This service could replace the ferries, or aeroplanes

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › This service could replace the ferries, or aeroplanes

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 9

5604 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2904780 21-Apr-2022 11:15

eracode:

Further odd-ness in an interview of Shah Aslam on TV3 this morning. The interviewer said something about a route "... say, from Wellington to Blenheim". Then at the end of the interview Aslam was asked where his first route would be. He said "Well, we'll take your cue - and go Wellington to Blenheim".

Interesting because Blenheim is not actually a port. Just wondering how well thought-out this is. He's also promising "Auckland to Waiheke in 12 minutes for 12 bucks". It's hard to imagine these things operating at speed in a crowded waterway like Auckland-Waiheke. Also wouldn't have thought that a very short-haul route like that would be best economics for these craft.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2022/04/ocean-flyer-to-launch-nz-operations-with-25-regent-seagliders-in-2025.html

If they can do AKL to WAI for even $30 in 12 minutes, they'll need more than 10 100 seater 'vessels'

On a holiday weekend (like Good Friday just gone), Fullers would have brought over well over 1000 on that day alone, at $20 a head each way.

I'll believe it when I see it, and I'm not holding my breath. Just getting the infrastructure built for it will take more than 3 years (building something like that on Waiheke will probably displace some birds or something, which will take years in the courts).

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904783 21-Apr-2022 11:20

I doubt that CAA could get the regulations written before 2025.

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904790 21-Apr-2022 11:30

MikeAqua:

Once out in the open it won't be an issue.

Right up to the point where you run into a yacht without a radar reflector sailing along the Kaikoura coast.

I assume these things will only operate on visual flight rules given the low altitude and risk of collision with vessels.

Bird strike could be interesting, depending on speed.

VFR relates to a minimum of 500 ft AGL (or water in this case), so it's not applicable. So CAA is going to have to write a whole new slew of regulations for this.

I don't like the idea of zooming along at 300kts only 10 or so metres above the surface. I doubt the craft can turn much when at speed, because any kind of turn would involve banking, and you don't have a lot of clearance between the wingtip and the water. So you need to see a long way ahead to be able to gently turn around an obstacle. And seeing a long way ahead is tricky at low levels and with perhaps spray on the windshield.

quickymart

11164 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2904794 21-Apr-2022 11:40

Some more information around the idea, from Newsroom:

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/pro/nz-investors-order-25-foiling-electric-gliders-for-high-speed-coastal-commuting

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904796 21-Apr-2022 11:41

quickymart:

I wondered if Waiheke would be a route they would want to do. How would that compare to the ferry these days?

I think that Waiheke is probably too close. By the time it got airborne (taxi to open water, accelerate to step to foils to airborne) it would be time to alight again. So there wouldn't be much time saving over the existing ferry but a considerable cost.

trig42

5604 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2904802 21-Apr-2022 11:43

They said AKL to Waiheke in 12 minutes, which is considerably faster (and it's about what the amphibious planes used to do from Mechanics Bay to Waiheke).

The ferry is 35 minutes on a good day.

But, cost and infrastructure (and regulations) will mean it wont happen, ,as much as I'd love it to.

Technofreak

6102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2904805 21-Apr-2022 11:46

Colour me sceptical, very sceptical.

Glider they are most certainly not.

WIGE (Wind In Ground Effect) has been around for quite some time. The addition of electric propulsion isn't an enabler for WIGE.

If a WIGE type of aircraft was a practical transport solution they would already be in service. They aren't. There's far too many physical limitations for them to be useful then you have to add in the regulatory aspect.

While they might be able to operate at 160 knots (300 kph) or even up to 290 knots (540 kph) there's no way they'll be able to do those speeds close in to the docking area. These speeds will only be practical to achieve out in open space/water. A significant proportion of the travel time will have to be at low speed making the point to point times not much faster than a ferry on the shorter legs, like Waiheke. Even for longer legs the long relatively slow speed taxy times will significantly affect the leg times.

Also not sure I'd like to be fanging around at low level at 160 knots or above in less than ideal weather conditions. There's going to be too many days when weather will limit operations.

When I see speeds of 290 knots being spruiked I know the they probably talking bulls**t. Most turbo props will top out at about 250 knots at low altitude so 290 knots for a passenger prop driven aircraft is verging on impossible.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904812 21-Apr-2022 12:00

Just read the second article... this will be covered by Maritime NZ, not CAA. So maybe there's hope that the regs would be written in time.

I don't think the turbo-prop issue with speed is real... they are limited to 250kts at low altitude (just like jets) so they don't run into other aircraft. It's not a physical limitation at all. It's not an issue because at lower altitudes they're either climbing or descending. There are plenty of prop-driven aircraft (e.g. pretty much all the bombers and fighters in WW2) that exceed 250kts.

