Latest TAG Amphib -Test flight off water!

GyrOZprey

Aussie in Kansas.
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
3,495
Location
Whitewater KS
Aircraft
Butterfly Aurora N5560Z / Titanium Explorer N456TE & N488TE/ - trained in MTOsport 446QT/488FB
Total Flight Time
1050
Video of Aussie CFI Wayne Mitchell giving the latest TAG Amphib powered by SPmod 912 turbo 140hp. Looks pretty agile!


PS >>>>>The video goes PUBLIC at midnight!!! 12AM March 28 ...I guess so they can check it for appropriate content!
 
Love it! Would be good to see a video of the full takeoff run, or at least get an idea of the time to get off the water. Looks like it really maneuvers well.
What are they selling for in the US?
 
Last edited:
About US$130,000 plus container shipping from Sydney to your location!
 
Amphib means floats with retractable wheels to me. It adds a serious safety complication of being in the right configuration for the intended landing spot (wet or dry) plus weight and complexity. If I were in the mood for water flying, I would choose straight floats instead. In a crisis, you can slide them onto grass with little trouble. A seasonal change to or from wheels makes more sense to me than truly amphibious gear.
 
Amphib means floats with retractable wheels to me. It adds a serious safety complication of being in the right configuration for the intended landing spot (wet or dry) plus weight and complexity. If I were in the mood for water flying, I would choose straight floats instead. In a crisis, you can slide them onto grass with little trouble. A seasonal change to or from wheels makes more sense to me than truly amphibious gear.
Gear look retracted to me; do you think this was a gear down accident?
 
I think Jeff got it right. There's a big hole in the port side float way forward of where the main gear comes down. Gear appears to be up.

Jim
 
New owner was being trained to fly it by the float-gyro-rated Aussie CFI.
It does look like it hit some submerged debris.
Same float/amphib configuration as several others successfully flown for some time ...including our own Florida TAG owner.

Just spoke with Neil ...he is trailering it back to factory for re-build.
He said they hit some submerged timber at a 30 degree angle to TO path - it hit both floats and punched a hole in one ...and the water ingress /recovery ops ripped up the kevlar -to the large hole damage seen in the news report.
Fortunately no water got into the engine - off to rotax mechanic for cleaning, refurb and checks.
 
Last edited:
New owner was being trained to fly it by the float-gyro-rated Aussie CFI.
It does look like it hit some submerged debris.
Same float/amphib configuration as several others successfully flown for some time ...including our own Florida TAG owner.

Just spoke with Neil ...he is trailering it back to factory for re-build.
He said they hit some submerged timber at a 30 degree angle to TO path - it hit both floats and punched a hole in one ...and the water ingress /recovery ops ripped up the kevlar -to the large hole damage seen in the news report.
Fortunately no water got into the engine - off to rotax mechanic for cleaning, refurb and checks.
Thanks for that update. Wow. One thing to see debris on landing, but another on takeoff.
Not related to this accident but as Waspair said amphibs do introduce an additional point of caution. A gear up landing on land is embarrassing and will maybe damage the floats, but a gear down on water will flip you. So the default position of the gear immediately on takeoff is UP. And gear check 3 times before landing. But amphibs do provide a level of versatility you simply can't get with straight floats. Just refueling options on straight floats are more limited.
 
Last edited:

Gyros are complicated enough. Why add to the risk?
 

Gyros are complicated enough. Why add to the risk?
Once you've owned an aircraft that will land on water, you want all of your aircraft to land on water.
 
I love the idea of a float gyro. At the risk of being a "common scold," though, I would not fly one without first testing it thoroughly for a tendency to drag over at high speeds and/or the inevitable low G's.

Even some FW aircraft need extra H-stab area when floats are fitted. Boat-hulled amphibs such as the Osprey (i mean the GA amphib, not the V-22 helo) have downloaded H-stabs centered in the propwash.
 
