h a l f b a k e r y
non-lame halfbakery tagline
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Many small islands make the bulk of their money from tourism. Sadly, many such islands are at a disadvantage in attempting to capitolize upon this market because they are too small, too poor, and/or too rocky to facilitate constructing a full scale airport.
They generally get by with a small dirt
landing strip, or sea planes, and connecting flights that are no more reliable than a VW bus. However, as many people already have a fear of flying in general, and particularly of flying in anything other than a 747 with a fully stocked bar, they are probably missing out on some revenue.
Many of these small islands also lay claim to large sections of territorial waters, which generally extend out 3-12 miles from their shores. In these waters, it might be reasonable to construct large offshore airports. These could be anchored to the sea bed, as with an oil rig or pier. Access to the shore could be either by direct roadways for those attached to the coast, or through small boats.
Alternately, they might be made to float, and equipped with stabilizers like a cruise ship to cancel out the motion of the waves. Floating ones might be hauled from place to place as the tourist season shifted with weather patterns. Access to the shores would have to be by small boats, unless these could dock to a pier somehow.
Either way, the hulls of the airports would allow organisms to grow on them, which would also provide a slight boost to local fishing.
Megafloat
http://kcubbin.tripod.com/id24.html
[skinflaps, Oct 22 2007]
Float Inc
http://www.floatinc.com/
Pneumatically Stabilized Platform or PSP [skinflaps, Oct 22 2007]
Link for [hippo]
http://www.japanese...kansai_airport.html
Kanzai Airport [Klaatu, Oct 30 2007]
Use the Freedom Ship
http://www.freedoms...ry/new/image1.shtml
[Klaatu, Oct 30 2007]
WIG (win in Ground effect planes)
http://www.wigetworks.com/index.html
[MisterQED, Oct 30 2007]
[link]
|
| |
Hong Kong did this - as did somewhere (Kobe?) in Japan. Hong Kong because it's too small to build a real airport on the mainland and Japan because it's too crowded and mountainous. However these are both artificial islands and you make a good point about floating airports. As far as I know, no one's built a floating airport. |
|
| |
I have to bone this for encouraging more tourism on otherwise unspoilt islands. I went to Providencia, a Colombian island off Nicaragua, back in July, on which there were only a handful of hotels, immigration was strictly restricted to only foreigners that marry an islander, and the place was for the most part an untouched place of beauty. Dump a Gatwick offshore and you've instantly ruined everything that makes the island so amazing. |
|
| |
Whilst I do agree with [theleopard]'s sentiments about unspoiled places, this is still a viable idea for a place that might really need it. + |
|
| |
Is it really viable considering the huge cost of such a venture? If the island is so small then could it survive for the time required to recoup the expense? At a guess I'd imagine that would take decades. |
|
| |
My only problem with this idea is the 3-12 miles from the airport to the island. Yes, you've provided for that in your idea, but aren't extra floating roadways and small boats kind of adding in the complexity and inconvenience of getting to the island that you're trying to solve? I still can't fly directly to the island and I will still need to make further arrangements for landfall. |
|
| |
Still, the idea itself is an interesting one and I could see the military doing it first. |
|
| |
Actually, I rather like the idea of being taken from the ship to the island by small, high-speed boat. Rather adds to the thrill and excitement, I think. Not sure how economically feasible this is, but I'm not sure how economicallly feasible some of my own ideas are. One problem, though, is that a 747 cannot land on even the longest carrier, it's not long enough. I think the biggest plane that can is a C-130, and from what I hear it's so close as to scare the shit out of everyone on board. C-130's are not very conducive to carrying high-paying passengers, either, because they (the planes) are noisy bastards. Now, noise-cancelling technology may reduce this, somewhat, but I don't know if it can be made for that application or not. |
|
| |
//Actually, I rather like the idea of being taken from the ship to the island by small, high-speed boat. Rather adds to the thrill and excitement, I think.// |
|
| |
That's kind of my point. Why build a great big airport, just take the boat to begin with. I guess it depends on the islands. I'm thinking of the Carribean where everything is fairly close together, large territories with smaller outlying islands. |
|
| |
Per 21's anno, I suspect that commercial aircraft that required an arrestor wire to land would not be real popular. This means that the floating airstrip would have to be considerably (5 to 10 X?) longer than even the longest aircraft carrier even to handle smaller aircraft. To handle full size intercontinental airliners, even more size would be required. Constructing a rigid stable runway of this length would not be a simple task. |
|
| |
Also, aircraft carriers turn to optimize wind and wave action. Unless the airport is semi-mobile, you would need multiple crossing runways, requiring even more space. |
|
| |
Flying-boats. Amphibian, so they can take off from normal airports. |
|
| |
4whom, as it is currently written, your anno seems to imply that Tourists fuck natives without any conscious decisions on the part of the natives, and that the eye shape of offspring could be a problem. |
|
| |
This could easily be misinterpereted. I hope you might edit that anno to more clearly explain yourself. If it is still up in it's current format on the first of november, I will feel obligated to remove it. While discussing the morality of tourism may be worthwhile, i would hate to have my idea spring up a full-fledged rant. |
|
| |
This is good and bad. I like the idea of a floating airport, but I think the expense would preclude all but the wealthiest clients: i.e. Bahrain, Hong Kong, NY. You'd have to connect it with a land bridge or at minimum a pipeline for refueling. I envision a huge catamaran with submerged pods, mobile enough to turn into the wind. Better idea for remote islands is a ground effect seaplane. |
