Seaplane Resurgence?

On 30 sept, 05:01, "Mike Kanze" wrote:
but will they now make a comeback in the US?

Short answer: No, IMHO.

Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.

Just not a winner for the U.S.

The article was about military use. For some (quite) recent
scenarios....

Falklands 1982: Say, British have twenty Shin Meiwa US-1 style, but
Martin Mars sized flying boats, in their inventory, capable of aerial
refuelling. Supply and troop transport problems are entirely
different.

Africa - almost what ever conflict. At many times larger availability
of lakes and rivers than runways.

Seaplanes are really out of fashion in the military circles because
they are out of fashion. A major reason may be that USAF never
operated seaplanes in large quantities, and probably has not been that
interested in airlift mission anyway.

Mvh,
Jon K

wrote:

-snip-

The article was about military use. For some (quite) recent
scenarios....

Falklands 1982: Say, British have twenty Shin Meiwa US-1 style, but
Martin Mars sized flying boats, in their inventory, capable of aerial
refuelling. Supply and troop transport problems are entirely
different.

Dunno. One nice thing about a runway is if you can find it, you can
land on it.

Sea conditions are often not that forgiving. Especially below latitude
50 south with the southern hemisphere winter fast approaching.

It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.

Cheers,

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:36:46 -0700, Bill Shatzer
wrote:

Dunno. One nice thing about a runway is if you can find it, you can
land on it.

You can try to.

You also can crash on landing with wheels on the plane A light plane
has more trouble from crosswinds as any given one is a higher
percentage of the stall speed. Still, there have been incidents with
heavy aircraft. There is also such a thing as hitting a truck or
another plane on the runway. Deadliest accident in aviation history
was a ground collision on the runway. I once, in a tail wheel equipped
plane, had a ground loop. This is where, in a stiff crosswind, the
wind overpowers the steering, and the plane tips over or runs off the
runway. I hit one of those distance remaining signs, 4x4 foot plywood,
destroyed the sign, no damage to the propeller it went through. If
there had been anyone there to hit there wouldn't have been anything I
could do: I was just along for the ride. Sail boat owners would know
the feeling.

Sea conditions are often not that forgiving. Especially below latitude
50 south with the southern hemisphere winter fast approaching.

Worst weather in the world, Falklands area is bad, further south is
worse.

It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.

There is a weight penalty [less range] with a flying boat, and
distances are long in that part of the world.

Casady

On Oct 1, 8:55 am, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:36:46 -0700, Bill Shatzer

wrote:
Dunno. One nice thing about a runway is if you can find it, you can
land on it.

You can try to.

You also can crash on landing with wheels on the plane A light plane
has more trouble from crosswinds as any given one is a higher
percentage of the stall speed. Still, there have been incidents with
heavy aircraft. There is also such a thing as hitting a truck or
another plane on the runway. Deadliest accident in aviation history
was a ground collision on the runway. I once, in a tail wheel equipped
plane, had a ground loop. This is where, in a stiff crosswind, the
wind overpowers the steering, and the plane tips over or runs off the
runway. I hit one of those distance remaining signs, 4x4 foot plywood,
destroyed the sign, no damage to the propeller it went through. If
there had been anyone there to hit there wouldn't have been anything I
could do: I was just along for the ride. Sail boat owners would know
the feeling.



Sea conditions are often not that forgiving. Especially below latitude
50 south with the southern hemisphere winter fast approaching.

Worst weather in the world, Falklands area is bad, further south is
worse.

It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.

There is a weight penalty [less range] with a flying boat, and
distances are long in that part of the world.

Casady

Saint Exupery flew the mail in Patagonia where "landings" consisted of
matching the wind over ground and the ground crew bringing the plane
down to the ground.

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:55:16 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

orst weather in the world, Falklands area is bad, further south is
worse.
It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.
'
It would cost quite a bit more, I suspect.

There is a weight penalty [less range] with a flying boat, and
distances are long in that part of the world.

New Zealand uses C-130's for search and rescue. When It comes to
fishing survivors of sinkings out of the water, a flying boat would
probably have considerably more range than a helocopter, and faster
too. Good as it is, the C-130 cannot land in mid ocean. The best it
can do is drop supplies. The New Zealands do have a good record at SAR
using them. however. I think the market is limited for this and
everything else, and so it won't happen.

Casady

On 1 Oct, 07:36, Bill Shatzer wrote:

Dunno. One nice thing about a runway is if you can find it, you can
land on it.

If the runway is long and strong enough, not mined etc... In many
cases the runway is not conveniently situated. Most of the modern
flying boats are actually amphibian.

Sea conditions are often not that forgiving. Especially below latitude
50 south with the southern hemisphere winter fast approaching.

It would be rather foolish to depend upon seaplanes for supply.

Well, although sea conditions weren't nice, one has to remember the
possibility of flying into various fjords etc. Note that I'm not
suggesting that actual maritime transportation would not have been
needed, just that even in intra-Falklands conditions flying boats
would have been extremely useful. To use direct historical examples,
Teal Inlet and Bluff Cove. In addition, various critical supplies
could have been brought into theater more easier, and casualty
evacuation to UK would have been a lot easier. According to the link
in OP, Shin Meiwa US-1 is, for example, capable of operating into Sea
State 4.

Mvh,
Jon K