SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's 60 years since the British inventor Christopher Cockerell demonstrated the principles of the hovercraft using a cat food tin and a vacuum cleaner. Great things were promised for this mode of transport, but it never really caught on. Why?
The hovercraft slides down a concrete ramp and into the Solent. Its engines, propellers and fans hum as it crosses from Southsea, in Hampshire, to Ryde, on the Isle of Wight, travelling 4.4 nautical miles in under 10 minutes.
The journey is more than twice as quick as the catamaran from Portsmouth to Ryde and more than four times as quick as the Portsmouth-to-Fishbourne ferry.
For that matter, why haven't hydrofoils caught on?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
What Happened to Passenger Hovercraft?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 34 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without
the supervision of a licensed engineer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Unixnut on Wednesday November 11 2015, @10:00AM
They didn't catch on because they were more expensive than ferries, and could carry less cargo. The majority of people, when given a choice, went for the cheaper option. For example, the English channel was served for years by a ferry company called Hoverspeed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoverspeed [wikipedia.org] ). They had hovercraft, but in the end, they were making a loss. Unfortunately they shut down before I was old enough to have a trip on them (would have been cool to experience riding on a hovercraft)
Those who wanted speed and damn the cost used the channel tunnel train. Those who cared about cost foremost went on the slow ferry (and were suitably entertained on the decks for the longer trip).
I also suspect that the fuel consumption for hovercraft was quite a bit more, as the lift engines have to run constantly until it is on land, regardless of forward speed. There there is noise, spray and a bunch of other things to take into account when in harbour.
It is the same reason Concorde never became mainstream, despite being much faster than normal air travel. Given the choice, people are ok to spend longer on the trip, if it is either cheaper, or there is comfort and entertainment to make the time pass quickly.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2015, @10:33AM
Strictly speaking a properly designed hovercraft will be able to float when all engines are off.
They basically have to be to be safe to operate on open water.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nicdoye on Wednesday November 11 2015, @10:49AM
I travelled on one. Only 30 minutes across the channel which is far quicker than a boat. Being such a short journey, it meant they were fairly utilitarian inside, much like a giant bus.
Smooth crossing, but somewhat noisy, from memory.
I code because I can
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khakipuce on Wednesday November 11 2015, @01:09PM
I also travelled across the channel on one once, it was good fun but coming back it was too rough and we were put on a ferry. The thing that sticks in my mind is that they treated it like a flight, with cabin crew and all the rest and called it a flight. I guess that was to make it feel a bit more special and justify the extra cost somewhat.
(Score: 2) by snick on Wednesday November 11 2015, @02:17PM
I took the hovercraft across the channel years ago. It was the only time in my life I was seasick (airsick? hoversick? ... whatever)
The cabin did seem more like you were on a a commercial flight than on a boat trip.
(Score: 2) by present_arms on Wednesday November 11 2015, @09:38PM
Hover from Ryde is great when in a rush, it is faster than the fast cat but not much in it :) much better than 45mins for the car ferry from Fishbourne for sure
http://trinity.mypclinuxos.com/