Wait, don't foils handle fine as long as the chop is within reason? And if the waves are higher than the foil clearance, it's not like regular boats would do that well either.
Worst case, couldn't you go slower and just act like a regular boat?
Worst case, couldn't you go slower and just act like a regular boat?
You now have two choices, steer to the left or right of it. Those split-second decisions have consequences, depending on which way the prevailing waves are headed. Say if you turn toward port, you might be parallel to the waves which you never want to do: they can capsize you. So you don't turn to port.
Heading toward starboard might be a better choice, but it's still not perfect - you might head toward a crest that will definitely slam into your bow violently. Or there is another boat wake you now have to deal with that wasn't a problem seconds ago. In either case, you need to alter your speed to either avoid it or cut through it more gently. You start dropping off plane, cut through a favorable section, and then angle yourself and go wide open throttles to miss a trough. Maybe you rise back on plane before you avoid it, or just slightly afterwards but on most V hull powerboats doing all this is not a problem. In normal traffic, this might happen a few times a minute.
But hydrofoils have two things going against them right there. They have massive drag at lower speeds and thus maneuver poorly in an emergency, taking more time to accelerate on plane or change direction. Then the weight ratio is a challenge: they need a lot of power for cruising speed, so they weigh more than you'd expect and then weight management is one of the primary design concerns. That all means the propeller is optimized for power over acceleration, and that means that these three congruent design choices have painted you into a corner, limiting collision maneuverability. Hydrofoils handle rough seas far worse than any conventional hull shape and more importantly, colliding with anything underway is far less forgiving than striking an object on the bow or outdrive.
Emergencies notwithstanding, being normally outside a propeller's designed operating range and you have cavitation and ventilation problems, which then erode the propellers. And that weight constraint means fewer seats, fewer people to carry, so less efficient per capita.
My general skepticism regarding hydrofoils comes from, quite frankly, not seeing that much damage with them because they don't exist 'in the wild' so much here to establish a conventional sense for most U.S. east coast watermen. Plenty of other issues that everyone I know is familiar with, most commonly groundings and striking objects, and occasionally catching cage lines on props. The petrol-era weight bias sticks around and this is where I hope you show us very wrong. I'd love to see some rough water videos of your C-7.
My original response from where everything else stemmed from is that right now this isn't a practical conversion for a common man with something like a 27' cabin cruiser, certainly not in the pocketbook. I do not know how much the C-7 costs, but was my sticker shock that far off?
The price stems from a high production cost, the whole boat is built like an aircraft, in carbon fiber (the designer used to work at Eurocopter) to be as light as possible. The weight of the hull and deck is about 240 kg. So our main goal for the future is to reduce the costs - by a lot. But think about C-7 as the Tesla Roadster. But our foiling ferry for the city of Stockholm will be launched next year, and then people using the Stockholm public transport system can go foiling for 2€.
Besides, it might not sink, but the collision will throw people around, and it's not like boats have seat belts or people accustomized to using them.
Hitting a rock might bend your prop and you might need to replace, many carry a spare prop on board as it can be replaced relatively easy even out on the water with an outboard.
That same situation with a foil boat would be disastrous, again just one very expensive and dangerous mistake.