Is the plane that ditched, a Boeing 314 or a Martin plane... I think one of each was lost like that... Do you remember? Also, a friend saw a wingless replica of a Boeing 314 in an air museum in Ireland several years ago. Back on topic... sort of...
It was a 314. I forget the name and number. It was landed in a rough sea and sustained some damage. A destroyer was nearby and rescued the passengers and in the process it collided many times with the airplane further damaging it. Even then they had to sink it with cannon fire from the destroyer. I'll try to look it up.
It was the Honolulu Clipper, NC18601. The first one on the line. I wonder if something similar in concept would be viable today. It was spacious enough to get up and walk around, like go to the library or the lounge. At dinner time you went to dinning salon, at bed time to a n enclosed berth compartment. There were three levels in that cavernous hull.
The only passenger-carrying aircraft that were similar were the Zeppelins. In both cases the accommodations were more like ocean liners than like other airliners. That is truly where the name "captain" for the commanding officer was most appropriate. The A380 was intended to be something along those lines, but I suspect that a lot of the space that was intended for lounges, bars and other extra features has been converted to more seating, just like the 747 upper lounges tended to be.
Maybe no Clippers, but there are still a couple of these. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=martin+mars&view=detail&mid=8FA40B962FE116F34FD38FA40B962FE116F34FD3&FORM=VIRE
Thanks for that. I saw the Mars perform at the Abottsford Airshow in 60's when they made a water drop on a cabin they had set up in the field . It was set on fire and the water drop not only put out the fire but it flattened the cabin. Impressive airplane!
For all their legendary romance and style, the clippers were very short-lived. Just a few years. They were obsolete before the end of WW2. Thousands of paved runways had been built all over the face of the earth during the war. That made land based planes feasible. They no longer had to put up with slow, lumbering, ill-handling sea planes with poor fuel economy. After the war, the US government wanted to sell the Boeings back to Pan Am... who said "no thanks". Pan Am had moved on... to 377's, DC-6s and Connies... faster, easier to fly. Every island and country and city now had a runway. Just incredible planes, though...
They could still do that, but the economics, and passenger preferences, don't really allow it. Emirates probably comes close, but that's it. Most people don't want to pay for that space, and flight times are short enough that it doesn't make that much sense. You don't spend days on an airliner-- maybe 18 hours at most, and that's unusual... and Emirates is one who does those sort of legs and provides some of those amenities.
Thinking the same thing... Hop on a plane after dinner in Honolulu, take a short nap and be in CA before breakfast... And that's flying against the sun. No berth or dining salon needed. And these days, it's all about pounds of fuel per seat per mile.
I will say, though that the story of the flight had me plotting the route on maps, checking Google Maps and Wiki for details on the Congo river and gorge, etc. What a great adventure. Also noticed that the intro picture is 18601 (not 602) with it's first tail... there were 2 more iterations before they got it right... 1 vertical to 2 verticals to 3 verticals.... It also has an 'X' after the 'N', assume that was for the 'prototype'.
From what I learned as a kid, the X after our national code letter"N" indicated that it was still in the "Experimental stage" and "C" indicated that it was certified. That may be simplistic but that's what I knew.
A 314 flight from SFO to HNL took 19 hours. Nowadays that would take you more than half way around the world.
The Long Way Home by Ed Dover It's listed at the end of the above article as a source for this article. A quick check on my library's web site shows there are at least 5 other books with exactly the same title... they do not have Ed's book.
Looks like the Chinese think so Bob....... http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201805/14/WS5af8d66ea3103f6866ee8155.html Image Unavailable, Please Login
When I look at this airplane I wonder why. As posted before, so many concrete runways serviced by long range airplanes that have no need to land in the sea. Okay, it is amphibious. It can do both. I still ask why. Maybe I'm short sighted in my old age.
The tricky part is that landing that thing in the open ocean is going to be extremely risky, unless it's a totally calm day-- and if it's a totally calm day, there is likely to be less need for search and rescue. The US, and I think the Russians, have both decided that open ocean search and rescue by flying boat isn't worth the risk.
