Flying boats are a specialized type. Across the broad spectrum of aviation they’re a very niche market.
But new production does exist. Here’s an example of a modern flying boat. Canadair CL-415 - Wikipedia. Most of these are sold equipped for firefighting, but a plain cargo version is available.
The key thing about airplanes is they last a long time if propertly maintained, and new ones are damned expensive. The guy with the Goose can make money only because he’s using ancient machinery that’s totally depreciated. If he was using a brand new airplane he’d have to feed the multi-million dollar mortgage on the thing. And he’d promptly go broke.
There’s not so many flying boats nowadays. They used to be useful as passenger aircraft when there weren’t so many airports to land at. Plus the military used them for scouting and search and rescue.
Nowadays, there’s decent airports everywhere you go and jet planes with the range to get there in a single trip, and the military scouts with their electronics planes and sensors and does search and rescue with helicopters.
The one niche where flying boats continue to be useful is in fire-fighting. If there’s a big forest fire, a flying boat can land right on the lake, fill up with water, and dump it over the fire.
In the heyday of flying boats there weren’t as many airports as there are now. In many areas of the world the only viable place to land was on the water. A friend in high school was born in Sitka. He said that when he was little they’d get on a PBY to fly from the island. Nowadays you can just take an Alaska Airlines flight. Flying boats were famously used for flying over vast stretches of water. A hull is a good safety feature. Also, they didn’t have the range of a jumbo jet. It was more practical to land at an atoll in the water and then taxi to the shore for refueling than to build several airports whose only real function would be as refueling stops. Basically, more airports and aircraft with longer legs obviated the need for flying boats.
If you want a new flying boat now, you’ll have to build it yourself. Here are a couple of examples:
Also, for flexibility landing in remote locations without air strips, the helicopter beats the flying boat. Plus, fying boats have limitations on the roughness of the water they land on/take off from, while with helicopters you only have to watch out for very nearby obstructions.
Airplanes tend to have a higher useful load and a wider cg range, and helicopters tend to be more expensive to buy and operate. For example, the Cessna 172 and the Robinson R22 both use a Lycoming O320. With full fuel the Cessna has a payload of about 750 pounds, while the R22 has a payload of 390 pounds. (Gross weight minus empty weight minus full fuel times 6 pounds/gallon.) The airplane has four seats and the helicopter has two. The airplane has a cargo area, and the helicopter has a little space under the seats. The airplane has a larger cg range vs the helicopter. The R22 has a maximum speed of 102 kts, and the 172 cruises at 122 kts. The 172 has a range of nearly 700 miles, and the R22 has a range of 240 miles.
Granted, the Cessna’s speed, range, and payload will be less if it is equipped with floats, but they will still be better than a helicopter using the same engine. On the other hand, a float-equipped airplane is not suited to off-airport landings (except in water, of course), and is effected by water conditions. A helicopter can land on a fairly-level patch. Depending on the mission, one or the other would be better suited. But IMO fixed-wings are more practical than rotary-wings in most situations.
If I hit the lottery for the big payout, an order for one goes in immediately, and I then begin flight lessons to work my way to certification to fly it. Then I begin flying around the hemisphere hunting & fishing.
You can get many planes with float conversion kits including ultralights. The key point to know is that new aircraft development for small planes is ultra-expensive for a limited market so it is generally a no go. Up until the mid-1990’s, most of it was based on 1930’s and 1940’s technology. The 1990’s up until today saw many new aircraft being brought to market but the old ones are still out there. Planes are not cars. They are extremely well made of mostly non-corrosive airframes and can be flown indefinitely as long as they are maintained or restored. Restoration is very expensive often into the hundreds of thousands of dollars but still more cost effective than buying new.
A 1950 Dehavilland Beaver like this goes for about $400,000 while one in better condition can to half a million or more and it is meant to be flown not a museum piece. DC-3 airliners from the 1930’s are still in service around the world.
