Flying Boat airliners

[uk 75]

It is ironic that passenger liners still sail from Southampton whereas the nearby station for passenger flying boats has been disused for decades.
Of course it was the passenger cruise that saved the liners and small flying boats still service these liners in sunnier climates than UK.
The wonderful designs for passenger flying boats that were worked up after WW2 are well documented on this site.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saunders-roe-princess-duchess-p-192-and-other-flying-boat-projects.1220/page-3#post-199919

With modern technology an updated version of the passenger flying boat might find a niche in the tourist market particularly in Asia or South America.

 

[martinbayer]

I could easily envisage a destination hopping flying boat jumbo sized jetliner for a super charged cruise clientele - not a technical challenge, but the economic forecasts would need to close.

 

[Schneiderman]

The problem is the same now as it was then, a matter of commercial viability. Back in the post-war years it soon became apparent that the market for these types was small and hence any airline aiming to use them in their fleet would have to carry the cost burden of the facilities required at each destination alone. Furthermore with the facilities separate from land airports simple transfer to another flight was complicated.
By 1939 Imperial Airways had already come to the conclusion that a fleet based around flying boats was far from ideal and planned to replace them with land types when they reached the end of their life. The Brabazon Committee also saw little prospect for the type and BOAC agreed that they did not see a requirement for them. There was a group lobbying for new flying boats, vocal in Flight and Aeroplane, and spearheaded by Saunders-Roe but it was a lost cause.
Sure, you could try again but it is a niche and the same arguments against apply.

 

[EwenS]

Of course it was the passenger cruise that saved the liners and small flying boats still service these liners in sunnier climates than UK.

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

 

[Nicknick]

If regulations would allow it, fyling boats could be perfect for short distance flight between many cities without the hazzle of getting to and from an Airport. Berlin, Amsterdam and many more cities offer large water surfaces in or next to the city centers which could (purly theory) be used for flying boats.

 

[Charlesferdinand]

Well, you'd still need an airport of some sort, and if there are regular flights, you won't be able to use the stretch of water for take off and landing for much else.

 

[Nicknick]

A floating jetty could serve as a simple airport. Im not thinking on hughe planes, but something with maybe 19 passerngers.

There has been a De Haviland Beaver flying around in Hamburg and landing in the harbour, until it crashed some years ago. If it is feasable to operate a sea plane regulary in a German harbour, it might not be unsolvable from a regulation standpoint.

 

[Apophenia]

A floating jetty could serve as a simple airport. Im not thinking on hughe planes, but something with maybe 19 passerngers.

There has been a De Haviland Beaver flying around in Hamburg and landing in the harbour, ...

Nicknick: What you're describing is an almost perfect match for DHC-6s on floats operations in coastal British Columbia and the US Pacific Northwest - including floating jetties with refuelling stations.

Harbour Air [1] makes scheduled flights between the inner harbours of Vancouver and Victoria, BC. These days floatplanes (Beaver, Turbo Otters, [Twin Otter/i]s) are used but, in the past, the Grumman Goose flying boat was used on similar routes (Middle Arm of the Fraser River to Victoria harbour).

The aircraft have right-of-way on buoyed landing strips but other watercraft regularly traverse those marked areas when floatplanes aren't on approach. Scaled-up, the same concept could be applied to larger flying boats.

________________________

[1] BTW, Harbour Air has also made early moves on electrically-powered aircraft (DHC-2 conversions). Makes for 'good neighbours' in built-up harbour (or riverine) areas. Obviously that electrification has no effect on propeller noise during take-offs but at least landings are nearly silent.

 

[Nicknick]

It would take little more than an hour to fly between London and Amsterdam, it could be an intresting alternative to a trip from airport to airport.

The electric DH-2 wasn't able to carry anything but the batteries, electric sea planes are more suitable for a short round trip than for real transport.

 

[zen]

My home town used to play host to the flying boats, but these days The sheer numbers of pleasure craft festoon the harbour all year.
It's just not remotely safe to try to operate such now.

 

[Lascaris]

Seems to me flying boats would have advantages only in niche environments. The Aegean and other archipelagos for example.

 

[Nicknick]

No dout, if fyling boats would have been the superior solution in general, they wouldn't have become almost extinct.

 

[Avimimus]

No dout, if fyling boats would have been the superior solution in general, they wouldn't have become almost extinct.