I also don't buy the "WIGE can't work because there are none operating" line. Just because no-one's done it yet doesn't mean it can't be done.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-57483039 is another story from June 2021 about the same manufacturer, looking at English Channel crossings. Also planning for 2025.

MikeAqua

7608 posts

Uber Geek

#2904815 21-Apr-2022 12:07

eracode:

Interesting because Blenheim is not actually a port.

Maybe he meant Picton? But land transport Picton-Blenheim would take longer than the AirNZ flight time between Wellington and Blenheim, which is longer than Sounds Air gate-to-gate time.

I mean I suppose you could go up the Wairau Estuary, but not far and good luck getting consent for a dock.

Mike

empacher48

346 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2904818 21-Apr-2022 12:15

frankv:

I don't think the turbo-prop issue with speed is real... they are limited to 250kts at low altitude (just like jets) so they don't run into other aircraft. It's not a physical limitation at all. It's not an issue because at lower altitudes they're either climbing or descending. There are plenty of prop-driven aircraft (e.g. pretty much all the bombers and fighters in WW2) that exceed 250kts.

Lots of issues with turboprops faster than 250 knots, due to compressibility issues and efficiency of the props over that speed. Once you exceed 250 knots the power required to maintain the speed increases by the square of the air density.

Your WW2 bomber example, a Lancaster bomber had 4 engines of 1,300hp and a MTOW similar to an ATR and had a max speed of 245 knots. A spitfire could hit 320 knots with a 3000kg MTOW and 1,500hp. The B17 could get to 249 knots. The B29 could get to 310 knots with just under 10,000hp total. The A400M exceeds 250knots with each engine giving 10,000hp.

For an electric turboprop, carrying the batteries to go the distance and be able to carry a payload and fly faster than 250 knots will mean something has to give.

Technofreak

6102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2904820 21-Apr-2022 12:22

frankv:

Just read the second article... this will be covered by Maritime NZ, not CAA. So maybe there's hope that the regs would be written in time.

I don't think the turbo-prop issue with speed is real... they are limited to 250kts at low altitude (just like jets) so they don't run into other aircraft. It's not a physical limitation at all. It's not an issue because at lower altitudes they're either climbing or descending. There are plenty of prop-driven aircraft (e.g. pretty much all the bombers and fighters in WW2) that exceed 250kts.

I also don't buy the "WIGE can't work because there are none operating" line. Just because no-one's done it yet doesn't mean it can't be done.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-57483039 is another story from June 2021 about the same manufacturer, looking at English Channel crossings. Also planning for 2025.

Note, I said passenger prop driven aircraft. I'm well aware that some prop driven aircraft (mainly military) have speeds in excess of 250 knots. Also I think you are confusing IAS with TAS. Most of the speed figures you see are TAS figures obtained at altitude.

At the altitudes these aircraft will operate at, TAS and IAS are pretty well the same. None of the turbo prop aircraft I am familiar with will cruise straight and level at 250 knots indicated, in fact most have a Vmo limitation of around the 250 KIAS mark. I stick by my comment about 290 knots being bulls**t.

I didn't say WIGE cannot be done. It has been done in Russia for moving freight across large flat uninhabited areas. I said no one has done it for point to point passenger type of application and that adding electric propulsion wasn't going to enable the uses being talked about in that article. If you think differently I'd be interested to hear how you think it might work.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Jase2985

12347 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2904831 21-Apr-2022 13:16

vexxxboy:

personally i wouldnt want to be on that in the cook straight when a southerly storm blows through, 20-30 metres would be no where high enough above the water.

how big do you think the waves get there?

vexxxboy

4085 posts

Uber Geek

#2904838 21-Apr-2022 13:31

Jase2985:

vexxxboy:

personally i wouldnt want to be on that in the cook straight when a southerly storm blows through, 20-30 metres would be no where high enough above the water.

how big do you think the waves get there?

15 metres or so on a good day, way to close for comfort

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Dingbatt

6416 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904844 21-Apr-2022 13:39

Jase2985:

vexxxboy:

personally i wouldnt want to be on that in the cook straight when a southerly storm blows through, 20-30 metres would be no where high enough above the water.

how big do you think the waves get there?

Wing In Ground Effect (WIGE) vehicles, funnily enough, require the wing to be in ground effect. If the swell amplitude is great enough and the wavelength ‘wrong’, then the vehicle will buffet from crest to crest, or drop into a trough and have insufficient lift to avoid the next crest.

Anyone who has flown into Wellington on a goodly Nor’West day will know how tricky it would be to operate one of these.

There’s a reason the Ekranoplan was designed to operate on the Caspian Sea.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Linux

10289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2904848 21-Apr-2022 13:53

This will never happen! Dreamers wanting media exposure

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 9