Flying Boats.......

[rolling20]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1790345.ece
Apologies if this has been mentioned before or if this is the wrong thread!
Ive often wondered why Flying Boats have never been looked at again , as they were the transport of choice prior to WW2. Surely it makes sense enviromentally, saving thousands of acres going under concrete and noise pollution over villages, towns and cities etc..
I guess it may not be possible to land in all weathers and i daresay there could be other problems re water ingestation into engines etc... but hey we are a resourceful bunch...Any thoughts?

[Double Zero]

Seaplanes

I may be aviation minded, but I'm also a yachtie - PLEASE don't let anyone resurrect the Russian Ekranoplane idea - I've got enough worries without a few hundred tons doing 500 knots at 10 feet coming up !!!

May be a niche for seaplanes as described in the article, can't see an amphibious 747 happening very soon...

[Kitbag]

I believe a new service has been inaugurated in the Scottish Islands recently. Not wholly convinced as to environmental friendliness plus rather restricted in wx operation. See here: http://www.lochlomondseaplanes.com/

[forget]

Again, but why not............

[Nardi Riviera]

Jet Blast has a (misplaced?) thread about almost same issue: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=253075

Over the last few years Caravans and Twotters on floats enjoy growing popularity. These a/c types are more versatile than flying boats whose hulls are a pain to maintain. Engines mounted high and up front will not ingest water.

without a few hundred tons doing 500 knots at 10 feet coming up !!!

That knocked me over. Beware of the "CASPIAN SEA-MONSTER"!

Believe the outfit at Loch Lomond has been there for many years.

Hey, "forget" - have someone resize your pic!!!

[forget]

Hey, "forget" - have someone resize your pic!!!

I've tried - I've tried - even before your gentle reminder. The image on Photobucket is 160 X 120. The image on Prune is 1063 X 797.

Why for this?

PS. Hmmm. Something's worked.

[Kitbag]

The scheduled service to the islands is the new bit for Loch Lomond

The monster pic looks ok here, could be a bit bigger

[Nardi Riviera]

"forget" - didn't mean to bark at you, it's just that when I hit the button after finishing my post (enjoying the peace and quiet of the nostalgia forum) your Caspian Monster huge cockpit popping up covering the screen startled me!!!

"Kitbag" - realize you're not a novice (re the quiz thread) but for a wee moment there I thought you hadn't noticed the seaplanes in Scotland. Will try to never do it again.

[forget]

There's an excellent video, 10 minutes long, of the real Sea Monsters below. Weird sound track that seems to fit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgtaeRZjWNc

[nosefirsteverytime]

Sorry Double Zero, but if disasters on the scale of earthquakes and tsunamis can be responded to in hours instead of days, I think that there's room in the world for 500 ton monsters. Mwahaha

[rolling20]

So there is a consensus that it could work then!
i guess it would need a brave manufacturer to do a medium ( say 150 seat) craft, but im sure going foward it could happen?
Remember at the moment the constraints on aircraft size are a lot to do with runway length, huge stretches of open water could in theory allow 'bigger' aircraft. Also i daresay multiple takeoffs/landings.

[Kitbag]

So there is a consensus that it could work then!

Not looking back at previous posts on this thread. Mainly a lot about seaplanes (not flying boats) and wing in ground effect aircraft.

i guess it would need a brave manufacturer to do a medium ( say 150 seat) craft, but im sure going foward it could happen?

Brave manufacturers went out of business, now they expect (and need) firm orders to justify the development costs.

On another tack I don't see the economics of such an operation in N Europe working. Crowded harbour area; what of Mr Smith wanders in in his dinghy? (I seem to recall that power is meant to give way to sail in this instance), weather cancellations in conditions that would not bother a land plane. Transfer of passengers to and from the aircraft. Costs per passenger mile also likely to be higher: fuel; due to additional structure weight and form drag, maintenance; specifically corrosion prevention. 'Runway' clearance; plenty of instances of floating debris holing hulls. Not quite an endless list, and there are regions were such issues do not exist to an unacceptable degree.

[Sedbergh]

Not sure - no scientific backup but:

a) Something on water takes an awful lot more horsepower to move it quickly than something on wheels on a hard surface.

b) Massive handling/docking problems especially in crosswinds.

c) Huge corrosion problems & maintenance issues especially if salt water involved

d) What was the saying about Sunderland maintenance - "a spanner dropped is a spanner lost"? I drop spanners regularly when just working on my car.

Clearly floatplanes/flying boats are great for access into rough territory with no runways but lots of lakes - e.g Canada. But as a scheduled service? Better a bit of land reclamation offshore like the new Honk Kong airport (wouldn't Foulness airport be great now if the politicians had had the guts to build in in the 1970's!)

[ICT_SLB]

Of course there is one "flying boat" still in production - one with a hull based on Saro Princess technology and a glass cockpit - the CL415. The "water bomber" is mainly used for fire fighting but it has been used to carry up to 30 pax and it's fully amphibious.