XPost: alt.usage.english

Ar an tríú lá is fiche de mí Iúil, scríobh J. J. Lodder:

Hibou <[email protected]d> wrote:

[...] Apparently it depends on the species of duck. Some think they're flying boats, others that they're seaplanes.

On usage: In my English they are all seaplanes,
to be divided in floatplanes and flying boats.

Wikipedia comments that ‘British usage is to call floatplanes “seaplanes” rather than use the term “seaplane” to refer to both floatplanes and flying boats.[2].’ I had a strong interest in aviation as a teenager and this usage seems to have stuck with me; the magazines I read were from the UK.

I have no strong interest in aviation now, and similarly, my sister also
has no interest in owning a horse.

Floatplanes are typically smaller, while flying boats can be huge,
up to Spruce Goose size.
AFAIK the flying boats have gone almost completely extinct,
(some dinosaurs from WWII excepted)

I saw an amphibious PBY Catalina at Enniskillen airport (perhaps “airstrip” would better characterise the facility) a few years ago, just as I was driving past, glad to see one still operational. It may not be any more.

while small floatplanes still florish in special habitats, like the Caraibean, or Alaska,

I learn right now from Wikipedia that the Catalina is no longer in service as a waterbomber

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

Le 23/07/2025 à 22:12, Aidan Kehoe a écrit :

Ar an tríú lá is fiche de mí Iúil, scríobh J. J. Lodder:

Hibou wrote:

[...] Apparently it depends on the species of duck. Some think they're
flying boats, others that they're seaplanes.

On usage: In my English they are all seaplanes,
to be divided in floatplanes and flying boats.

ObAUE: ... to be divided into...

Dutch English? :-)

Wikipedia comments that ‘British usage is to call floatplanes “seaplanes”
rather than use the term “seaplane” to refer to both floatplanes and flying
boats.[2].’ I had a strong interest in aviation as a teenager and this usage
seems to have stuck with me; the magazines I read were from the UK. [...]

Just so. Seaplanes have floats on legs, while in flying boats the
fuselage forms a hull.

Floatplanes are typically smaller, while flying boats can be huge,
up to Spruce Goose size.
AFAIK the flying boats have gone almost completely extinct,
(some dinosaurs from WWII excepted) [...]

Canadair flying boats are being used as water bombers in France and
elsewhere.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/I-DPCN_at_work_03_%28cropped%29.jpg/1280px-I-DPCN_at_work_03_%28cropped%29.jpg>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

Hibou <[email protected]d> wrote:

Le 23/07/2025 � 22:12, Aidan Kehoe a �crit :

Ar an tr�� l� is fiche de m� I�il, scr�obh J. J. Lodder:

Hibou wrote:

[...] Apparently it depends on the species of duck. Some think they're >>> flying boats, others that they're seaplanes.

On usage: In my English they are all seaplanes,
to be divided in floatplanes and flying boats.

ObAUE: ... to be divided into...

Dutch English? :-)

No, just being careless later in the evening.

Wikipedia comments that 'British usage is to call floatplanes "seaplanes" rather than use the term "seaplane" to refer to both floatplanes and flying boats.[2].' I had a strong interest in aviation as a teenager and this usage
seems to have stuck with me; the magazines I read were from the UK. [...]

Just so. Seaplanes have floats on legs, while in flying boats the
fuselage forms a hull.

Now you made me look it up.
My wikipedia says:
===
A seaplane is a powered fixed-wing aircraft capable of taking off and
landing (alighting) on water.[1] Seaplanes are usually divided into two categories based on their technological characteristics: floatplanes and
flying boats; the latter are generally far larger and can carry far
more.
===
Usage varies, it would seem.

Floatplanes are typically smaller, while flying boats can be huge,
up to Spruce Goose size.
AFAIK the flying boats have gone almost completely extinct,
(some dinosaurs from WWII excepted) [...]

Canadair flying boats are being used as water bombers in France and elsewhere.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/I-DPCN_at_work_03_%

28cropped%29.jpg/1280px-I-DPCN_at_work_03_%28cropped%29.jpg>

Certainly, seen them in action.
Also, quite by accident, I have seen a flight of them,
six in formation, going west. (the ancient model, with piston engines)
I guess on their way from Marseilles to the Landes,
to do their thing there. They make a lot of heavy noise,
and they are surprisingly slow, so impossible to miss.

By a recent newspaper article they are having problems.
Put bluntly, the planes are falling apart, (also the newer turbo-props)
and the French cannot keep them airworthy in sufficient numbers.
They need to be replaced, but there is no money for that.

The original design was for taking in fresh water.
Lacking that nowadays they must use sea water,
which results in more corrosion.

France seems to be unable these days to reach rational decisions
in things like this.
Surely the investment in water bombers must pay for itself
in terms of things not burned?

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

Le 24/07/2025 à 12:00, J. J. Lodder a écrit :

Hibou wrote:

Canadair flying boats are being used as water bombers in France and
elsewhere.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/I-DPCN_at_work_03_%

28cropped%29.jpg/1280px-I-DPCN_at_work_03_%28cropped%29.jpg>

Certainly, seen them in action.
Also, quite by accident, I have seen a flight of them,
six in formation, going west. (the ancient model, with piston engines)
I guess on their way from Marseilles to the Landes,
to do their thing there. They make a lot of heavy noise,
and they are surprisingly slow, so impossible to miss.

By a recent newspaper article they are having problems.
Put bluntly, the planes are falling apart, (also the newer turbo-props)
and the French cannot keep them airworthy in sufficient numbers.
They need to be replaced, but there is no money for that.

In short, you saw them going west, and there's a risk they'll go west.

The original design was for taking in fresh water.
Lacking that nowadays they must use sea water,
which results in more corrosion.

France seems to be unable these days to reach rational decisions
in things like this.
Surely the investment in water bombers must pay for itself
in terms of things not burned?

Macron promised two or three years ago to buy more, but that hasn't
happened. They're pricey - 60M euros a pop - and Europe is said not to
be a priority:

« Fabriqué au Canada par De Havilland, un Canadair coûte une soixantaine
de millions d’euros et une commande aujourd’hui ne sera livrée qu’en 2032. "De Havilland dit 'avec les commandes que j'ai et les besoins sur
le continent nord-américain qui ne vont faire que s'accentuer, l'Europe
ne sera pas la priorité de cette entreprise'", explique Sophie Pantel, députée socialiste de Lozère, co-autrice d’un rapport sur la flotte de
la sécurité civile » - <https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/l-info-de-france-inter/l-info-de-france-inter-9978274>

But then, governing the French makes herding cats look easy (three prime ministers in the last year). And I don't know whether such water bombers
are cost effective. Sixty million euros is a lot of hoses and pumps.

Tiens ! <Owlish humour> They could buy pumps from us - Godiva fire
pumps, born out of Coventry Climax. Good for raising people's
temperatures with innuendo, and then dampening their ardour. <OK, as you
were>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

On 24/07/25 21:00, J. J. Lodder wrote:

[Water bombers]

The original design was for taking in fresh water. Lacking that
nowadays they must use sea water, which results in more corrosion.

Good point. I'd never thought of that.

The biggest need for water bombers in Australia is inland, especially in mountainous areas, where there are no roads and few fire trails. In such
cases, the likely water source is a lake or something similar. Fresh
water, therefore.

Near the coast, where sea water might be used, there's less need for
water bombers, because there are more roads, and it's easier for fire
trucks to get to the fire.

--
Peter Moylan [email protected] http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)