Stories of the early days

Status
Not open for further replies.
FishnFly said:
Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. So the light and steady force of the wheels on the water would likely have some opposing force from the water against them just based on the surface tension of the water.

I don’t remember the specific flight speeds (V speeds) on a Cub from when I flew them in college but I suspect they power off stall (can’t create enough lift to stay airborne) somewhere in the high 30kts range.

Flaps are not down in that photo so he/she was likely traveling at a good clip. Definittelt more than 40kts (maybe 60kts to 70kts) as 40kts would be closer to touch down speed which would require a much greater angle of attack (AOA) (the angle between the chord line of the wing and the relative wind) to stay airborne. Definitely on the front side of the power curve. I would suspect the wheels were rolling across the water, almost as they would in a high speed touch and go. Definitely would want a calm day. With that much airspeed it would take a very slight pull on the stick or just releasing the forward pressure on the stick to separate from the water to a safer distance. Still a risky “show boating (yes, pun intended) maneuver”.

My biggest concern would be a prop strike on the water from a wave or submersing the tires just a little to much.
Click to expand...
Just looked at that photo closer. The flaps are down. So he must have been going quite a bit slower than I originally had guessed. Seems like a sketch plan all together. Sometimes our egos make us do questionable things!
 
Well in real life the Cub is very happy.
It has over sized tires, moving at a speed that gives good elevator control in smooth water (maybe40mph) . Not much danger of nosing over ...Lots of takeoffs and landings are conducted in Alaska riverbeds Just like this. Touch down in the water and rollup on a short bit of shore, Same leaving... get the tail up and establish control then off to the water to get enough airspeed to go fly. Great picture!!
 
In regards of float planes I still remember in the 90's we were heading to the Escalante for the week and as we got to the confluence we watched a fairly big floatplane come off the top of the cliffs and land right in front of us.

I always remember having air force planes fly over the Escalante at fairly low altitudes. You could hear them coming for a while before seeing them.
 
Squirrel said:
I’ll just wait for Weeds to chime in, he has been there and done that, probably. Sq
Click to expand...
Here you go Squirrel...couldn't find the original photo of these 4 Harvards (AT-6 US Warbird trainers).
Most of the world call them Harvards including Canada, Britain, and South Africa.
I owned one for 18 years.....never thought about doing this I can tell you.
Still think it's really stupid...even in a supercub.
But those crazy South Africans pull it off.

 
FishnFly said:
Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. So the light and steady force of the wheels on the water would likely have some opposing force from the water against them just based on the surface tension of the water.

I don’t remember the specific flight speeds (V speeds) on a Cub from when I flew them in college but I suspect they power off stall (can’t create enough lift to stay airborne) somewhere in the high 30kts range.

Flaps are not down in that photo so he/she was likely traveling at a good clip. Definittelt more than 40kts (maybe 60kts to 70kts) as 40kts would be closer to touch down speed which would require a much greater angle of attack (AOA) (the angle between the chord line of the wing and the relative wind) to stay airborne. Definitely on the front side of the power curve. I would suspect the wheels were rolling across the water, almost as they would in a high speed touch and go. Definitely would want a calm day. With that much airspeed it would take a very slight pull on the stick or just releasing the forward pressure on the stick to separate from the water to a safer distance. Still a risky “show boating (yes, pun intended) maneuver”.

My biggest concern would be a prop strike on the water from a wave or submersing the tires just a little to much.
Click to expand...

A little headwind goes a long way. Which it appears there was some breeze by the slight chop on the water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gem Morris said:
I’m not sure the speed - I could ask. My neighbors boat goes 80 mph. Yes, picture taken from another boat
Click to expand...

Gem Morris said:
View attachment 20854
Click to expand...
Just talked to my neighbor's son. He's in the copilot seat of the boat. He said they were going 70mph-ish. The photo was taken from the top of a stationary houseboat on the shore with a "nice" camera. I assume telephoto lens but he did not say.
 
CATD8RII said:
A little headwind goes a long way. Which it appears there was some breeze by the slight chop on the water.
Click to expand...
For sure. A headwind would slow the ground speed making it easier for the boat to keep up (didn’t look like it was having much trouble). All of my flying was in college and then flight instructing afterward. We played by the rules as they weren’t our airplanes. The bush pilots in Alaska are the real deal. I love flying but am pretty safety oriented and would be hard pressed to try that without being in the plane with someone who has done it many, many times and may still avoid it. If the plane had floats, that’s a whole different story.
 
StratosBoy said:
Stan Jones passed in 2007 and his wife Alice had already passed. Steve Ward collaborated with Stan to take over the map and book publishing .
Steve's wife Marsha who had been delivering all the materials for quite a few years, still distributes the materials today.

