Flying Boat airliners

VTOL and helicopter was meant to be the inter-city dream. Ironically those were often riverside locations too - but that dream never worked out either.
 
Please see my link above, I found a working coastline helicopter within seconds with Google, there will surly be more than this example.
 
The Cold War helped kill off the flying boat by leading to the worldwide construction of long runways.
In the absence of the Cold War and a slower demise for the British Empire (ie a fantasy timeline) BOAC and Qantas might have kept in using Flying Boats a while longer.
But the transatlantic route would still have driven the need for jetliners and a Boeing 707 of some kind. Then the big runways would have spread to the rest of the world.
 
Nicknick said:
Please see my link above, I found a working coastline helicopter within seconds with Google, there will surly be more than this example.
Click to expand...
London has had a heliport at Battersea since 1959, several miles upriver from London City Airport.
en.m.wikipedia.org

London Heliport - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

But note the operating limits imposed on it.
 
So even today, some helicopters are landing/starting from a platform in the Themes...
 
BTW, here is an interesting patent application for a steam rocket as starting aid for sea planes:

WO2002064427A1 - Steam rocket engine for ground effect vehicles, hovercrafts and seaplanes - Google Patents

The invention relates to a water rocket, the water flowing out of a heated boiler under high pressure via a nozzle, thus supplying the thrust which is used to start vehicles which are started on water.
patents.google.com

This is not totally unrealistic, since water rockets are indeed very safe and simple. I don’t believe that this is a practical solution for sea water (hot salt water is really a nasty stuff…) but is could help to realize a very short take off distance for flying boats on fresh water. Fortunately, on the oceans is enough space even for extremely long take off runs, so that here the use of the steam rocket is not really required.
 
Charlesferdinand said:
I do think it does highlight a broader problem. In Europe at least (I can't speak other parts of the world), wherever there is a suitably large body of water next to a city, you'll find that is already in some use and/or hemmed in by buildings, so that frequent take off and landings would be very difficult. And you need enough movements to make your service viable (other than VIP transport or something similar). If there are no water surfaces available, the whole thing becomes moot.
The opportunity, if there ever was one, has now passed.
Click to expand...
I lived in Chicago USA for many years. Chicago is on the shore of Lake Michigan, a substantial body of water. It also freezes over during Winter, and from mid-spring through mid autumn the lake is chokled with pleasure boats, up to say 15 meters/50 feet long. People who own boats like this are wealthy and influential. Back in the 50s when the lakefront was more commercial it was full of barges and ore boats. Again, owned by wealthy and powerful people. I assume any large city on a large body of water would be in similar shape.
 
uk 75 said:
The Cold War helped kill off the flying boat by leading to the worldwide construction of long runways.
In the absence of the Cold War and a slower demise for the British Empire (ie a fantasy timeline) BOAC and Qantas might have kept in using Flying Boats a while longer.
But the transatlantic route would still have driven the need for jetliners and a Boeing 707 of some kind. Then the big runways would have spread to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
The Cold War may have put in the final few nails, but the Battle Of the Atlantic built the coffin with the use of long-ranged, land-based aircraft. Seaplanes were -- and are -- more restricted in the weather conditions where they can touch down than are land-based aircraft, especially with the development of instrument landing aids (relevant to this, I recommend Arthur Clarke's autobiographical book, Glide Path; he was involved in the development of radar-based instrument landing aids). Operations research during WW2 also found that between poorer availability (corrosion, likelihood of damage during landing -- oops, we just hit a log -- and greater difficulty in maintenance), restrictions on when seaplanes can operate (waves too big, especially), and much higher parasitic drag and greater structural fraction meant that landplanes could perform the same roles more effectively. While seaplanes have survived in niche roles since WW2, they're not doing so in any role where they have to justify their existence to accountants shareholders.
 
A seaplane doesn’t require more space than any passing ship. I don’t see a mayor obstacle to clear a stripe on the water for occasional take off and landings at all. Ships can use rivers and lakes without constantly crashing into each other…
As said, there was a floating plane operating in the busy harbor of Hamburg just a couple of years ago.
 
