|
Here are three alternatives and a few comments. There's probably more alternatives that would make you more comfortable with the operation of the floatplane, and it would be interesting to see them.
My sailboat is a trimaran, with large floats on either side. Each float has three compartments. The end ones have one or two 6" inspection ports each, and this is adequate to get an arm in with a sponge, or a pump in to pump it out. The marine hatches do leak somewhat at speed. But 6" hatches are acceptable for access; 8" would be easier.
The trimaran is made of a composite sandwich, glass on the outside and inside faces, and PVC foam core. There's enough of it that the boat can't sink. The structure is vastly different than your Sopwith's, and the point is that a new airplane can be designed not to sink. But perhaps the old designs ought to remain authentic.
Now for the alternatives....
1. If you must add foam, add it as low as possible. Perhaps glue it to the inside of the bottom surface, form-fitting it to the structure. That way it won't allow water under it, and will sink the least.
2. Another alternative to adding weighty foam would be to slightly increase the size of the floats, of course. It wouldn't take much of an increase for that, keeping the proportions and shape the same, and increasing all the lengths by the cube root of the increased volume.
3. In your home waters, you can go out with a small boat before a take-off and check out the conditions. And you can look over the water before landing. Both of these would minimise the hazard. This is what I'd do, I think. That and checking the floats for water as part of the preflight inspection. This is a third alternative, using operational procedures to reduce the hazard.
|