Well, I think a key realisation is that nothing is a superior solution in general

It turned out that the ability to schedule flights in worse weather and the ability to fly at higher speeds was more important than being able to operate with less infrastructure (and less of a footprint on land).

P.S. One thing I used to wonder about - something I think I actually mentioned years ago on this forum - is the lack of proposals for flooding land in order to create inland seaplane ports. Some reservoirs are already large enough to operate fairly large seaplanes (albeit one would have to exclude many mountainous approaches - but still, there are a lot of feasible sites)! They should also be very bomb-resistant surfaces.

 

[Apophenia]

No dout, if fyling boats would have been the superior solution in general, they wouldn't have become almost extinct.

Well, I think a key realisation is that nothing is a superior solution in general ...

Well put. Obviously, everything involves trade-offs for and change rarely occurs in fully predictable directions. The near-extinction of large, passenger-carrying flying boats is a case in point. The demise of flying boats had little to do with inherent superiority of their land-based rivals. It was that their key advantage - 'free' infrastructure - was obviated by the vast number of airfields built around the globe for bombers during WW2. Airliners weren't the reason that governments spent vast amounts on building runways. Land-based airlines simply took advantage of a by-product of that war.

My earlier example of regional Beaver-on-floats may have been wide of the mark on this subject of flying boat airliners. But it does bring up the shortcomings of existing airline infrastructure. When one deplanes in Victoria, you are steps away from where you likely need to be. By contrast, getting from YYJ to downtown Victoria requires a trip of 40 km (YVR to downtown Vancouver is 13 km).

Back in the '60s and '70s, the answer was supposed to be Q/STOL airliners operating from 'City Airports'. The only in-service aircraft that came close to Q/STOL was the Dash-7 - which was derided for exactly the sorts of compromises Avimimus was alluding to. And for the fate of 'City Airports', you only need to look at LCY - almost 10 km from the City of London and built beside a major river. Doh!

 

[Hood]

I must admit I'm always a bit sceptical of the "WW2 runways" claim, it always sounds a little glib to me. A lot of former airfields shut and never re-opened and many continued in military use until the 60-70s - airports like Heathrow were more or less purpose built and of course most early 50s propliners needed long runways and needed to be in municipal areas (most new WW2 airfields were not located in or near cities).
Internationally hubs were created during the war across global but how many of these were actually new construction to civil standards and how many were actually built/upgraded from existing pre-war facilities (e.g. air routes from Europe to India).

Saying that, it was clear that flying boats were often a prisoner of geographic location. Transatlantic service terminals in Foynes was hardly conducive to easy flying for passengers from South East England or Scotland for example. Southampton was a busy port and congested. Liverpool would likewise not be a good choice yet there were few West Coast locations with good connections. Proposals to build new facilities with geo-engineered lagoons etc. foundered on cost or being out of the way places reliant on rail links. Early transatlantic airliners often had to stop at Gander or Prestwick but at least you could fly from London on the same aircraft rather than catching a train to Scotland or Ireland first. On transcontinental routes often flying boats only made one or more leg of longer journeys involving switches to wheeled aircraft etc., it being more economical and timely to fly overland rather than around the coastlines.

But for regional and smaller routes with cargo it is surprising that flying boats died out so quickly. There doesn't seem to have been a Catalina boom akin to surplus Daks or a 'Catalina Replacement' like the 'Dakota Replacement' which gripping the manufacturers post-war.

 

[Foo Fighter]

It is possible for flying boats to operate a small niche market but as has been noted there are no facilities for them now.
Specialist cruise flights beyween certain high interest locations might be viable.
The so called space tourism market had to start from scratch and is still very small with a limited clientelle base.

 

[Schneiderman]

I must admit I'm always a bit sceptical of the "WW2 runways" claim..............etc

Yes, yes.......what Hood says

 

[uk 75]

Had the Soviet Union survived might we have seen an Ekranoplan in Aeroflot service.
I recall seeing a drawing of a jet fighter seaplane operating from water with windmills in the background in a Gunston book.
Seaports like Southampton, Rotterdam and Bremerhaven or Cherbourg would seem natural homes for flying boats. London has a lot.of water nearby.
Perhaps like Supersonic jets the future might lie in smaller elite travel craft. Caribbean and Mediterranean resorts could host such "air yachts".

 

[CJGibson]

One word - Anti-lock Brakes. OK two, well, three with a hyphen.

...and flaps, lots of flaps but mainly brakes.

The problem was always stopping land aircraft, especially in an aborted take off.

