Foot passengers only, can’t see their being much demand for 150 foot passengers several times a day.
Technically interesting, but as you say, is there a market? Would it be less energy greedy than a conventional plane? And if not, why limits trips to ports?
These silly Sea Cat things have been tried and failed numerous times.
They aren’t seaworthy in the slightest of rough weather and their vehicle carrying capacity is a joke.
So what do they do let’s use them on the roughest longest western Channel crossings ?.That’ll work.
If electric will work on anything it will work on ships because they can carry a ship load of batteries.Oh wait the battery weight and fuel cost and charging time equation still doesn’t add up.Might as well go back to sail. 
The Russians built some similar aircraft (but not electrically powered, of course) in the 70s. They called it Ekranoplan.
Because of the way it generates lift it can only operate just above a flat, uninterrupted surface such as a body of water. Taking off and landing from inland simply won’t work.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
Roymondo:
The Russians built some similar aircraft (but not electrically powered, of course) in the 70s. They called it Ekranoplan.Because of the way it generates lift it can only operate just above a flat, uninterrupted surface such as a body of water. Taking off and landing from inland simply won’t work.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
Yes. But does ground effect make it very much more economical than a conventional plane? If not, what advantage is there?
Roymondo:
The Russians built some similar aircraft (but not electrically powered, of course) in the 70s. They called it Ekranoplan.Because of the way it generates lift it can only operate just above a flat, uninterrupted surface such as a body of water.
How often is the Channel a ‘flat’ surface especially the wetern channel.
If we’re going to risk a nuclear holocaust might as well do it properly with nuclear powered ships of all types.Also holiday entitlement that allows the return of long haul sea travel.
The civil aviation industry is toast let alone the Ekranoplan.
In theory, it experiences less drag and generates more lift for a given level of thrust. Not as efficient as flying in the stratosphere - but that’s hardly relevant for short-haul stuff like crossing the Channel.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
The Russian version had 8 turbofans and was armed with missile launchers etc. IIRC it was that big it could be seen from space.
TYneside
tyneside:
The Russian version had 8 turbofans and was armed with missile launchers etc. IIRC it was that big it could be seen from space.
TYneside
About the same size as a Boeing 747, so nothing special size-wise.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
Roymondo:
In theory, it experiences less drag and generates more lift for a given level of thrust. Not as efficient as flying in the stratosphere - but that’s hardly relevant for short-haul stuff like crossing the Channel.Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
But as Mazzer asks, how much market for a ferry for footies?
Unless you’re running Pompey/Cherbourg you’ll need transport at each end.
Maybe there will be a market via hire cars? Won’t train travel/ links be via the Tunnel?
Or just do air city to city?
It’ll need a major CO2 or cost advantage, and is ground effect enough to give that big an edge?
Franglais:
Roymondo:
In theory, it experiences less drag and generates more lift for a given level of thrust. Not as efficient as flying in the stratosphere - but that’s hardly relevant for short-haul stuff like crossing the Channel.Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
But as Mazzer asks, how much market for a ferry for footies?
Unless you’re running Pompey/Cherbourg you’ll need transport at each end.
Maybe there will be a market via hire cars? Won’t train travel/ links be via the Tunnel?
Or just do air city to city?
It’ll need a major CO2 or cost advantage, and is ground effect enough to give that big an edge?
No but neclear propulsion obviously is.Now if this climate catastrophe is as bad and nuclear is as safe and economic as is being made out don’t you think the dockyards would be busy building and converting ships with nuclear propulsion.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Roymondo:
In theory, it experiences less drag and generates more lift for a given level of thrust. Not as efficient as flying in the stratosphere - but that’s hardly relevant for short-haul stuff like crossing the Channel.Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
But as Mazzer asks, how much market for a ferry for footies?
Unless you’re running Pompey/Cherbourg you’ll need transport at each end.
Maybe there will be a market via hire cars? Won’t train travel/ links be via the Tunnel?
Or just do air city to city?
It’ll need a major CO2 or cost advantage, and is ground effect enough to give that big an edge?No but neclear propulsion obviously is.Now if this climate catastrophe is as bad and nuclear is as safe and economic as is being made out don’t you think the dockyards would be busy building and converting ships with nuclear propulsion.
Good point.
Nuclear seems to be uneconomic in small, ship sized plants. Cheaper in big land based units.
Nuclear power in military ships, subs and aircraft carriers is established technology, but not cost effective (yet) for commercial ships.
Price increases in carbon fuels could possibly change that in the future I guess.
180 mph,a few feet off the surface in the Channel 
what could possibly go wrong!! the new fangled hybrid-energy Wightlink ferry is a waste of time as well…always breaking down.it’s been parked up this week,we’ve been sailing on the faithful old crates across to the Island 
These will be ideal for the people smugglers and illegal immigrants we need so badly. 