On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:01:28 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:

but will they now make a comeback in the US?

Short answer: No, IMHO.

Longer answer: Attempts at large-scale revival of seaplanes in the U.S. will likely meet the same ends as attempts to revive LTA.
a.. Too few suitable seadrome possibilities near most U. S. coastal population centers. And no possibilities at all in the continental heartland, other than the Great Lakes cities like Detroit or Chicago.
b.. Constant pre-landing obstruction clearance would be a major headache for near-urban seadromes - would not take a very large piece of harbor flotsam to hole a hull at takeoff or alighting speed.
c.. Need for major infrastructure improvements (large hangars, ramps, etc.) along increasingly expensive / scarce near-urban shoreline.
d.. Even a modest sea state can hinder or prohibit operations in more open waters.
e.. Higher cost of maintenance, especially for corrosion control, versus landplanes.
This does not say that seaplanes may not be suited for other locales. The freshwater lake interior regions of Russia and Canada come to mind as possibly suitable.

Just not a winner for the U.S.

I've read claims that WWII itself killed the flying boat.

Before the War vast areas of the Pacific were accessible only by
floatplane. During the War every rock big enough to have one got a
runway. And there were vast numbers of surplus cargo aircraft after
the War to use them. A land runway vastly eases maintenance, lowers
landing and takeoff risks, etc.

In Japan (and, I presume, the old Soviet Union) there were a lot of
places that never got paved runways. Nor, in the post War years, was
there the money to build either them or aircraft to fly from them
(Japan was re-building everything; the Soviets were building a war
machine to threaten the West). So for these states using existing
float plane technology made sense.

And, in both cases, you have either straight up state ownership or
massive state subsidies.

There are lots of places inland that could have float plane operating
areas (admitedly with greater or lesser levels of hazard). Almost
anywhere along the TVA system or Mississippi might do. The Missouri
for at least some distance. I don't know how economical it would be
(compared to building/maintaining a hard surface runway) but there's
not reason why you can't dig a long, narrow pond for floatplane ops.

These aircraft are romantic as Hell and rich folks have fitted out
PBYs and Grummans as "flying yachts" complete with Zodiacs to get them
ashore. But as practical, commercial vehicles they just don't make
it.