The Airplane Thread

[vreihen16]

American defense contractor Radia has confirmed it is planning to design a next generation military cargo aircraft called the WindRunner, which the firm has stated will be the world’s largest. A rendering of the aircraft released by the firm has shown that it is could be considerably larger, with several times the internal volume of the U.S. Air Force C-5 Galaxy.

The article claims that this ugly duckling will have seven times the internal volume of a C-5 (but not the lift capacity), and be able to operate from a 5,900 foot *unpaved* runway:

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...ter-helicopter




.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

American defense contractor Radia has confirmed it is planning to design a next generation military cargo aircraft called the WindRunner, which the firm has stated will be the world’s largest. A rendering of the aircraft released by the firm has shown that it is could be considerably larger, with several times the internal volume of the U.S. Air Force C-5 Galaxy.

The article claims that this ugly duckling will have seven times the internal volume of a C-5 (but not the lift capacity), and be able to operate from a 5,900 foot *unpaved* runway:

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...ter-helicopter




.

Yeah..... dumb idea.

The C-5 already has some significant taxiway/runway/handling restrictions. It's just a BIG piece of machinery. Remember when they had to do huge construction projects to allow the A380 to land/taxi/depart from airports?

And those were already very large international hubs.

Now, imagine the balloon goes up.....

"Ok-- we need to get our troops and material to Airport X right the frell now."

"Ummmm....... the Windrunner doesn't fit in anything but a few international Gateway airports. We could fly it into Heathrow, but we're going to have to pull all the cargo off and transship it onto C-5's and C-17's."

".....?....."

There's a LOT more to things than just making a big jet in the airlift world.

How are you going to maneuver it on the ground? How many can you PUT on the ground (MOG = Maximum On Ground). How are you going to load/unload it in a timely manner? How are you going to support the required fuel loads? Can you even air refuel this thing without scaring the hell out of the airlift crews.

Fwiw? I'd say Fred (and the 747) are about as large as you can reasonalbly go in size if you want to be able maneuver around/operate into (semi-bare-base) airfields all over the world.

R.

[vreihen16]

From other articles about the next generation of transports, they are concerned about sitting ducks on the ground after the Ukraine sneak drone attack against the Russian planes. They want all planes to unload and refuel as fast as possible, and get back in the air to their home bases where they should be safe.

Some articles are calling for a single transport to replace both the C-17 and C-5. They are also contemplating intra-theater planes and inter-theater planes, with this ugly duckling being inter-theater. The specs said that it had a huge cargo bay, but couldn't move as much total weight as a single C-5 can now.

Digging a little bit deeper into Radia, they are not really a defense contractor. The ugly duckling was designed to move large windmill blades to temporary unpaved runways next to where the windmills are being installed, and thus only needs to lift lightweight composite windmill blades and not armored vehicles. Might as well call it a Super Guppy, because there probably will never be more than a handful of them if Boeing or the other incumbent defense contractors and their purse strings in congress have any say.....

https://radia.com/windrunner

[Llarry]

For 32 years, the "Flying Bengals" of VMFA(AW)-224 flew the F-18 Hornet. They were the last of the two-seat F-18D squadrons. They have now given up their Hornets and are transitioning to the STOVL F-35B. As shown by the two photos, they have kept their tiger stripe markings consistent for many years, although only one aircraft in the squadron is fully striped.

This also means the end of the road for Marine Corps Weapons Systems Officers (WSOs).

[Llarry]

An excellent illustration of the size growth of modern military aircraft:

B-17 heavy bomber versus F-15 fighter

[freakystyly]

Super Scooper getting some rest. Looks like it has a home at my local airport.

Not my pic

[Llarry]

An icon of the Cold War era, the F-111 Aardvark became operational in the Vietnam era and was retired in 1996, being replaced by the F-15E Strike Eagle.

Here's an F-111F of the 48th Fighter Wing based at RAF Lakenheath in the UK and carrying a typical strike load: Four 2,000-pound laser-guided bombs, a Pave Tack pod to illuminate targets for the bombs and a smallish electronic countermeasures pod.

[Llarry]

The 1940s saw the U.S. Navy, along with the Marine Corps and a number of other nations' navies and air forces, use a pair of fighters that were very close in many ways. The Vought F4U Corsair and the Grumman F6F Hellcat used essentially the same R-2800 radial engine and had weights that were quite similar.

