2 ms·

>> The competition for that space is seaplanes, including both floatplanes and flying boats Airplanes operate in a hostel environment where the penalty for fai

>> The competition for that space is seaplanes, including both floatplanes and flying boats Airplanes operate in a hostel environment where the penalty for failure is severe. The translates into a lot of (good) regulation which makes planes expensive to make, and expensive to maintain. Ground effect vehicles are more in the car/boat space when it comes to mechanical failure. Sure I'm not saying it can be made of some wire and duct tape, but the necessary mechanical standard is a -lot- lower (ie cheaper.) >> . If you want to minimize environmental harm Sure. Or stay home. There's always something better. But that wasn't the hypothesis. The statement was that its better than planes or (motor) boats. Frankly, if an electric craft is charged from solar or wind, its already as good as a sailboat.

eesmith 3y ago
> which makes planes expensive to make, and expensive to maintain Understood. Though as the comparison link mentions, there's another important cost - "limited utility has kept production levels low enough that it has been impossible to amortize development costs sufficiently to make GEVs competitive with conventional aircraft". I don't pretend to have more than a surface knowledge about topic, but when the idea has been around decades, developed and promoted for decades, and is still only a niche mode of travel (along with hovercraft, hydrofoil, and flying boats), that tells me the doubts aren't simply from those who "complain about anything new". > The statement was that its better than planes or (motor) boats. Sure. My comment was to point out how complicated the full calculation was, because it should include the electric ferries that becoming available, and not limit itself to motor boats.
Animats 3y ago
> Ground effect vehicles are more in the car/boat space when it comes to mechanical failure. Not quite. This thing depends on dynamic stability. If a wingtip touches the water at speed, it will probably flip. It has to turn without banking. So it has many of the stability and control problems of an aircraft at landing, plus some of the wave problems of a seaplane. It's not like a big, wide hovercraft, where, if you lose power, you just settle down into boat mode.

eesmith 3y ago

> which makes planes expensive to make, and expensive to maintain Understood. Though as the comparison link mentions, there's another important cost - "limited utility has kept production levels low enough that it has been impossible to amortize development costs sufficiently to make GEVs competitive with conventional aircraft". I don't pretend to have more than a surface knowledge about topic, but when the idea has been around decades, developed and promoted for decades, and is still only a niche mode of travel (along with hovercraft, hydrofoil, and flying boats), that tells me the doubts aren't simply from those who "complain about anything new". > The statement was that its better than planes or (motor) boats. Sure. My comment was to point out how complicated the full calculation was, because it should include the electric ferries that becoming available, and not limit itself to motor boats.

Animats 3y ago

> Ground effect vehicles are more in the car/boat space when it comes to mechanical failure. Not quite. This thing depends on dynamic stability. If a wingtip touches the water at speed, it will probably flip. It has to turn without banking. So it has many of the stability and control problems of an aircraft at landing, plus some of the wave problems of a seaplane. It's not like a big, wide hovercraft, where, if you lose power, you just settle down into boat mode.