Sunday, August 26, 2012 8:27:05 PM
Oh, another thing. A CAAT could handle much steeper inclines than a hovercraft. That could make a lot of difference if, for example, you need to get large amounts of relief stuff along a river, up the river bank and up the side of the river valley to a village or town. Hovercraft tend to slide down any incline.
Sunday, August 26, 2012 8:17:22 PM
what happens if there are actual waves?
Nothing much to the CAAT itself. Bouyancy comes from sealed units rather than a hull, so it can't be swamped like a boat can. Even if it dips entirely below water due to big waves, it should just pop right back up again.
If the waves are bad enough, it might be impossible to control the movement of the CAAT, i.e. it might be swept away. Cargo might be lost if the forces are strong enough to break the fastening of the cargo containers to the CAAT. It might also capsize, although it still wouldn`t sink.
It wouldn`t be good for any crew on it, though.
But if the seas were that bad then you wouldn`t deploy the CAATs from the cargo ship. They`re only intended for short ship to shore delivery, not long sea journeys.
Sunday, August 26, 2012 8:08:20 PM
I also thought of hovercraft, so I read up on it a bit more. The intended purpose of CAAT is to move lots of stuff from a cargo ship to land without needing a port, mainly for disaster relief work. The advantages in that scenario are:
1) The full-scale CAAT would have a much higher payload to size ratio than this small version, both in terms of payload size and payload weight. It would beat a comparably sized hovercraft.
2) The CAAT is designed to be dismantled and stored in standard shipping containers, which saves space on the cargo ship compared with carrying hovercraft on it - so more disaster relief stuff can be carried.
3) CAAT is better than a hovercraft on debris-strewn water and land (likely in a disaster area). Debris can easily damage a hovercraft's skirts, which will stop it moving until they`re replaced.