass in many ways, you would do well to make some models yourself to have a first-hand experience of where the difficulties lie and what results can reasonably be expected. Maybe you don't fly RC already but as an experienced full-size pilot you will pick it up in no time at all. I hate to make such a negative post, but I hate being a yes-man even more :)

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you for your comments. It was a bit long, but, I understand that if you took that much time to write it, then it means you care. So thank you. I did not take it as negative. So, as you know this is a work in progress. The nose has been changed already back to the original design. The "Duck-bill" is gone. There were many items you suggested to be changed like moving the engines, removing the pontoons, raising it up off the water more, and so on. At this point I do not believe we will make any of those changes. The one one that may happen after we fly the prototype is to make the area between the fuselage bottom and the pontoons open. This would allow the air on the bottom of the fuselage to flow out the sides at low speeds and high angles of attack. As for the RC point, there are those that want to make it. They would then send the RC to me and we would fly it. I do have RC experience but that was many years ago. So I would probably find a local guy who is an expert and let him fly it. I do not believe I will learn much from an RC plane though because besides from the looks, an RC plane is nothing like a real plane. The power to weight ratio is way off, the CG is not going to be close, the scale of the weights do not match, it will not float like the real plane, and so on. They can be good for wind tunnels for air flow if build correct. However, Solidworks can do simulated airflow which will get us close enough. Thanks again for your comments. Keep watching to see how the design changes over time.

[@TheRamenhunter]

you may use your fuselage belly to generate ground effect so that you can reduce the power for takeoff/landing

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Yes the shape should help.

[@gadisabekele362]

I appreciate what you did. I learned many things from you. THANK YOU! Now I realized challenges peoples, me myself may face during his passion. God Bless You.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you Gadisa for your kind words. Please stay subscribed as many more videos will fallow over the next five years.

[@zrebbesh]

A safety feature which is IMO well worth it and underutilized are aircraft ballistic recovery systems - a parachute, basically, that can be deployed and bring the whole aircraft down safely. Not only is it safer than a regular parachute, it also usually saves the whole aircraft instead of crashing it. But it has to be designed in from the start to be done well, and it requires allocating some space and weight which comes out of carrying capacity - But as I said, I think it's worth it.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thanks for the comment. That type of an item isn't necessary on a twin engine aircraft. Generally that is for marketing purposes for single engine aircraft to give low time and poorly skilled pilots the feeling of safety. Fact is the only time a parachute could help is if that aircraft with only one engine stops and the aircraft is over water or a forest/heavy snow. In a twin engine if one engine goes out you can just keep on flying to a safe landing area. Having a second engine is way better than a parachute. But thanks for the comment.

[@amrendra6232]

You got a subscriber at "i didn't put my money on a paper so that i could say im an engineer"🤣🤣 Engineering student here ur videos inspire me alot Please upload them often. Thanks

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank You Amrendra. Part of the reason I said that is so that others who are like me (not a papered engineer) can see that you don't have to do all that just to design an airplane. Sure the more you know the more you can get the design closer to what it needs to be before the prototype. But that is what Engineers are for. As stated in the video once I am done with my design I will hand the files over to an Engineer to make sure all the airfoils are the right size and right angle of incidence. Sorry we are not uploading as fast as everyone would like. I have a full time job and other things going on at my home that keeps me from making weekly videos. Once I leave my job in a year and a half, I will be working on this full time and be able to upload videos weekly once we start building the prototype. Thanks again for your kind words.

[@amrendra6232]

@@BrightStarAssemblies God bless you man,may all your dreams come true.The human will to fly is the most sacred amongst all as it signifies freedom and free will. It proves that we as humans are masters of our own fate and through sheer will we can even bend the very laws of nature which limits us.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

@@amrendra6232 Thank you for the kind words.

[@amrendra6232]

Hey i know its a long short but can we have an online server where we can get real time updates of designs and people can contribute to the project.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

@@amrendra6232 actually yes. In the description below each of my video is a link to the Patreon account. This account will allow you much more access to my project and me personally. There is also a link to my PayPal account where you can donate to help pay my CAD guy for his work. As far as other projects on the internet, I don't know of a link or website like that. Best of luck to you.

[@wadededeaux2983]

Can't wait to see more! Awesome job 👍

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you Wade.

[@yellowbiker7286]

Love ur hard work 😍👍

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you so much 😀

[@Bubble_0f_d00m]

This thing looks weird and sexy and I want to fly one. I bet I can add a seaplane rating to my license before you finish building that.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Hahaa Thank you for your kind words. Yes I am 100% sure you could get that seaplane rating to your certificate before we get the prototype flying. Don't forget to get your twin engine rating as well. You can do both at the same time. I have heard of Twin Bees used in Florida. Best of luck to you.

[@rwandanrisingstars217]

Great work 👍

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@RobbertdeGroot]

I could be wrong (I wouldn't be surprised) but those planes converted to sea-planes are that high from the pontoons so that when they are at the dock you don't have to bend over so much to pass under the wing. And possibly at docks that deal with tides (Vancouver for instance) that wings will clear the pillons that keep the docks in place. It would appear your design would mean people would have to crawl under the wing to possibly get to the rear part of the pontoon to tie it up to the dock. Or make docking a lot more challenging if the wing can't clear the dock pillons. I'm thinking the Icon can get away with this issue because it is intended or capable to be dismantled and trailered; so not intended to be left docked in the water. I don't know about the other monohull sea-planes though but I think they are generally pretty large and have a fair head clearance. Note: I'm no expert in anything at all related to what you are doing here but I find it very interesting. My dad used to toy with the idea of designing is dream sailboat. Similar vibe I get from your project. Would love to see where you go from here.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thanks for your input. I had not thought much about the wing clearing the dock. Mainly because I don't know many people who keep their plane tied to a dock. Most pull them up on the beach, bank, or taxi them out of the water. I will have to look into this a bit more. Again, thanks for your input and thanks for watching.

[@ChristIsMyRedeemer2024]

When Piper re-engineered the PA-32 for a T-Tail design, they found it to be not as effective during landing. MAYBE that is because the prop is not inline with the T-Tail on their design. Yours is in line with the horizontal stabilizer, so that could help. Also, do you still fly that Zenith plane? Looks to be a 750. Thanks for inspiring us. 🙏

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thanks for the comment Jayden. You are correct. During the landing flair (about 10-15 degrees nose up) in a piper with a T-Tail the wing blocks/disturbs some of the airflow. It's not so bad that they had to change it. Obviously as they sold them with a T-Tail. Honestly, I am not that much of a fan of the T-Tail. But with my design I felt I needed it as I wanted it up and out of the water. Also, with the props blowing air over the tail at any speed, it keeps airflow over the control surfaces. With that being said, the T-Tail is not set in stone and may change after presenting my CAD files to and actual Aircraft Engineer. So, we shall see how this pans out. As for the Zeniths, yes I fly and instruct in them and have built three full aircraft and worked on a lot of them. I have help build a 750 and 801 on top of the 701s I have built and worked on. It is a fun little plane. Keep watching, lots more to come.

[@0623kaboom]

