Seaplane Resurgence?

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

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.)

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.)

On Sep 30, 7:06 pm, "Mike Kanze" wrote:
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.

If your experince is limited to the Cincinnati area, I can certainly
understand it. The river is but a trickle of what you'll find behind
the McAlpin dam at Louisville.
The two cities are seaperated by a bit over 100 *air* miles but that
is one hell of a drainage.

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.

The pool behind the dam at Louisville is over a mile wide (within a
few miles, very much so) and can be sighted down from mid river for
over a half dozen miles. A very gentle bend gets you nearly twice that
many more.
Prevailing winds out on the water are within 10-20 degrees of straight
up that first stretch. This may be related to the Indiana bank being
high enough to shield it.

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.

You will recall I did not dispute your conclusion.
But large tolls rarely are within several miles of each other (the
time it takes to lock through at the dam prevents it). And bridges
over the Ohio cluster at major cities: three car & three railway
bridges at Louisville, the next closest bridge up-stream is about 35
miles away at Madison. Down-stream, call it 30 miles.
Dams, baa, how many dams do you think are between Louisville an
Cincinnati? I believe the correct number is 1.

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.)

I can remember one (1) year that there was ice on the river here
sufficent to tempt people to walk upon it. It is even considered
enough of a novelty for flow ice to be coming down stream big enough
to find to hop in the car to go get a look.

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.

*A* storm has a trivial effect on the river here. To put flotsam in
the water you dump a lot of rain on the water shed up stream to raise
the river level. The river will then creast a few days later here
carring trash in.

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.

I admit it would be a problem. One of the reasons I agreed with your
conclusion.

The very biggest reason sea planes won't make a come back is existing
airports support more efficent land planes. Ignoring some island out
in the ocean with insufficent land area for the airfield, there simply
is no justification for regular scheduled seaplane service.

On Sep 29, 7:01 pm, "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.
Mike Kanze

One of my fav's is the Martin Sea Master,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-6_Seamaster

Martin tried hard, even to go commercial,
but practical issues intervened.

Better off with a "submersible aircraft carrier".
Ken

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:16:23 -0700, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Sep 29, 7:01 pm, "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.

One of my fav's is the Martin Sea Master,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-6_Seamaster

Martin tried hard, even to go commercial,
but practical issues intervened.

The seaplane ramp at the former Martin factory airport still exists [1],
so there's a seadrome ready-made less than an hour's drive from our
nation's capital.

Sure, I suppose it's possible that Frog Mortar Creek may have silted
up a bit in the forty years or so since Martin last launched seaplanes
there. Yes, arriving and departing aircraft might have to avoid the
locals' crab pots and pick their way through swarms of recreational
boaters while taxiing past Bowley Bar between the upper Chesapeake
and the airport, but so what? Minor details.

So-called "practical issues" can not be allowed to stand in the way
of the inevitable comeback of the seaplane!


ljd

[1] 39-18-56.06 N, 076-24-19.52 W