A 1940’s era Grumman Goose is a relative bargain at less than $400,000 but they have a limited niche. I fly one in full realism setting in Flight Simulator X and it is a cool plane but you would have to really need one to want to spend the money to buy and maintain it on the water. A new flying boat of that size would cost several times that amount at the very least if there were buyers waiting in the first place.
Float planes are what seem to be used to take people to various fishing lodges in Canada. I spent a nice week fishing in Canada. The last leg of the trip was on a float plane. The float plane company looked like it had about 3 or 4 planes. Per LSLguy’s post they looked like they were about 20 to 30 years old or older. The planes look like they were converted from traditional wheeled aircraft which I imagine keeps the costs down.
Thanks folks for the responses. Just a few more questions have been raised though.
Is an aircraft that old capable of using modern aviation fuel or would it have to have adjustments made? Folks have said that an aircraft that old can still operate indefinitely. I understood metal fatigue was an issue in older aircraft?
Finally, if I was used to driving a modern car and jumped into one seventy years old I doubt that I could drive it without major adjustment- modern things such as power steering, disc brakes and syncromesh on gears. Wouldn’t an old aircraft be similarly difficult to pilot given advances made in the interim.
Old aircraft can use modern fuel. Many were designed to run on 80 octane leaded fuel, but that seems to be hard to find nowadays. You can get 100 octane low lead (100LL) anywhere. I think most old planes will run fine on it, perhaps after some adjustments to the engine. Some airplanes can run on automotive fuel (‘mogas’) if the owner buys a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC).
Metal fatigue and corrosion can be a problem in aircraft; the latter especially with float planes operated in a saline environment. Aircraft are required to be inspected annually (or every 100 hours if operated commercially) and must abide by a maintenance schedule. When problems are identified among types, the FAA issues an Airworthiness Directive (AD) that must be complied with. For example, the V-tail Bonanzas needed strengthening in the tailcone, and the T-34 Mentor requires wing spar replacement. Some ADs are minor and require only increased scrutiny during inspections, and some are major (such as replacing wing spars). Some are one-time fixes, and some are recurring. In a nutshell aircraft tend to be much better maintained than cars, and problems are fixed when identified.
The biggest adjustment you’d have to make when getting into an old airplane from a new one is to the avionics.
The Icon A5 is a flying boat - with wheels and foldable wings. This ultralight sport craft can be yours for a cool $139,000. Admittedly it’s still undergoing flight tests. http://www.iconaircraft.com/lifestyle.html
“Modern” advances in aviation along the lines of power steering have allowed larger aircraft to be made, an example would be hydraulic controls and fly-by-wire, however many older aeroplanes still fly very nicely because they were designed within the limitations present at the time. Instead of handling differences, you’d have more trouble just from the lack of advanced avionics, but many advanced avionics can be retrofitted, so an old Goose might have good modern weather radar, GPS, electronic flight instruments, etc, but even if they’re not, most modern avionics just give a more user-friendly presentation of the same basic instruments pilots have been using since the 1930s and that are still often fitted to basic training aircraft, it’s not that big an adjustment.
You might be interested to know that Grumman Mallards with a turbine engine modification are in regular use with the Australian pearling company Paspaley Pearls. Many of the pearl farms are in remote areas with no land access and crew transfers are done with the Mallards. Other pearling companies in Australia use float planes for the same purpose.
I came in here to mention Antilles (used to be Antilles Airboats back in the day). I flew on one in about 1976 from St. Thomas, VI to Fajardo, PR. It was a fun ride. When I was growing up in Juneau, AK, Grummans flown by Alaska Coastal Airlines were a common sight. The company also had the aforementioned PBY Catalina. These planes were a natural for Southeast Alaska, because of terrain and lack of airports. All you needed was a ramp and a parking apron, or even just a pier.
How much of the airframe of an old plane is original? For something like a Goose ir a DC-3, is it something on the order of a replaced bit of skin or wing rib every decade, or every year such that there’s little original material left?