I think you may have forgotten (or don't know) how much of a pain in the arse flying boats are to operate. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Coastal Command had more boats than the Royal Navy had ships.* 1635yankee pretty much sums it up.

Chris

*Boats are what you get into when the ship sinks.
 
CJGibson said:
I think you may have forgotten (or don't know) how much of a pain in the arse flying boats are to operate. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Coastal Command had more boats than the Royal Navy had ships.* 1635yankee pretty much sums it up.

Chris

*Boats are what you get into when the ship sinks.
Click to expand...
...and that is pretty much the same conclusion that Imperial Airways came to in 1939 looking back on 3-years operating the Empire 'boats and many years before with the Calcutta and Kent. BOAC then happily dumped the Solents etc as soon as practical after the war. Unless Nicknick has some deep insight that the airlines and aircraft manufacturers have missed than the same issues apply.
 
CJGibson said:
I think you may have forgotten (or don't know) how much of a pain in the arse flying boats are to operate. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Coastal Command had more boats than the Royal Navy had ships.* 1635yankee pretty much sums it up.

Chris

*Boats are what you get into when the ship sinks.
Click to expand...

We talking here about flying boats mainly a supplement for helicopters, which are indeed very costy to operate.
 
Nicknick said:
CJGibson said:
I think you may have forgotten (or don't know) how much of a pain in the arse flying boats are to operate. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Coastal Command had more boats than the Royal Navy had ships.* 1635yankee pretty much sums it up.

Chris

*Boats are what you get into when the ship sinks.
Click to expand...

We talking here about flying boats mainly a supplement for helicopters, which are indeed very costy to operate.
Click to expand...

I look forward to taking a flying boat out to the Beryl Field, scrambling onto the wing and being lifted on a crane basket. Can it operate in a 6m sea?

There are very good reasons flying boats got binned. Have a read of Chapter 3 in Nimrod's Genesis. They were more dangerous than landplanes!

Sounds like you should be talking about floatplanes, of which I am a big fan and would agree they can supplement helicopters, but actual flying boats - money pits.

Chris
 
How many airliners have been clipped at terminals over the years during taxying, parking etc. Hundreds certainly, thousands possibly. Not necessarily a write-off by any means but certainly needing more than T-Cut to buff out.
Boats tend to have fenders and shrug off bumps, aircraft are not so robust. Bash the hull and you'll end up with leaks/flood.

Dornier have been trying to flog Seastars almost as long as I've been alive and so far they've built.... four (two prototypes, one unfinished aircraft and the new CD2 prototype built by Diamond). Will the CD2 be a roaring success? I doubt it. It seems the only flying boats that sell are firebombers - CL215s and CL415s in quite large numbers plus 19 Beriev 19 Be-200s. Nobody looked at the 72-seat Be-210 seriously it seems and Canadair/Bombardier/Viking-de Havilland Canada never bothered developing a passenger version of their 215/415 series, though in fairness being purpose-designed as a firebomber this might have been a costly reengineering exercise.
 
Aye, true, but there can be nothing worst than when you drop your Rolls-Royce spanner and it goes plop rather than clang.

I've been there. Not with R-R spanners, but it's still annoying. Especially when the ROV supervisor returns it three days later.

Chris
 
I’ve no idea where and what Beryl Field is and I think I don’t even need to know that…

As said, I see a useful application for seaplanes in connecting city center in short distances, these are usually not affected with 6 m waves (if so, no one would land there anyway…).

Technically, flying boats are more efficient than float planes, but they need an extra development whereas float planes can be derived from standard planes. I believe, it would make perfect sense to start with float planes and if the business is doing fine and expands, switch to flying boats when new ones are available.
 
Long range landplanes and a supply of decent runways to operate them from killed off the flying boats, which in their absence had been a necessary but costly evil.
Even without the Second World War Germany and the US would have developed such planes but perhaps the impetus and investment in long runways might have been slower.
 
here are some thoughts about future military applications of sea planes:

warontherocks.com

Bring Back the Seaplane - War on the Rocks

On December 8, 1941, Japan attacked the Philippines and destroyed nearly half of the U.S. Army Air Corps’ bombers along with a third of its fighters on
warontherocks.com
 
Nicknick said:
reality is not what you think....
Click to expand...
Speaking as one with a soft spot for seaplanes (I really do, and think my writings tend to support my liking for them) I can only see a future for them in the Kenmore Air model (which is what Tailwind is) and Loch Lomond Seaplanes i.e. tourism. I've been on both, thoroughly enjoyed my days out, very nice lunch, but as a viable point-to-point transport, you're in Fr Dougal country. Neither was using flying boats at the time or I'd have jumped at the chance.