WRT another thread, some of those 'coy people' will be in brake development.

Chris

 

[Apophenia]

I must admit I'm always a bit sceptical of the "WW2 runways" claim..............etc

Yes, yes.......what Hood says

Okay, maybe the WW2 airstrip story is too glib of an explanation. Is there an equally simple explanation as to why City Airports are often built right beside rivers at great expense?

As for congestion in major European harbours, is that not equally true of virtually every 'land-locked' hub airport?

And getting further afield than European or Trans-Atlantic flying, ocean operation of flying boats are usually going to be trickier than riverine ops. But, surely, ocean ops make more long-term economic sense than terraforming small, often remote islands until little is left but the airstrip?

 

[Schneiderman]

I must admit I'm always a bit sceptical of the "WW2 runways" claim..............etc

Yes, yes.......what Hood says

Okay, maybe the WW2 airstrip story is too glib of an explanation. Is there an equally simple explanation as to why City Airports are often built right beside rivers at great expense?

Erm...yes.
First, a great many major cities are built on rivers, and second, placing the airport there minimises overflight of built-up areas

 

[Apophenia]

Erm...yes.
First, a great many major cities are built on rivers, and second, placing the airport there minimises overflight of built-up areas

Sure. But those factors differ remain unchanged were the 'airstrip' to be the river as opposed to being beside that river.

 

[southwestforests]

I must admit I'm always a bit sceptical of the "WW2 runways" claim, it always sounds a little glib to me. A lot of former airfields shut and never re-opened and many ...

That brings to mind a couple airports near a long distance friend in UK.

Though it is unlikely flying boats were ever involved.

Earlier this year Julie's adult son flew in to London Stanstead,

Our history | London Stansted Airport

Find out about the history of London Stansted Airport

www.stanstedairport.com

"
1942 - The runway was built by the US Air Force as part of Stansted Mountfitchet Airfield.
1944 - On D-Day, bombers from Stansted led more than 600 aircraft over the beaches of occupied France.
1966 - The newly created British Airports Authority took control.
1970 - The new terminal was extended to handle increasing numbers of passengers.
1978 - The Government White Paper 'Airport Policy' proposed major expansion of Stansted.
1980 - The British Airports Authority submitted planning application to Uttlesford District Council to develop Stansted Airport.
1985 - Following a public enquiry lasting 258 days, the Government gives permission for development to about 15 million passengers a year. An early motion by 75 MPs led to a compromise of phased development to eight and then 15 million passengers with a cap on the number of take-offs and landings by passenger aircraft.
1986 - Work starts on the new airport.
1991 - The Queen opened the £400 million new terminal, aprons and taxiways at Stansted, which increased the airport's capacity from two to eight million passengers a year.
"
(more on page)

Old bomber hardstands west side of runways are very visible on Google maps, as well as traces of a generally north-south runway
& also a triangle of 3 abandoned and now overgrown and farmed upon runways a bit to east.

London Stansted Airport · Bassingbourn Rd, Stansted CM24 1QW, United Kingdom

âââââ · International airport

www.google.com

Also west side of Stanstead by the railway tunnel portal for trains to pass under runway,

East Anglia Books - Home

www.eastangliabooks.com

"East Anglia Books has now grown to include an extensive stock of aviation and military related titles covering all aspects from WW1 to the present, in particular one of the largest stocks of USAAF Unit Histories, plus a wide range of second-hand titles, many now out-of-print and difficult to obtain."

---

And then on a bit of a different path, civil to requisitioned by the military back to civil.

Our History | London Gatwick Airport

Gatwick Airport began in 1930 as a small flyers club. It was used only by flying enthusiasts.

www.gatwickairport.com

"
Gatwick Airport began life in 1930 as the Surrey Aero Club, a small flyers club, used exclusively by flying enthusiasts - however it did not stay this way for long. Four years later Gatwick was licensed as a public aerodrome, intended to provide regular air services to Paris and act as a relief aerodrome for London Croydon Airport. In this year Gatwick also gained its first scheduled flights – Hillman’s Airways to Belfast and Paris.
...
1930s
1935: Gatwick Railway station and the Beehive terminal (the world’s first circular terminal building) are built.
1936: The Beehive sees its first schedule flight, a Jersey Airways plane to Paris. Gatwick is officially opened by Lord Swinton, the Secretary of State for Air. At this time Gatwick has 4 landing strips made of grass and a subway connecting the Beehive terminal to the railway station.
1939: World War 2 begins and the airport is requisitioned by the Air Ministry. Gatwick becomes a base for RAF night-fighters and an Army cooperation squadron.

