When I discuss a hydrographic USV project, I do not start with a model name. I start with the water body, sensor package, launch point and final deliverable. I studied surveying engineering before becoming a product manager at TOKNAV, and this is the same practical sequence I use to help teams compare TBoat10 and TBoat20.
Both platforms are intended for hydrographic and water-project workflows. The useful choice is not simply “smaller versus larger”: it is the vessel that can carry the planned payload, operate safely from the available launch point and support the actual survey plan.
Compare the published platform records first
| Planning point | TBoat10 | TBoat20 |
|---|---|---|
| Listed payload capacity | 35 kg | 50 kg |
| Stated endurance | 7 h at 1.5 m/s | 7 h at 1.5 m/s |
| Listed maximum speed | 7 m/s | 6 m/s |
| Listed protection | IP67 | IP67 |
These are published product-record figures, not mission guarantees. Payload, sensor mounting, battery condition, route, water conditions, communications coverage and local operating rules all affect the field plan.
Choose TBoat10 when the mission fits its payload plan
The TBoat10 product record lists a 35 kg payload capacity. In my comparison, I would check the complete sensor package—not only the sensor’s headline weight. Include mounting hardware, cabling, power draw, balance, working distance and the time needed to collect the required coverage.
For this platform, the published record also lists a 2.4 GHz control range of up to 3 km and 4G communications. Those values need site validation; line of sight, local regulations, interference and weather can change the workable operating plan.
Choose TBoat20 when the sensor package needs more payload headroom
The TBoat20 product record lists a 50 kg payload capacity. That can be the better starting point when the proposed sensor and integration package needs additional headroom, but I still recommend reviewing launch and recovery conditions, vessel handling, mount geometry and the expected route before making a selection.
Its stated endurance is also 7 hours at 1.5 m/s. Use that figure as a planning input, then validate the actual mission duration against the selected payload and water conditions rather than treating it as a fixed project outcome.
Make the vessel decision part of the hydrographic workflow
A hydrographic vessel is only one part of the survey system. The route plan, GNSS correction method, echo-sounder setup, water-level or draft process and data checks need to agree before mobilization. Our TBoat hydrographic survey planning guide walks through that full workflow, while the river-survey echo sounder guide helps teams frame the depth and positioning questions.
Questions I ask before recommending either platform
- What sensor payload, mounting geometry and power requirement will the vessel carry?
- What water conditions, launch access and recovery constraints apply at the actual site?
- What survey-line coverage, depth workflow and deliverable does the client require?
- How will GNSS corrections, control, communications and field quality checks be handled?
Frequently asked questions
Does payload capacity alone determine the right TBoat model?
No. Payload is a useful first screen, but the final decision should also cover the real sensor package, mounting, power, water conditions, launch and recovery, route plan and operating procedure.
Can I use the stated endurance as the mission duration?
No. The stated endurance is a product-record condition. Confirm the field mission against the selected payload, water conditions, route, battery condition and operating procedure.
What should I include in a TBoat enquiry?
Please include the survey method, sensor package, water conditions, working distance, launch point, required mission duration, destination country and intended deliverable.