While I admire your passion for the seaplane, I think you might just have a case of TSR2itis. There's a lot of it about.

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Aye, true, but there can be nothing worst than when you drop your Rolls-Royce spanner and it goes plop rather than clang.

I've been there. Not with R-R spanners, but it's still annoying. Especially when the ROV supervisor returns it three days later.

Chris
Click to expand...
I too have been there and even when the tide is out and it goes plop into the harbour mud.......

The idea of loosing a precision tool to such a muddy fate is frankly too awful to contemplate.
 
Last edited:
CJGibson said:
Nicknick said:
reality is not what you think....
Click to expand...
Speaking as one with a soft spot for seaplanes (I really do, and think my writings tend to support my liking for them) I can only see a future for them in the Kenmore Air model (which is what Tailwind is) and Loch Lomond Seaplanes i.e. tourism. I've been on both, thoroughly enjoyed my days out, very nice lunch, but as a viable point-to-point transport, you're in Fr Dougal country. Neither was using flying boats at the time or I'd have jumped at the chance.

While I admire your passion for the seaplane, I think you might just have a case of TSR2itis. There's a lot of it about.

Chris
Click to expand...

I like seaplanes, but I'm not a seaplane fanboy, I have a lot of other interests...

We will see, if the NY to Boston service will flourish or not, if so, it could work as well on many other different (short) routes, (e.g. Montevideo/Buenos or the existing helicopter route Monaco/Nizza/St. Tropez and so on). To me, it is reasonable to believe that Sea planes (no matter if flying boats or float planes) can offer short travel times combined with an exciting experience (tourism factor) between big cities with plenty of water. They could replace helicopter in many cases by offering higher efficiency and lower maintenance.

At no point, I said anything about long distance flights or mass transport, this will not happen.
 
Last edited:
Some more stuff, this time from Asia. Most of these example include sheduled flights, mainly to connect a big city with an island. Of course there is a touristic aspect included, but it is also the most convienient and fasted way to the destinations.

www.seaplanes.vn

Top 10 most well-known seaplane service in Asia 2017

Seaplane service can be a wonderful way to show off the treasure trove of touristic sites available in Asia with top well-known seaplane service.
www.seaplanes.vn www.seaplanes.vn

www.seaplanes.vn

What does seaplanes use for? | Hai Au Aviation

Over the course of history, seaplanes have been invented, developed, and put to a great many different seaplanes use as air taxi, rescue, fire- fighting,..
www.seaplanes.vn www.seaplanes.vn
 
EwenS said:
uk 75 said:
Of course it was the passenger cruise that saved the liners and small flying boats still service these liners in sunnier climates than UK.
Click to expand...
You have clearly not heard of Loch Lomond Seaplanes operating a Cessna 208 Caravan amphibian on tour and charter flights out of guess where, Loch Lomond. Currently UKs only commercial seaplane / flying boat operator. It is not too far from the cruise ship terminal at Greenock.

LOCH LOMOND SEAPLANES

Seaplane tours and charter flights over the Magnificent West Coast of Scotland
www.lochlomondseaplanes.com www.lochlomondseaplanes.com
Click to expand...

I've flown in this plane. I do heartily endorse their tours. Very scenic. I got some great photos of the islands out west of Glasgow, as well as Faslane...

But I don't think they really interact with the cruise ships at Greenock.
 
This civil "Ecranoplane" might became an alternative to conventional fyling boats/float planes. It is more efficient than planes and can be certified as a marine vessel. Despite that, I guess, with a maximum flight height of 7 m, it will be prone to rough sea,.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r7mFSq8PRU&ab_channel=InterestingEngineering


Intrestingly, it is based on a design from Alexander Lippisch

Edit: we had it before:

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom