Originally Posted by
Justapax1
https://www.theguardian.com/business...-airlander-hav
I am profoundly sceptical. I have never been sick on an aircraft without good reason (i.e., from something that would have made me sick on terra firma) but I get seasick even watching a film about boats in rough seas. It's the slow rolling, pitching and yawing motion that you get on a boat that - excuse me a moment....
Aah, I feel better now. A little emptier perhaps.
This aircraft seems to me to be more prone to 'motion discomfort' than the Shorts 340 and 360 models, which were nicknamed the Vomit Comet because of their tendency to lurch around the sky even in calm conditions. (Aer Lingus Commuter used to fly the Shorts, I thought they were great fun.)
The article suggests they could substitute for ferries. Ferries are prone to heaving to with the passengers heaving up in adverse conditions, would this aircraft be any more reliable in anything more than a stiff breeze?
None of your new-fangled airships for me. I'll stick to good old-fashioned heavier-than-air craft
.
And then there was the Boeing Jetfoil (not an aircraft, but made by an aircraft manufacturer). They used to run them from Brighton to Dieppe. Trouble is, the channel can get quite rough, so if the Seajet (as it was called) fell off its foils in rough water, it couldn't get back up, and rolled like a pig...
Stanley Ho also had a fleet that did the Hong Kong to Macau run - same issue.
