Seaplane Resurgence?

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:01:28 -0700, "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.

I've read claims that WWII itself killed the flying boat.

Before the War vast areas of the Pacific were accessible only by
floatplane. During the War every rock big enough to have one got a
runway. And there were vast numbers of surplus cargo aircraft after
the War to use them. A land runway vastly eases maintenance, lowers
landing and takeoff risks, etc.

In Japan (and, I presume, the old Soviet Union) there were a lot of
places that never got paved runways. Nor, in the post War years, was
there the money to build either them or aircraft to fly from them
(Japan was re-building everything; the Soviets were building a war
machine to threaten the West). So for these states using existing
float plane technology made sense.

And, in both cases, you have either straight up state ownership or
massive state subsidies.

There are lots of places inland that could have float plane operating
areas (admitedly with greater or lesser levels of hazard). Almost
anywhere along the TVA system or Mississippi might do. The Missouri
for at least some distance. I don't know how economical it would be
(compared to building/maintaining a hard surface runway) but there's
not reason why you can't dig a long, narrow pond for floatplane ops.

These aircraft are romantic as Hell and rich folks have fitted out
PBYs and Grummans as "flying yachts" complete with Zodiacs to get them
ashore. But as practical, commercial vehicles they just don't make
it.

On Sep 30, 6:39 pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:01:28 -0700, "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.

I've read claims that WWII itself killed the flying boat.

Before the War vast areas of the Pacific were accessible only by
floatplane. During the War every rock big enough to have one got a
runway. And there were vast numbers of surplus cargo aircraft after
the War to use them. A land runway vastly eases maintenance, lowers
landing and takeoff risks, etc.

In Japan (and, I presume, the old Soviet Union) there were a lot of
places that never got paved runways. Nor, in the post War years, was
there the money to build either them or aircraft to fly from them
(Japan was re-building everything; the Soviets were building a war
machine to threaten the West). So for these states using existing
float plane technology made sense.

And, in both cases, you have either straight up state ownership or
massive state subsidies.

There are lots of places inland that could have float plane operating
areas (admitedly with greater or lesser levels of hazard). Almost
anywhere along the TVA system or Mississippi might do. The Missouri
for at least some distance. I don't know how economical it would be
(compared to building/maintaining a hard surface runway) but there's
not reason why you can't dig a long, narrow pond for floatplane ops.

These aircraft are romantic as Hell and rich folks have fitted out
PBYs and Grummans as "flying yachts" complete with Zodiacs to get them
ashore. But as practical, commercial vehicles they just don't make
it.

The Soviets went through a period where the theme "we need dirigibles"
seemed to their answer to the problem of supplying isolated outposts.
Whether reason took hold or the wrong side was backing the gas bags
they faded from the public eye.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutze.../Zeitleiste_LS

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.

On Sep 30, 9:43 pm, Eunometic wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:01 pm, "Mike Kanze" wrote:

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.

The seaplane hull has never been as aerodynamic as a land planes: it's
less efficent. Now you want to go ahead and add landing gear too? More
weight. Now even fewer miles per ton of fuel.

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

Possibly, but don't waste effort making them amphibs.

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

Quite serious: floating concrete structures?

Good enough for docks. But it's like hydrogen fueled cars: which do
you build first; the millions of hydrogen fueling stations or the
millions of hydrogen powered cars? If socity hadn't gone done a
different econmic track doing both at once might have been worth while
but substitues do exist and it's hard to justify the investment for
another way of doing the same thing.