|
| |
//many people already have a fear of flying in general, and particularly of flying in anything other than a 747 // |
|
| |
I have just two words for you 'Blimp Airlines' . . . bring back the Blimp I say. |
|
| |
The obvious solution is an amphibious Boeing 747. Put floats on the dang thing and who needs a freakin airport? Just build a pier long enough for it to taxi up alongside and the tourists get to watch the baggage handlers paddle out in a fleet authentic native war canoes as they casually stroll ashore, chilled tropical fruit-laden beverage in hand. |
|
| |
And if Boeing won't build it, make it an add-on. Simply build a mobile pontoon landing cradle. As the pilot calmly flies the 747 closer and closer to the water, the landing team drives the cradle, which is made up of rapid-inflation pontoons, directly under the plane. Once in position, they give the pilot the "thumbs up" and pull the ripcord to inflate the flotation devices and separate their control pod. At the same instant, the pilot cuts the throttle and drops the plane with pinpoint precision onto the now fully-inflated cradle. The landing team, having safely steered their control pod to one side, now maneuver to reattach to the pontoons, slowly but surely driving the jumbo jet ever closer to the welcoming throng of friendly island folk waiting on the pier. |
|
| |
For take-off, the landing crew detach their control pod and watch as the 747 pulls away from shore, builds up speed and rises from within a majestic plume of steam to climb high into the sky. Then they motor out to sea to recover and deflate the pontoons until the next flight arrives. |
|
| |
No, my anno implies that tourism is not the golden calf it is worshipped as. Perhaps it is a gilded calf, but no more so than drug trafficking. Decisions by the local population will always be motivated by economic differences. The Queen of England is more a prostituted attraction than a monarch. |
|
| |
The racist slurs you presume say more about the common present situation than about my racial views. And believe me the situation is reversing, as all things do. |
|
| |
I'd imagine with the typical landing speeds of 747s wound require the use of pontoons designed to hydroplane. Shifting from hydroplaning to floating can be a risky proposition, and may cause strains beyond tolerance level to be applied to the aircraft or passengers. |
|
| |
Having a surface vehicle come to catch an airplane would nearly double the risk and precision needed to safely land a plane. |
|
| |
I suspect that boeing, and most airlines would not recommend these solutions. |
|
| |
Seaplanes of all ilk, and blimps of all ilk are of course admirable devices which I would admire seeing again. Sadly, there may be strong limits on the top speeds for these vehicles, especially with blimps, which brings us back to the concern of time. Most people are flying instead of cruising because they cannot afford the time off for a slower method of travel. |
|
| |
At what altitude would the floating airport float at? |
|
| |
The floating airport would float at approximately sea level, plus or minus some fraction of it's own height, depending on whether you were measuring off of the top, bottom, or center of it. |
|
| |
So the aircraft has to descend to land on it? Isn't that inefficient and unnecessary? |
|
| |
Not descending to land would require a rather sizeable elevator shaft, bungee cords, auxilliary parachutes, balloons, or additional connecting flights to allow the passengers to descend. The increased complications of transporting the passengers to the ground would likely more than make up for the inefficiency of having the aircraft itself perform the descent. |
|
| |
I also believe some form of high-altitude floating airport has already been halfbaked. I wouldn't want to knowingly trespass against the intellectual territory of another esteemed halfbaker. |
|
| |
Can't land a 747 on water as the engines are too low, the pontoons would have to be enormous, but who cares, you think 500+ people are going to a remote island. Blimps are neet, but are slow and scary in high winds, so I'll repeat my call for a ground effect seaplane. It is fast, fuel efficient (need to make round trips without refueling), can carry lots of cargo cheaply (export those local products) and the view is better than flying. The only downside is they can't fly above the weather and might crash if hit by a rogue wave. |
|
| |
Ground effect as in hover craft, or as in VTOL? |
|
| |
Better view, being under the weather, and possibly the rogue wave concern might all still apply, but I don't believe that either are particularly fuel efficient, and getting speeds of even a fraction that of a 747 on anything passenger-friendly seems doubtful. |
|
| |
I also believe that both have certain noise, maintenance, and handling issues which would not make them entirely passenger-friendly. Hovercraft aren't the most precise steering devices in the world, and if they need a bag, that tends to develop a very musty odor quite fast. VTOL craft tend to be rather unstable on the transit from vertical to horizontal flight, which sometimes requires some rather terrifying maneuvers to achieve. |
|
| |
I suppose these might be competitive with connecting flights and boats in some areas though. Hovercraft are probably the most likely toys to look into. They would probably feel safer, and might be able to get into areas without using a dock or landing strip. Designing them to reduce noise and bag odor might be an interesting challenge though. |
|
| |
This should be doable without huge expense. Cargo ships are the size of aircraft carriers or bigger. Instead of scrapping a defunct cargo ship for the steel, run it aground off of the island in question and fit the deck as a runway. It would only handle one plane at a time but that would be enough for the described purpose. |
|
| |
I understand that aircraft carriers are not long enough for a 747 to land on... although I suppose a C140 might be slightly better than some island hopper planes... |
|
| |
No, ground effect as in plane that can only fly close to the ground. Many claim the Spruce Goose is ground effect because the original motors weren't made. See Link for WIG. |
|
| |
Come and fly into the worlds largest floating airport to spend some time on the worlds smallest island. |
|
| |