The designers deviated in one important aspect of these two fighters: Vought placed the fuel supply in front of the pilot (keeping the fuselage slimmer) while Grumman placed the fuel supply under the cockpit (leading to the porky Grumman look). Of course, Vought also gave the Corsair the characteristic gull wing, which minimized drag and reduced the weight of the landing gear. The result of these design choices meant that the Corsair was a bit faster that the Hellcat.

Early F4Us developed a problem with fuel leaks and photos sometimes show tape that was applied to minimize the leaks.

The Corsair first flew in May of 1940. The prototype had the main fuel tank behind the pilot; that was reworked to the more familiar silhouette that is easy to recognize. There were other development problems as well and the F4U first saw combat in February of 1943 with a Marine fighter squadron. Carrier operations were delayed for a couple of years, and the Marines flew and loved the Corsair.

The Hellcat first flew two years later in June of 1942. The development of the F6F was unremarkable and just 14 months later (August of 1943) the Hellcat first saw combat from Pacific Fleet carriers.

For well over a year, that split continued: F4U = Marines and F6F = Navy.

In 1944, a more powerful engine and four-bladed propellor was fitted to both aircraft. Performance was improved, but the Navy's judgement was that the F6F production rate (almost 600 Hellcats per month!) could not suffer any reduction due to a model changeover. F4U production was changed to the improved F4U-4, as Navy leadership felt the aircraft had more potential for improvement. The F6F-6 was not pursued.

The F4U was indeed further improved after the war with the F4U-5 model. F4U-4s and -5s stayed in service until the mid-1950s. The F6F, on the other hand, was relegated to second-line roles for a few years after the war's end.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Yeah..... dumb idea.

The C-5 already has some significant taxiway/runway/handling restrictions. It's just a BIG piece of machinery. Remember when they had to do huge construction projects to allow the A380 to land/taxi/depart from airports?

And those were already very large international hubs.

Now, imagine the balloon goes up.....

"Ok-- we need to get our troops and material to Airport X right the frell now."

"Ummmm....... the Windrunner doesn't fit in anything but a few international Gateway airports. We could fly it into Heathrow, but we're going to have to pull all the cargo off and transship it onto C-5's and C-17's."

".....?....."

There's a LOT more to things than just making a big jet in the airlift world.

How are you going to maneuver it on the ground? How many can you PUT on the ground (MOG = Maximum On Ground). How are you going to load/unload it in a timely manner? How are you going to support the required fuel loads? Can you even air refuel this thing without scaring the hell out of the airlift crews.

Fwiw? I'd say Fred (and the 747) are about as large as you can reasonalbly go in size if you want to be able maneuver around/operate into (semi-bare-base) airfields all over the world.

R.

I remember that well when Sadam internalional was short runway. I was on the Baghdad gone Bad C5 brake fire jet. The jet was fixed and beat us home after getting hung up in customs at Ramstein as ACM's flying with weapons the customs guy couldn't figure it out.

There was talk of restarting the c-17 line for international sales and maybe USAF will pick up a few more since the 17's are getting older. Think first delivery was what 1992?

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The 1940s saw the U.S. Navy, along with the Marine Corps and a number of other nations' navies and air forces, use a pair of fighters that were very close in many ways. The Vought F4U Corsair and the Grumman F6F Hellcat used essentially the same R-2800 radial engine and had weights that were quite similar.

The designers deviated in one important aspect of these two fighters: Vought placed the fuel supply in front of the pilot (keeping the fuselage slimmer) while Grumman placed the fuel supply under the cockpit (leading to the porky Grumman look). Of course, Vought also gave the Corsair the characteristic gull wing, which minimized drag and reduced the weight of the landing gear. The result of these design choices meant that the Corsair was a bit faster that the Hellcat.

Early F4Us developed a problem with fuel leaks and photos sometimes show tape that was applied to minimize the leaks.

The Corsair first flew in May of 1940. The prototype had the main fuel tank behind the pilot; that was reworked to the more familiar silhouette that is easy to recognize. There were other development problems as well and the F4U first saw combat in February of 1943 with a Marine fighter squadron. Carrier operations were delayed for a couple of years, and the Marines flew and loved the Corsair.

The Hellcat first flew two years later in June of 1942. The development of the F6F was unremarkable and just 14 months later (August of 1943) the Hellcat first saw combat from Pacific Fleet carriers.

For well over a year, that split continued: F4U = Marines and F6F = Navy.

In 1944, a more powerful engine and four-bladed propellor was fitted to both aircraft. Performance was improved, but the Navy's judgement was that the F6F production rate (almost 600 Hellcats per month!) could not suffer any reduction due to a model changeover. F4U production was changed to the improved F4U-4, as Navy leadership felt the aircraft had more potential for improvement. The F6F-6 was not pursued.

