Seaplane Resurgence?

John Keeney,

I don't disagree with your conclusion, I just think your grasp of the water situation in the heartland is off.

Having lived several years in Cincinnati (on the Ohio River, upriver ~100 miles from Louisville) I have a better grasp than you might think about this.

There's not been a seaplane built that couldn't land and depart comfortably from the Ohio River at Louisville Ky.

There is no section of the Ohio River flowing past Louisville that is at all aligned with the prevailing winds (roughly NW - SE) in that part of the U.S. Landing a heavily-laden flying boat in such conditions would not be advisable.

Like our land roadways, our riverine waterways are very congested with all manner of craft. Let's start with large, multi-barge river tows, and along the way mention such frequent or recurring obstacles as bridges, locks and dams, seasonal water level fluctuations, snags, and especially flotsam - not to mention the all-too-frequent weekend drunk on his jetski, darting unpredictably about the channel.

Our major rivers either ice over regularly (upper Midwest) or can have ice floes during winter cold snaps at least as far south as the Mississippi - Ohio junction. (I have personally seen folks walk, foolishly, across the Ohio River on winter ice.) So reliable scheduling of commercial seaplane air cargo during part of the year is not an option from Cairo, Illinois north and east. Thunderstorms, which occur at other times of the year, generate major flotsam debris. River tows are impervious to all but the largest flotsam, and smaller craft can see and avoid. Not so a seaplane that has just alighted.

Net, our large rivers are unsuitable for any economically competitive large seaplane ops.

A large number of TVA lakes (Cumberland, Dale Hollow...) and other lakes about the country (Mead, Great Salt Lake...) like wise have sufficient surface area. A big problem in these locations would be existing boat traffic.

An even bigger problem is that most of these locations are far enough from urban cargo destinations to make them uncompetitive with other forms of commercial cargo movement.

Competitive cost is the largest factor arguing against large commercial cargo seaplane ops. Landplane air freight is the most expensive means of moving goods, and that cost is based partly on an already-existing, well-developed landplane air cargo system.

Shippers use air freight only when its incremental cost above motor freight, rail freight, etc., is far outweighed by some other value factor, like speed. There would need to be some very, very good reason, one that would trump the existing landplane cargo economics, for the creation and sustainment of seaplane cargo ops in the U.S. heartland. If such reason exists, I am not aware of it.

--
Mike Kanze

In Amy Bloom's new novel AWAY, Lillian Leyb discovers that "the odds are good but the goods are odd" for women seeking men in Alaska.

"John Keeney" wrote in message ups.com...
On Sep 29, 10:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" wrote:

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.

There's not been a seaplane built that couldn't land and depart
comfortably from the Ohio River at Louisville Ky. A large number of
TVA lakes (Cumberland, Dale Hollow...) and other lakes about the
country (Mead, Great Salt Lake...) like wise have sufficent surface
area. A big problem in these locations would be existing boat traffic.

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.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, I just think your grasp of the
water situation in the heartland is off.

If the seaplane -as a large cargo transport- had a future it would
likely be competing as a smaller-faster cargo ship and the coastal
ports would be a natural location for them. Being able to hop in to
Detroit & Chicago would be a real plus. Even the occasional stop in
some where like Louisville could well happen (I'm thinking of some
metal presses made in Germany, shipped to New Orleans, brought by
river barge to Louisville then trucked with dozens of police escorts
up the Interstate to the plant.)

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 30, 3:35 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:57:27 -0700, John Keeney

wrote:
(Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft.

You do know that all nearly all aircraft always take off and land in
ground effect. . Anything involving a runway is in ground effect.
Almost Impossible not to, I mean they take off and land from the
ground. There is the space shuttle if you want to call it an aircraft.
It is a rocket for take off, but is an airplane for landing, in ground
effect. It is possible to do a vertical launch with a sufficiently
powerful airplane, but it will have to land in the ordinary way, in
ground effect, or else by parachute.

Casady

You know that Lindbergh's flight from New York to Paris was mostly in
ground effect to increase range?

Jack,

Do you have a citation for that? I've never heard anything of the sort,
although it would have been an excellent idea IF Lindberg had the
concentration to fly at 50' for 36 hours in an airplane that was blind in
the forward direction.

KB

On Sep 30, 1:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" wrote:
but will they now make a comeback in the US?

Short answer: No, IMHO.


Thanks for your list. It forms a logical point for discusion.



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.

I would raise two counter arguments to this:
a/ The Sea planes could be made 'amphibious' in that case they can
operate on airports, perhaps only those with 11000ft runways, and they
could then use seaplane ports in locations where a 11000ft runway
would be prohibitive due to cost or geography.

b/ Oversize seaplanes could opperate in a niche all by themselves
competing for coastal cargo.



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.

True it would be a problem but possibly not insurmountable. Someone
or something such as a robot with appropriate sensors would need to
patrol the area for debris and a dredge or ship scoup such things up.

The seaplane would need to be designed to be repairable in such an
incident eg an removable modular or tiled energy absorbent
bottom hull.


c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban .shoreline.

Quite serious: floating concrete structures?

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.


The development of large scale composite polymer/GFRP/CFRP hulls
adresses much of this.

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 Sep 30, 8:55 pm, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Sep 30, 3:35 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:57:27 -0700, John Keeney

wrote:
(Ground Effect Take Off and Landing) craft.

You do know that all nearly all aircraft always take off and land in
ground effect. . Anything involving a runway is in ground effect.
Almost Impossible not to, I mean they take off and land from the
ground. There is the space shuttle if you want to call it an aircraft.
It is a rocket for take off, but is an airplane for landing, in ground
effect. It is possible to do a vertical launch with a sufficiently
powerful airplane, but it will have to land in the ordinary way, in
ground effect, or else by parachute.

Casady

You know that Lindbergh's flight from New York to Paris was mostly in
ground effect to increase range?

Jack,

Do you have a citation for that? I've never heard anything of the sort,
although it would have been an excellent idea IF Lindberg had the
concentration to fly at 50' for 36 hours in an airplane that was blind in
the forward direction.

KB

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print
Last two paragraphs contain a journalist's method of saying "I was
wrong but don't understand the correction"

Correction: May 25, 2002, Saturday An article in Science Times on
Tuesday about Charles Lindbergh's first trans-Atlantic flight referred
incorrectly to the first flight of the Wright brothers' plane at Kitty
Hawk. Their plane flew over 120 feet of ground, not at a height of 120
feet.

The article also referred incorrectly to the advantages of flying at a
very low altitude, as Lindbergh did in daytime. Experts indeed
acknowledge a ''ground effect,'' which increases the wings' lift and
thus makes flight somewhat more efficient near the surface; that was
not an incorrect premise of Lindbergh's era.

http://www.neoterichovercraft.com/ge.../historyof.htm
American aviator Charles Lindbergh is reported to have flown in ground
effect in order to conserve fuel during his historic transatlantic
flight in 1927. The challenge of flying along the wave tops no doubt
also served to stave off boredom during his long journey!

http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec...9/msg50545.htm
I haven't seen the book mentioned but Lindbergh came up constantly in
the discussion of the Caspian Sea Monster and its capabilities.

On 30 Wrz, 03:04, Eeyore
wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
The Soviet-era Ekranoplans were comparable to seaplanes

Not at all similar.

The Ekranoplans flew only in ground effect.

Graham

ISTR (from a documentary I saw on them) Ekranoplanes ***almost***
always flew in ground effect, they could climb out of it if really
neccessary (lots of power, lots of wasted fuel) but it was possible.

guy

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 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

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