Animation Source Forums

I don't know...Maybe it's just my imagination...But take a look at this tweet, from the guy who worked on the Darkwing Duck comics.

"I wonder what THIS could be."


https://twitter.com/Aaron_Sparrow/statu ... 00/photo/1


Doesn't this look AWFULLY familiar? Yet different... Dunno that logo.

Is that the Conwing logo?

That /is/ the Conwing logo, and the side door and curvature of the hull would suggest an L-16 design.

However.

Notice that the windshield is segmented, and there is a strip of fuselage running across the center of the cockpit. It may be a Conwing design, it may even resemble an L-16, but this is not the Seaduck.

Wish it were though.

We need more Talespin being produced.

Mmm...Well, it may not be THE Sea Duck, but that doesn't mean it's not part of a possible Talespin comic.
From what you're saying, couldn't this be the way the Sea Duck looked originally, before Baloo did "alterations" on it? (like, repaint over the logo)
Also, don't minimize the fact that, if there were new comics, the artists would have difficulties finding reference pics and may do a few mistakes.

And (what a lousy fan am I), Conwing isn't a real company, right? So is this logo in Talespin somewhere? I can't remember...


Agreed X 1000

Also, even if this is a very little pic, it looks like James Silvani's style...
Don't take this as granted though. Maybe they're just trying to pitch something to Disney! (which is already awesome!) Fingers crossed...

Indeed, Conwing isn't a real company. It never existed outside of Talespin, and the logo was only found on reference blueprints released later. The fact it's being used /at all/ strongly indicates a link with the Seaduck.

Sadly because of the cut of the screenshot, it's impossible to tell if the sectioning of the windshield is a reflection or a strip partition. The Duck had two distinct cockpit windscreen panels, supported by a fuselage strut.


Warning: science and history below...


The 'split screen' construction is typical of flying boats of the 30's and early 40's, since it maximises both structural strength and the wider field of view required for these craft when moving in a harbour. This wasn't much of an issue with land based aircraft because most models were 'tail draggers' and had no forward visibility when landed and rarely had closed cockpits. Only large commercial land based aircraft, like the Ford Tri-motor, could boast a multi panel windscreen, and the lack of angling meant it needed to be given plent of space to the sides (called 'clearance', which is where the modern term derives from) in case the pilots weren't certain where they were going. Modern day aircraft have multi-window cockpits, each angled at precise degrees to maximise view angle, which is a direct descendant of the flying boat design of the 30's.

Interesting fact: in the 30's and early 40's, flying boats were seen as the future of aviation, with land based aircraft deemed as no good for anything but military purposes and perhaps some light mail runs. The longest distance flights were always done by flying boats, who were not restricted by the load capacity of a landing gear, and could land practically anywhere. Even in the late 30's, months before the war, it was thought that it would take something truly extraordinary for countries to invest the vast resources needed to provide landing strips to replace flying boats completely. It was seen as utterly impossible. History, sadly, has proven otherwise. The abundance of aerodromes during the war, and rapid advances in aviation, meant that land based aircraft soon started to outperform their slightly more dated cousins, the flying boat and float plane. However, even until the end of the war in Europe, there was an Air Transport Auxiliary Service base dedicated entirely to flying boats, and a certification (level 5, the highest attainable) for ATAS pilots unique to these kind of craft. Only the best were allowed to fly flying boats.

It is sad to think that the best example we have left of a flying boat is the Grumman Goose (yes, the Duck was named after it) which suspended production several decades ago. However, the Goose model is still being built under license and to order for anyone who wants one of these iconic planes. With modern turboprop engines, and the noted inability for jet engines to operate off a floating platform with sufficient degrees of safety, the license built Goose is the equal of other land-based aircraft. It's too late to revive the era of flying boats, but the legacy is unlikely to die.

Perhaps, in future, when airports are being overcrowded and there is no more room to expand because of ecological concerns, the venerable flying boat will see a resurgence. I, for one, would love to fly one. Still, I don't think we'll see the likes of the Short Sunderland or the Boeing 314 Clipper ever again.