The F4U was indeed further improved after the war with the F4U-5 model. F4U-4s and -5s stayed in service until the mid-1950s. The F6F, on the other hand, was relegated to second-line roles for a few years after the war's end.

My dad flew both the Hellcat (F6F-5) and the Corsair (most versions). I remember him telling me he liked both planes but he preferred the Corsair. I wish he was still around to explain what it was like to fly those planes.

[Llarry]

U.S. Army aviation is planned to undergo a significant reduction in active AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. A force of 120 AH-64Ds and 408 AH-64Es will be reduced to 240 AH-64Es and just 24 older AH-64Ds. These numbers do not include National Guard helicopters.

Meanwhile older UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters continue to be replaced by new upgraded UH-60Ms.

Heavy lift CH-47F Chinook numbers are projected to increase slightly.

[asianF22]

Proposed replacement for the T45 and crew transport.

[Llarry]

Tomcat Thursday!

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

U.S. Army aviation is planned to undergo a significant reduction in active AH-64 Apache attack helicopters.

I was surprised to learn that the AH-64 Apache has been flying for over fifty years. The prototype first flew on September 30, 1975. Over 2,700 Apaches have been produced for the U.S. and many other nations.

Most of the original AH-64A variants have been replaced by or upgraded to the improved AH-64D and AH-64E versions.

[shannon1]

Originally Posted by Llarry

U.S. Army aviation is planned to undergo a significant reduction in active AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. A force of 120 AH-64Ds and 408 AH-64Es will be reduced to 240 AH-64Es and just 24 older AH-64Ds. These numbers do not include National Guard helicopters.

Meanwhile older UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters continue to be replaced by new upgraded UH-60Ms.

Heavy lift CH-47F Chinook numbers are projected to increase slightly.

That's pretty much Australia's Army Aviation's new upcoming line up 29 AH-64E Apache's, 40 UH-60M Black Hawks and 14 CH-47F Chinooks, when/if they all arrive.

[SpeedBuggy]

C17 doing touch and go maneuvers today at YARS. Fly around typically circles our house.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by SpeedBuggy

C17 doing touch and go maneuvers today at YARS. Fly around typically circles our house.

Glad that I'm not the only one who has front row seats for C-17's flying in circles! Whenever the ANG is meeting, there is a constant circle of C-17's passing over our house every two minutes like clockwork. They were doing night touch-and-go's a few weekends ago.

It was way more interesting when they used to fly C-5's.....

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

Glad that I'm not the only one who has front row seats for C-17's flying in circles! Whenever the ANG is meeting, there is a constant circle of C-17's passing over our house every two minutes like clockwork. They were doing night touch-and-go's a few weekends ago.

It was way more interesting when they used to fly C-5's.....

I live not far off KCEF's local flight path and there days you honestly would not know it's there.

We get C17's from KWRI on occasion that come and do locals at KCEF or KBAF.

[asianF22]

B-25, Rosie’s Reply…

[Llarry]

Brazilian company Embraer continues its winning ways in Europe. Sweden has decided to procure Embraer C-390s instead of Lockheed Martin C-130Js to supplement their current C-130Hs. (The C-130Hs will continue in service for the foreseeable future.)

The list of EU customers for the Brazilian airlifter -- with optional capability as an aerial refueler -- is long:
Austria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Lithuania
Netherlands
Portugal
Slovakia
and now Sweden

In most cases the numbers to be purchased by each country are not great, but some have options for future additional C-390s.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Brazilian company Embraer continues its winning ways in Europe.

In addition to its European sales, Embraer has also sold C-390s to South Korea and Uzbekistan. (Of note, South Korea has both C-390s and C-130Js in service.)

The most formidable competitor to the C-390 is the U.S. Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules, which got a considerable head start on the Brazilian aircraft. 26 countries fly the C-130J.

A quick comparison of the C-390 and the C-130J-30 (long version):
Max takeoff weight: C-390 191,800 lbs versus C-130J 155,000 lbs
Cargo hold length: C-390 61 ft versus C-130J 41 ft
The C-390 hold is also wider and taller and of course the C-390 offers jet performance.

[Llarry]

Chinese manufacturer Xi'an developed and is now producing a "heavy" airlifter, the Y-20 -- as well as a transport/refueler version designated the YY-20.

So far 95 aircraft are in service, but far more are predicted to be on the way.

By comparison with the C-17, the Y-20's max takeoff weight is about 100,000 lbs less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi%27an_Y-20