Latest TAG Amphib -Test flight off water!
 

Attachments

  • Latest TAG Amphib -Test flight off water!
    1713883712641.png
    985.1 KB · Views: 98
Very strong machine!
 
This is, of course, a sound solution but adhering to the basic design principle of utmost simplicity I feel that a true amphibian gyro should look very different. Antoine de Saint-Exupery said:
Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte
non quand il n'y a plus rien a ajouter,
mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher.

which roughly translates to

Perfection is seemingly attained
not when there is no longer anything to add,
but when there is no longer anything to omit

under that premise, floats are a terrible penalty in terms of weight and drag (both roughly twice that of the fuselage) and I also assume that landing in choppy water has the same disadvantages as with float aircraft compared to flying boats. The optimum would, IMO, be a boat fuselage with stub wings for stabilization on the water. If you attach the wheels to the stub wings you would have the additional benefit of a very large wheel base. It would be fairly easy to convert a conventional gyro that way by adding a boat like fairing to the lower part of the fuselage and modify the landing gear.
 
Last edited:
This is, of course, a sound solution but adhering to the basic design principle of utmost simplicity I feel that a true amphibian gyro should look very different. Antoine de Saint-Exupery said:
Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte
non quand il n'y a plus rien a ajouter,
mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher.

which roughly translates to

Perfection is seemingly attained
not when there is no longer anything to add,
but when there is no longer anything to omit

under that premise, floats are a terrible penalty in terms of weight and drag (both roughly twice that of the fuselage) and I also assume that landing in choppy water has the same disadvantages as with float aircraft compared to flying boats. The optimum would, IMO, be a boat fuselage with stub wings for stabilization on the water. If you attach the wheels to the stub wings you would have the additional benefit of a very large wheel base. It would be fairly easy to convert a conventional gyro that way by adding a boat like fairing to the lower part of the fuselage and modify the landing gear.
There are pros and cons of floats vs flying boat. Generally in flying boats the engine has to be placed higher relative to the aircraft as flying boats sit lower in the water and in a gyro I imagine that might make the thrust line too high. I think a flying boat gyro would have to be a completely new aircraft design rather than being able to simply add floats (which can be removed to convert back to wheels if desired). Most gyro are lightweight with very little intrinsic strength, I suspect a flying boat design would have to be a lot sturdier hence maybe not saving that much weight over floats. Flying boats are also generally much slower off the water as there is less surface area therefore less drag with floats vs a hull design on the water. My observation of gyro floatplanes is that they are already very slow off the water. Obviously just speculating, but would be interesting to see a design like you propose.
 
Last edited:
There are pros and cons of floats vs flying boat. Generally in flying boats the engine has to be placed higher relative to the aircraft as flying boats sit lower in the water and in a gyro I imagine that might make the thrust line too high. I think a flying boat gyro would have to be a completely new aircraft design rather than being able to simply add floats (which can be removed to convert back to wheels if desired). Most gyro are lightweight with very little intrinsic strength, I suspect a flying boat design would have to be a lot sturdier hence maybe not saving that much weight over floats. Flying boats are also generally much slower off the water as there is less surface area therefore less drag with floats vs a hull design on the water. My observation of gyro floatplanes is that they are already very slow off the water. Obviously just speculating, but would be interesting to see a design like you propose.
The stub wings become a much larger planing area, so the hull will get out faster.
The biggest problem I see is the drag component adding to PPO sensitivity.
I think this would be worse with pontoons, but either way, it is not good....
 
The stub wings become a much larger planing area, so the hull will get out faster.
The biggest problem I see is the drag component adding to PPO sensitivity.
I think this would be worse with pontoons, but either way, it is not good....
Not sure about that, larger planing area of the stub wings means more drag in the water. The smaller the planing area the less drag, the quicker off the water. At least that's the way I understand it. If the stub wings could act as foils and lift the boat part out of the water, that might be different. But then you're sort of back to having floats.
 
Top