Wow, the simple fact that they used a reference logo that I wasn't even aware of means they're doing their research...
Could this mean we'll FINALLY get new TaleSpin stories?!? A continuation of the show?!? The thought is just too awesome...especially after everything we did to make this happen!

BUT not getting my hopes up until any official announcement. Been too disappointed multiple times in the past by Disney/Boom!/etc...

Well, I think the Flying Boat, or Amphibious Aircraft as the Seaduck technically is, is still vital to shipping and transportation in Alaska where there are a lot of remote communities. It's probably the best way hop from town to town there. BTW, Becky must have come from Alaska, particularly the Katmai peninsula where Bears rule.

The aircraft used in Alaskan water operations are mostly floatplanes. They're not flying boats.

It's perhaps pedantic of me, but the difference is rather vast. Floatplanes are standard monowing designs with pontoons slung under the wing. The hull never touches the water, and they can easily be re-fitted with a fixed landing gear or have often recessed landing wheels in the pontoons to make them amphibious. Flying boats on the other hand are designed from the hull up as watercraft. They have a ship-shaped hull that displaces water and provides them with the buoyancy needed to stay afloat. The floats or pontoons on a flying boat serve only to stabilize the wings, not to keep the craft afloat.

The difference? Floatplanes are limited to the load limit of their pontoon struts, much like land based aircraft are limited to the load limit of their landing gear. Flying boats are only limited by the size of the cargo and the lift capacity of the engines.

Alaska is one of the last places on earth where classic designs triumph over modern equivalents. There are no current day manufacturers of medium haul cargo aircraft, considering the narrow profit margin and market for these types of aircraft. Modern cargo planes are in essence regular wide body jets that have never had seats or cabin electrics installed, usually incorporating an extra loading door where you would normally find the overwing escape doors. These planes are difficult to maintain, guzzle fuel and are just not economic to operate over short or medium distances. Many of the Alaskan airstrips are too short for them to land and take off under full load. That leaves the old workhorses like the C-47 to take up the slack.

However, classic land-based cargo aircraft still exist, whereas the last cargo handling flying boat was dismantled in the 60's. I will never understand why they fell out of favor, but they have, despite the logistical solution they represent for many island economies... or isolated areas like Alaska.

This is one of those topics on which I dearly wish someone to prove me wrong... I'd renew my license and switch jobs in a heartbeat.

So are there businesses like Higher For Hire in Alaska? Small companies that ship cargo to places like Naknek and Katmai Country? If so what kind of aircraft do they use?

I think yes, but they'd rather use small airplanes, not the big one in Conwing type :/

Is that another part of the puzzle???

https://twitter.com/AllenGladfelter/status/231487991464468480



Allen Gladfelter is an artist who worked on the Cars comics for Boom! Studios. And by taking a look at the close contacts, he's from the same "circle" as Aaron Sparrow and James Silvani.

Again this might just be me imagining things, maybe it's just a joke and he's actually drawing a "Planes" comic (I mean, the soon-to-be-released spin off film of Cars) which would be quite logical and more probable.
Or just a pitch comic to show to Disney; nonetheless, I'd say we've never been THIS close to actually getting what we want!

I didn't know Aaron had a twitter, hopefully he'll keep posting more talespin related tweets.

If this is just a prank; then why add a #talespin hashtag to it. If it was about Planes; then there would be a #Planes or #airplanes along those lines.

And with the announcement that Disney is holding an event for cartoons like Ducktales; you have to wonder...

That, I must say I haven't heard of. Where did you read this?

I think this is where I found out about it: http://kidsandmice.blogspot.ca/2011/12/ ... -2012.html

They even had a slide for Goof Troop as well. As I mentioned on my blog; I don't know when Disney is having the D23 event for DTVA cartoons and there is no 100% assurance that TaleSpin will be one of them. I only speculated that the celebration might be in September when most DTVA cartoons in the past start off in syndication. However; I just find it really odd that Aaron Sparrow and Allen are showing off a picture of the SeaDuck and putting on hashtags for TaleSpin. I mean if it wasn't about TaleSpin; it would probably have a Planes/airplanes hashtag. The plot thickens.