Paul B.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Stan looked like the ultimate Powell Fishing enthusiast, kinda mountain man looking. I was surprised to find out he had been a newspaper reporter, editor and that he'd written scripts for Disney. That he decided to give it up and move to Page to watch the lake fill, fish, write about it and map it. A life well spent if you ask me, a lot of peoples dream dreams like that; Leave the corporate life behind and find a way to fish and get paid.
 
Last edited:
not to turn this into encyclopedic reading, but this
little cub photo sure has an interesting following. i really appreciate
the ideas presented here. my initial assumptions, from days ago, based on:
- the background mountains relatively clear and distinct leading
to a slower speed estimate, or extremely fast shutter speed (not a phone)
or both
- the boat doesn’t have much of a wake or spray, as i would expect
at 70mph. i don’t know anything about this type watercraft, is that normal?
- yes, flaps are down, leading to a slow speed assumption. max speed, flaps up, is only
70-80 mph, depending on powerplant & weight. don’t think a cub could go that fast
w/flaps down, but fishnfly & weeds know more of this, i’m only surmising. what say u2 experts?
- yes, appears like a very slight bit of chop, but i’d almost describe it as calm. and no
doubt, the tires are expertly skimming the surface but enough so that the pilot could
feel it & avoid setting tires deeper. that’s experience & guts, added with a tad of good fortune
no logs or debris in its path.
the timing on this photo is amazing. my thought, at least initially, was the pilot actually
made a low approach, made basically a standard “touch & go” alongside the boat and climbed back
up to preclude any potential problem, all caught on a photo image. would bet that memory has never
escaped those that were present. i’ve also tried to input a modem of safety sense into this.
barnstorming on the water, human nature to be impressed, even w/a “golley gee, wally” comment.
and now back to leave it to beaver. out.
 
A Piper cub has a stall speed around 38 mpg. My guess is they are going 45 ish mph.
There are pilots that do this kind of thing quite often. No big deal to them.
Those big balloon tires would actually be somewhat difficult to get in the water enough to flip the thing.
I wouldn't do it but I'm a wuss. Ha!
 
Last edited:
mcpltret said:
not to turn this into encyclopedic reading, but this
little cub photo sure has an interesting following. i really appreciate
the ideas presented here. my initial assumptions, from days ago, based on:
- the background mountains relatively clear and distinct leading
to a slower speed estimate, or extremely fast shutter speed (not a phone)
or both
- the boat doesn’t have much of a wake or spray, as i would expect
at 70mph. i don’t know anything about this type watercraft, is that normal?
- yes, flaps are down, leading to a slow speed assumption. max speed, flaps up, is only
70-80 mph, depending on powerplant & weight. don’t think a cub could go that fast
w/flaps down, but fishnfly & weeds know more of this, i’m only surmising. what say u2 experts?
- yes, appears like a very slight bit of chop, but i’d almost describe it as calm. and no
doubt, the tires are expertly skimming the surface but enough so that the pilot could
feel it & avoid setting tires deeper. that’s experience & guts, added with a tad of good fortune
no logs or debris in its path.
the timing on this photo is amazing. my thought, at least initially, was the pilot actually
made a low approach, made basically a standard “touch & go” alongside the boat and climbed back
up to preclude any potential problem, all caught on a photo image. would bet that memory has never
escaped those that were present. i’ve also tried to input a modem of safety sense into this.
barnstorming on the water, human nature to be impressed, even w/a “golley gee, wally” comment.
and now back to leave it to beaver. out.
Click to expand...
Somebody should tell the Rulon Gardner story
 
nzaugg said:
Last I heard Rulon claimed that they were not skimming the lake, but that they became disoriented because the water was so calm and was just a complete mirror so they couldn't see the elevation of the water until they were too close.
Click to expand...
Optical illusions are the real deal when flying. They likely could not orient themselves with the horizon or discern where the horizon was. We’ve all seen those amazing photos of different landscapes and their reflections at powell, glass water where you can’t tell which way is up or down. Add control around and management of a 3rd axis (vertical) to the equation. Seems like an unfamiliar pilot in that setting would be a recipe for disaster.
 
FishnFly said:
Optical illusions are the real deal when flying. They likely could not orient themselves with the horizon or discern where the horizon was. We’ve all seen those amazing photos of different landscapes and their reflections at powell, glass water where you can’t tell which way is up or down. Add control around and management of a 3rd axis (vertical) to the equation. Seems like an unfamiliar pilot in that setting would be a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
Optical allusion are a very real deal as is spacial disorientation but IMHO that's not the case here. The flaps are down, wings level and it appears there is ever so slight down elevator. That adds up to this being a purposeful maneuver in my book.
Either way, it's a cool photo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top