1940s
1946: Gatwick is decommissioned but continues operating as civil airport for charter airlines and cargo flights.

1950s
1950: Gatwick is designated as London’s second airport.
"

Tangential information, west side of Gatwick there is the little Gatwick Aviation Museum,

Gatwick Aviation Museum

Our Charity funds and supports the education of British aviation, engineering and historic aircraft learning.

www.gamc.org.uk

 

[Hood]

Another thing is that maintenance is harder, you need to a good slipway and beaching gear. Using little motor launches to ferry some well-heeled passengers on a choppy day before flight drinks is probably a bad idea. I suppose it would have made more sense in hindsight to embark ashore, use a powered tractor into the water, float off and then taxi.

As for congestion in major European harbours, is that not equally true of virtually every 'land-locked' hub airport?

I was talking of maritime traffic, not aviation. Plenty of floaty objects about. The same generally applies to city rivers, today they are mainly tourist sightseeing craft but until the 1960s the Thames and other major city rivers were busy with commerical traffic. Do you really want to be playing chicken with some belligerent skipper towing a few barges of coal? Policing water is harder than preventing unauthorised access to a runway.

Ship wakes and choppy waters in general are not conducive to smooth take-off and landings. Wheeled aircraft generally have higher crosswind and gusty condition tolerance, GCA is possible in fog. You don't want to be doing any of that in a 100-ton flying boat.

Plus its no safer. Debris on runway can mean tyre puncture or even worse (c.f. Concorde) but hitting a floating log or flotsam at landing speed is going to hole your flying boat and you might end up with the world's first submarine flying boat service... at the least some expensive repairs.

1942 - The runway was built by the US Air Force as part of Stansted Mountfitchet Airfield.

Yes Stanstead could be considered as backing up the claim, but 1966 is well into the post-war aviation boom and is almost in Jumbo Era. Plus is was cheaper and less controversial than Maplin Sands which was then in early planning.

 

[Schneiderman]

Erm...yes.
First, a great many major cities are built on rivers, and second, placing the airport there minimises overflight of built-up areas

Sure. But those factors differ remain unchanged were the 'airstrip' to be the river as opposed to being beside that river.

Except that a landing strip can serve for aircraft on any route, not just those with destinations near to water.
Flying boats, especially large ones, were and remain of limited interest to airlines and the market is just too small to justify the investment in new designs. The idea has been put forward time and time again in many forms, but always with the same result.

 

[Charlesferdinand]

Are runways really that expensive? If you want a decent sized airport, you'd need hangars, workshops, passenger terminals, space to park and refuel aircraft and what not. Even if your runway is a stretch of water, you'll still need to build (and find space for) all of this.

 

[Nicknick]

The advantge is, that many citys allready have large water areas which wouldn't have been to purchase. The hangars and all that stuff can be placed elsewere where the ground is cheap. Passenger terminals could be a floating jetty, refuling could be done by a boat.

Of course, this is not suitable for an high traffic demand, which would also course lot of complains about noise etc. But for short weekend trips, a seaplane which flies directly from city to city would be ideal. One should not underestimate the advantge of the awareness when you can see the plane take off and landing in a spectecular way.

 

[Schneiderman]

The hangars and all that stuff can be placed elsewere where the ground is cheap. Passenger terminals could be a floating jetty, refuling could be done by a boat.

And of course all of these possibilities have been assessed many time over the years and not found to be commercially attractive.

 

[Schneiderman]

Another thing is that maintenance is harder, you need to a good slipway and beaching gear. Using little motor launches to ferry some well-heeled passengers on a choppy day before flight drinks is probably a bad idea. I suppose it would have made more sense in hindsight to embark ashore, use a powered tractor into the water, float off and then taxi.

Again, I agree with you 100%

 

[Nicknick]

The hangars and all that stuff can be placed elsewere where the ground is cheap. Passenger terminals could be a floating jetty, refuling could be done by a boat.

And of course all of these possibilities have been assessed many time over the years and not found to be commercially attractive.

I don't think that economy was/is the main obstacle, the legal requirements will probably be the bigger hurdle. As long as you fly around in circles, flying boats within a city might be accepted as tourist attraction, but when they will be used for transport, it is totally different for the political acceptance. I really believe a sea plane service e.g. between Amsterdam and London or Monaco and St. Tropez could really earn money.

