I eventually want to use some waterarea as the first "step" into the landning area.
Ive seen some exciting "watherweel" landnings, when the aircraft ended up at the beach.
But - how do they do it? Whats the secret to do a landning" at sea, with wheels?

viewtopic.php?t=274

'nuf said.

the conclusion is that the Bushwheels make the waterski easy?!

Water skiiers:
Please do me (and others buying insurance) a favor and be self insured.

BobWhite wrote:Water skiiers:
Please do me (and others buying insurance) a flavor and be self insured.

I second that. Skis for snow, floats for water, Alaska BW for the rest.

I'm not sure that hydroplaning the Stinson is a good idea.

If you are just planning to land, just do it like always, but tighten the belts. If you are planning on following with a takeoff, I got nothin' for ya

Do I need a swimsuit?

Ha Ha--that depends on the season, you might want a drysuit!!!

Whacky weed must be legal in Sweden. Stay off the pipe and keep the wheels on land.

stinsoner wrote:Do I need a swimsuit?

Reminds me of famous words I frequently heard while growing up in South Arkansas........"Hey Ya'll Watch this!!!!"

Followed by the words; "Here, hold my beer...."

You guys got that backwards....

Hold my beer (to closest semi sober person)
Hey yall watch this!!!!! ( yelled to the mostly un-sober croud)
..................
Somebody call an ambulance ( said by the semi sober person now holding the beer)

As I guess you can tell, this crowd doesn't think much of water skiing

I don't mind skiing when using the proper equipment.
I'm just not sure how well a Stinson is suited for skiing.
It might work great but I'd have someone experienced with the procedure try it first to see how well it works with the varying equipment.
So far the only two requests I've seen here were from a 180 and a Stinson. I wouldn't try it with either but I'm also limited with skiing in general other than a bit in a Super C with 31's.

George,
I know of at least one of your work plane that resulted in a fatality. I think anything can, but the stakes are high. And what have you accomplished if you sucessfully do it?
Just be prepared for a downward pitching moment if you try it.
Why not a 180? I would have thought it would have been a good candidate. Altough I'll admit that I don't know what makes one airplane good and another bad.

Every decision in life is a cost/benefit analysis. I'd say the benefits of water skiing don't outweigh the risk/cost. To mangle a common flying saying: Better to wish you were out there water skiing those landings, than prying yourself out of a sinking Stinson and swimming to shore with an aching feeling of regret.

The law of physics doesn't change based on the plane, but the combination of weight on wheels, tire size, lift at speed, and pilot skill do. Many of you have seen the T-6's skiing on water, ( with rescue divers ready) there is a pic of a C-185 on 6.00's skiing on the web somewhere, also.

The issue really is the benefit of doing it to reduce your takeoff or landing. If you take a look on AK Bushwheels site they have some pictures posted of a beautiful 170 skiing on water.

http://www.akbushwheel.com/Cessna170.html

After a bit of research a loaded Skywagon can't fly slow enough to provide enough lift to keep 31" Bushwheels from digging in, AND reduce the landing roll. In other words, I can land it shorter by simply hitting the shoreline at 50-55mph than skiing at a higher speed to prevent the tires from digging in.

Each plane has a balance, it depends if you are willing to find it!

If you take a look on AK Bushwheels site they have some pictures posted of a beautiful 170 skiing on water.

Ya...and it's the same C170 you can see laying inverted on a gravel bar in the above BCP post.

again, 'nuf said.