I noticed something in your design of the landing gear ... . your front landing gear is set a fair way back and when you transition from water to land (usually a 20deg or more slope unless a deep sand beach your pontoon front ends will contact the ground BEFORE your planes front gear touches ..... . I can think of 2 fixes .. -a longer front gear ... cons moves your center of mass and gravity forwards making the plane nose heavy and pitch down prone ... - add pair of static front bogey wheels that just protrude under the front bottom of the pontoons ... they dont need to retract or even have shocks all they need be isa close fit to the pontoon body and rollable as well as water tight ... cons ... the bogey's will affect the aero dynamics of the pontoons and create turbulent airflow under the pontoons ... fix blend a fin out the side of each pontoon kind of like the nose of the sr-71 how it follows the curve out to an edge then comes back in ... this will increase lift as well as water stability and should compensate for the turbulent flow as well . another concern you may have is the cockpit being a little too close to the water ... ok sure pontoon boats look funny way up on their stilts ... but part of that reason is to avoid the buffeting of the waves on landing and take off as the hammering of the water WILL break the under fuselage ... think water hammer in pipes you might be landing at 100mph ... but the water will be slamming into your feet )essentially at 2 or 3 times that ... your landing speed (or take off) plus your weight plus the water density (hot water is less dense than cold) and the waters speed and direction and of course add Newtons law for objects in motion and at rest ... Inertia ... . a 10 ton plane at 100mph landing on a mild wave covered water surface with a 1mph current direct on axis of landing with 20c water will impart upwards of 8 tons of force PER SQUARE INCH ... that means a TON of ribs and cross members to account for the hammering again making the plane nose heavy and shifting the balance ... . BUT if you scallop the front a bit and bring the fuselage up in the center say a foot (keep the molded connections just pull the center up a foot) you can drop that force of landing down closer to 1 to 2 tons PSI . yes hydrodynamics and aerodynamics go hand in hand since BOTH are actually fluid flows ... one with less density is all . also dont forget with a top wing design the lower you keep the weight the more self righting the plane will be (to a point) ... it is a fine dance to manage CG and CM as well as lift and drag both IN flight and on take off and landing ... I have found if you keep your CM near the bottom of the fuselage and your CG above it closer to midline or just above you get a good trade off between stability and balance in all modes a plane should operate at then you just need play with lift forward and backward and a little up and down ... (more down in your case) to get a compromise that will work for your asthetic pleasure ... and yes your CM and CG will adjust a bit as well but worry about those after you get the lift right then adjust them and recheck the lift ... these final tweaks will be in very small increments of 1/2 an inch to an inch ... so not super critical but needed

[@0623kaboom]

and yes I liked what I saw ... was hoping for 2 perhaps 3 video's mind you but real life can be a pain some times ... sub'd and liked

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you for your comment. You have one the record for longest comment. haha most will email me when it is this long. But I like it. Okay first let me say that what you saw is NOT what will be built. I am in the process of editing my third video which will show you what the aircraft looks like now. The Pontoons are much shorter. But I will look into what you said. If this is a factor that the nose gear is a bit too short then I may do a combination of two things. 1st lengthen the nose gear 2nd put small inline skate wheels on the front portion of the pontoons along the bottom. As for the water landing, anyone who tries to land this aircraft on water going 100mph which is just under it's cruse speed will deserve what they get when the aircraft breaks apart. This aircraft is being designed so that lands at 1.3 VSO which will be around 55mph. You have some really good ideas and I liked all of them. Do me a favor and subscribe so you can see the next few videos and how the design changes. Keep making comments or feel free to send me emails with what you see that might need to be changed. I keep an open mind to what everyone has to offer.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you for Subscribing. There will be a lot more videos to come starting this next year. I am working on the third video now editing it. I hope I can get it published on here within a month. That video will show where the design is sitting today and more about it. I think you will like the next video and how we have changed the pontoons.

[@AClark-gs5gl]

Love this far more than the Icon A5. Any chance you'd be willing to share your 3-D Graphics Artists information? Thank you and keep up the great work! Sharing this in a few Aviation Fb groups.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you. Although I do like the Icon A5, the price is just stupid for a two place LSA. This twin engine four place aircraft will cost less and have even a better "Cool" factor. As for the sharing of the 3-D info, yeah I can share some but will only do it once I have the design completely locked in. Right now we are still working on the design.

[@simpilot001]

Yeah! A post! Edit: looking at you design I noticed two major things. Tandem seating and a Ttail configuration. If your storage area is in the back your aircraft will most likely always have an aft cg. If you put the cargo hold in the front 40% of the pontoons you can rid any unforeseen incidents

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

So the design if you look from the front which is shown in the video is side by side seating. I also state that it is a four seat aircraft in the video. T tail is not a "major thing" it is used in most jets that I fly and many other GA aircraft. However, there may be a change to the T tail in the future. The fuel and storage area is very close to the CG but is aft of it. So as one burns off fuel the aircraft will become less aft CG. A most rearward aft CG is a very good and efficient thing. No one should ever go beyond the CG limits. So, anything inside the CG range is good. If you would like to go into more detail about this I always like hearing what others have to say and you can email me at: [e-mail] Thanks for your comment.

[@simpilot001]

@@BrightStarAssemblies alright thanks for the response. Not many people look at their viewer’s responses or interact with them it’s good u r

[@ToyManFlyer1100]

@@simpilot001 ...Hmm...I kinda like the "T-tail"...Not many planes have it...And, since he is going with pontoons, I think its gonna be significant turbulence and disturbed at from them...The T-tail gets the Empennage up into clean air on take off and landing...

[@simpilot001]

I’m almost certain it was 2 am when I left this comment I obviously wasn’t thinking right But yes

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

@@ToyManFlyer1100 Thanks, I agree with you. :-)

[@MrJackGandhi]

Great Video, absolutely love the design, I'm a first year engineering student in the UK and while cars are my main passion I love aircraft too. Im really interested in designing my own aircraft as personal project, I could even potentially use it for my final assessment. Ive found both your videos very helpful. Keep 'em coming!

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you for watching and I am glad you got something from the video. Please subscribe.

[@MrJackGandhi]

@@BrightStarAssemblies Already done mate, I look forward to your future videos

[@Albano_Leo]

Hi, I've worked in aerodynamics for many years. I'm passionate about amphibious planes that the West has forgotten in history. I have a question and a suggestion. The question is: What propeller are you using (diameter, variable pitch)? My humble advice is to install the propellers on the leading edge. In this way, the propellers help the airflow on the flap during landing, decreasing the stall speed, increasing safety, and allowing the landing in the water with rough conditions. I know this configuration brings more drag during the cruise, but the aircraft would not have floats if this were its central point in the design.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Have not chosen a propeller yet. That will come down the line. Also, I get what you are saying about putting the propellers on the front of the wing. But there are reasons I chose to do it like this.

[@amrendra6232]

Hey, any updates???did u drop the project or what. Please continue this if possible its too ambitious and great. If u need any engineering help please ping me i might just be a mechanical engineer but i would figure out the right aerospace thing given some time.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Yes, updates are coming. No the project is not dropped. This project will never be dropped unless I die. This is my passion. But with all things a man does on the side of his job and family, it takes time. Right now I already have the next video edited and I am just waiting on my CAD guy to send me new Renderings of the aircraft so I can put them into the video. After all, I know you want to see new stuff. This next video will bring you up to speed from the day my CAD guy sent me the first photos until today. We are doing a lot of exciting things with the pontoons and Jet thrusters. So, it is coming! As for your offer, YES, we need your help. Please email me at [e-mail] Once we are finished we will need someone to check the sizes of everything and tell us if we have the right scale. A new video is coming soon.

[@krissfemmpaws1029]

Nice I'm work, I'm wondering what airfoil you plan to use? I think the Riblett 35a6 or 35a4 would be a good match because you are using a sheeted wing.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

I will be revealing that in my next video. So please subscribe so you can see it when it comes out.

[@AClark-gs5gl]

Catamaran stability like properties...great! Do you have a Fb page? Thank you!

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Exactly. Thank You. I do not have a FB account for this design. Just this KZbin channel and the company website www.brightstarassemblies.com however that website will bring you right here to this KZbin channel for now. Later on we will build an actual website. But until we have something to sell, we will jist have this KZbin channel.

[@markmayer7495]

It seems to me that the water wake could potentially end up going into the propeller disk aera. Also it seems to me the the wetted area forward of the neutral point is substantial, which could result in destabilizing characteristics. Otherwise it looks promising. Would you be able to elaborate in future videos on your forecasted Wing loading/power loading, aircraft wetted area. As well as performance goals. That data would put us in a better position to make feasibility comments. Anyway have Good luck and all the best.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thanks for the comment. We will be looking at that once we build the prototype. If that is a factor then we will address it. But for now, I think we are good. As for the wetted area, that will probably get changed as we are still looking for an expert who knows more about pontoons than us. Yes, in future videos we will share all data. As for now, though, there is many design features that are still in flux which will change. This is just the beginning of the design process. I am sure you noticed in the video that there were images that were completely different from one another. As stated in the video at the end, my next video which I have already started on will show how we got from the first images to where we are today in May 2021. So in that video you will see where we are at now. Then future videos will come out as we continue to make changes. Thanks for the comment.

[@nashvilleoutlaw]

With solidworks software, are you able to print out templates to build your design from? I'm thinking of how they build cidar strip kayaks simply to make a plug to make molds from.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Nashvilleoutlaw, YES you can print out templates from Solidworks. If you need them full scale you can the the files to a printer and they can print them 1 to 1 scale. Thanks for the comment.

[@nashvilleoutlaw]

@@BrightStarAssemblies Thanks for the reply and great to know. I recently learned you can get a free version of solidworks by joining EAA. I'm kinda torn on building an 103 seaplane or warbird. Seaplane would be more versatile but a spitfire would be pretty nice too.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

@@nashvilleoutlaw Yes in my first video I did walk people through how they can get Solidworks for free by joining the EAA. It is a great program but is hard to use and learn. I understand it is a hard choice when deciding witch aircraft to build. There are so many very cool aircraft out there and each one of them require a large chunk of your life/time to build. The decision on which one is totally a personal choice. I recommend you go with the one that you are most passionate about. Many people give up during a build because these projects can feel overwhelming. The best advice I was ever given on how to complete your project was "Do at least 15 minutes of work each day on the project. Even if you are discouraged, just do 15 minutes." It's kind of like the saying "How do you eat an elephant? Answer: One bite at a time."

[@vloogle4924]

Watch Mike Patey channel build of "Scrappy." A lifetime of good information shared there.

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

I have watched some of his videos. Thanks

[@c.w.miles-cowboycookstoryt1528]

Just opinion, main gear shouldnt be located in the floats

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thanks for the comment AB C. Yes the "Main Landing Gear" are located inside the floats. They are retractable and retract into the floats.

[@c.w.miles-cowboycookstoryt1528]

@@BrightStarAssemblies Exactly, from a mechanics point of view thats a headache. Id have the main gear incorporated into the hull of the aircraft, rather than the float. Just my opinion, since Im an A&P. Sharp looking aircraft though.

[@falconer100]

@@c.w.miles-cowboycookstoryt1528 Yes great but they should come out of the sides of the floats. Coming out of the bottom could create uneven stress points.

[@c.w.miles-cowboycookstoryt1528]

@@falconer100 Well, to each their own, nice plane

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

@AB C Good point. I kind of like that idea. Would sure make it easier for designing the gear. I have my letter to go get my A&P now but don't have the time to go get it. My brother has his with IA. He is the one who signed my letter. I will go get my A&P in a year and seven months when I stop working at my current job. Right now I just don't have time to go to the prep school for it. Thanks again for the comment.

[@Catofbaskerville]

Ok, I like you design it's very interesting and of course the way you get there but I have one question after telling us soo much about theory and designing how is it going with working on the real aircraft ore do you actually want to build this? And if you think of really flying this thing why don't build a rc aircraft ore a model! I am also working on my own rc aircraft it's more fictional and I think will never have a place in the real world(pusher, canard, endless wing, wired).

[@BrightStarAssemblies]

Thank you for your comment. Yes I do plan on building this as a real aircraft. I have several Subscribers that want to build an RC replica of this aircraft which of course I will let them. I want to see how their RC flies. I also have two people that want to put it into MS Flight Sim and see how it flies in there first. I want to see that as well. But this aircraft will have a place in the real world and I will build kits to sell so others can build it as well.

[@Catofbaskerville]

@@BrightStarAssemblies thanks for the answer I hope you will get this aircraft flying because it would be very interesting! And many people wrote in the comments that it couldn't really land because of the ground effect but I think why don't boukd something like a airbrach at the front so you can land faster (always there is the question :weight?costs?efficiency?....). But I think if it is a big prplem it could help! And of course good luck!