Transfer Monaco to St tropez

Direct flight from Monaco to Saint Tropez

www.helipass.com

 

[Schneiderman]

I really believe a sea plane service e.g. between Amsterdam and London or Monaco and St. Tropez could really earn money.

And that is really the crux of the issue, you 'really believe' but clearly those that run airlines, oversee airports, govern cities and build aircraft do not. Unless you can show evidence that attempts to introduce such services are being blocked by legislation, and why, it is just wishful thinking.

 

[Nicknick]

If you take a look on the amount of air travel in cities like London, Amsterdam or Frankfurt you can imagine, that it would be untolerable to have all these planes fyling direct into the cities. So it is no option for the mass transport. All the protest against any new airport should be sufficient to demonstrate that.

A regular pricy helicopter transport between Monaco, St. Tropez and Nice clearly shows, that there is a market niche which could be filled by seaplanes as well or even better.

 

[alertken]

Chalks, Miami-Nassau on Turbo-Mallards ceased 12/05: was that the last scheduled pax service on hydro-hulls? They were then trying to make numbers work for Turbo-Albatross. Hydro-airborne hulls are sub-optimal in either fluid (though Saro Duchess was slender, sleek).

I have flown in Turbo-Beaver and Twotter floatplanes, Vancouver/Seattle/Victoria where they compete with scheduled heli, Dash 8 and (YVR/SEA\TAC) 737. Canada shows it can be done...niche, very niche. Somebody, someday, will ground Turbo-Otter, Twotter floatplanes: doubtless Leonardo see that as the day their AW609 tiltrotor fills that niche.

OP's yen was for luxury, promenade, scenic, lounge, bar, to come back (we Seniors yearn for the good old days). That was destroyed when PSA took out their lounge, downstairs, on L.1011-1 and Pan Am, their upstairs on 747-100. The numbers don't work. See Freddie Laker, very cattle class, Transatlantic, $70. Solents, BOAC-Jo'burg, fare was in £000s at today's value. Even the rich chose Connie, quicker, cheaper.

Marine pax carriers redefined their Mission as the floating sun/sand/sangria/s.. holiday. I recall one air carrier trying the same - Denver Ports of Call on scrap-price CV990. Reasons for failure might have been narrow, not systemic. Same might be said for efforts to do upmarket-only (all Business, no cattle) long haul. But...

The problem any visionary might have, in persuading, say ShinMaywa to do a civil US-2, is...the numbers.

 

[Nicknick]

Turbines are not ideal for short flight distances, since they adge very fast an consume extremly lot of fuel when ideling around. Using aero Diesel engines (e.g. from RED) could make them much more cost competitive to helicopters.

I do agree, it is only a small niche.

 

[Schneiderman]

If you take a look on the amount of air travel in cities like London, Amsterdam or Frankfurt you can imagine, that it would be untolerable to have all these planes fyling direct into the cities.

Strange, I could have sworn I flew many times out of London City to Amsterdam (OK, Schiphol isn't 'in the city)

 

[Nicknick]

London City is a good example, that there is indeed a niche market for higher priced air travel direct from a city centre (and by the way, next to a large water basin…). This market niche could be served by sea planes for many other cities which don’t have an airport direct in the centre. Most large cities do have large water areas but no airport in the centre.

BTW: I was saying all the traffic, not 2% of the traffic. Could you imagine, that almost all of the air travel to and from London could be handled by airports right in the center?

 

[Arjen]

Strange, I could have sworn I flew many times out of London City to Amsterdam (OK, Schiphol isn't 'in the city)

A train will take you from Schiphol to Amsterdam city centre in thirteen minutes. Twenty if you catch a slow train.

 

[Schneiderman]

London City is a good example, that there is indeed a niche market for higher priced air travel direct from a city centre

If it were higher priced I would not have been using it, cheapest option on many occasions

 

[Schneiderman]

London City is a good example, (and by the way, next to a large water basin…).

Actually no, there is a large tidal barrier mid-way, not to mention jetties in use for ferries. If you mean the old docks that would need the residential area and university to be relocated

 

[Nicknick]

There must be reasons why most passengers travel to Heathrow and not to the City airport, surly not because of its favorite location (btw. when I travel to London, I take the train).

There is indeed a lot of water next to the City airport, isn’t it? I made no statements what it is used for nowadays, but it could have become a destination for seaplanes instead.