Author Topic: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities  (Read 820614 times)

kev994 and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sandhurst91

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 27
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #75 on: April 08, 2005, 16:20:47 »
with respect to the question on sensors... don't you need them for SAR anyways these days. Not sure what the C-27j boys are offering, but from what the C-295 crew have posted on c-295.ca, they've got the goods.

I've also heard that the US have yet to certify the C-27J for side-door para-drops given that they haven't figured out the prop-wash issue. C-295 doesn't have that problem.

I'm still not sure what the big advantage of the C-27J is if --- and I repeat IF -- the business case that the folks at EADS CASA are presenting is doable. The speed issue, which is really the only diff that I can see, becomes moot. The size issue I don't get, since you don't need the extra headroom (given that the C-295 has a 6'3" cabin height) and the C-295 is longer - so can hold 5 palettes instead of the three that the 27 can hold...

I'm not here to piss people off - I just want to get all the facts...

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #76 on: April 08, 2005, 17:32:31 »
with respect to the question on sensors... don't you need them for SAR anyways these days. Not sure what the C-27j boys are offering, but from what the C-295 crew have posted on c-295.ca, they've got the goods.


I'm not sure how familiar you are with the maritime patrol / ASW mission but i am certain, being a aurora crewmember, that SAR has little use for a magnetic anomaly detection system (MAD), a sonobouy reference system, Acoustic data processor, secure HF RATT/SATCOM system, Air to air interogator.  But that is some of the things that are essential to our mission.  Some of this stuff, as previously mentioned, HAS to be hard wirred into the aircraft.  This would impose a significant weight penalty to a SAR platform not to mention what it would do the radius of action and loiter time.

SAR is to me like an emergency service in the same fashion as ambulances and fire departments.  We don't use ambulances as delivery trucks when there is no emergencies now do we.  The last thing i would like to hear is how the SAR birds are all broken due to transport usage. The airforce also has YFR issues to contend with.

Offline bossi

  • "vae soli, vae victus"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 2,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,761
  • The puck stops here ('War On Ice'!) Fight Smarter!
    • My pix (on MSN)
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #77 on: April 08, 2005, 18:35:03 »
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the maritime patrol / ASW mission but i am certain, being a aurora crewmember, that SAR has little use for a magnetic anomaly detection system (MAD), a sonobouy reference system, Acoustic data processor, secure HF RATT/SATCOM system, Air to air interogator.   But that is some of the things that are essential to our mission.   Some of this stuff, as previously mentioned, HAS to be hard wirred into the aircraft.   This would impose a significant weight penalty to a SAR platform not to mention what it would do the radius of action and loiter time.

SAR is to me like an emergency service in the same fashion as ambulances and fire departments.   We don't use ambulances as delivery trucks when there is no emergencies now do we.   The last thing i would like to hear is how the SAR birds are all broken due to transport usage. The airforce also has YFR issues to contend with.

Don't worry, pal - I once had a friend who edumacated me about Aurora's - I'm not suggesting the SAR birds or Buffalo/Otter replacements would even attempt to mow the ASW lawn!

However, in general, I'm willing to "take a step back" and have a second look at a bunch of stuff ...
For example - sometimes, maybe a "Mickey Mouse" sovereignty patrol might be "enough"
(i.e. a simple eyeball flight up North, while simultaneously restocking some cairns/caches ... or supporting Ranger patrols ...)

And ... I'm just saying this next one as a frustrated onlooker, from the perspective/experience of watching the synchophantic headlong rush to close bases ... when maybe it wasn't so cost effective ...
Maybe, just maybe ... the Air Reserve could operate a small squadron (or two) of "mini-Hercs"
(i.e. in a fantasy world, it would be just jammy if we could afford to increase our Herc fleet by adding Reserve squadron(s) ... but, as long as we're rethinking our defence strategy ... maybe it's okay to rethink some stuff "oustide the track/box" ...)

For example:   Right now, from my simple-minded perspective, a "mini-Herc" squadron in Borden would be much more useful to "Central Command" (within the context of CanadaCom) - as noted earlier, one of the shortcomings of our present rotary wing fleet is range.   So, perhaps some "seized wing" aircraft with longer ranges would be more useful for moving our troops and supplies around, especially in Northern Ontario ...

And, as also noted previously ... "the secondary role of all CF aircraft is SAR" (I'm quoting from memory).
So, if we were to imagine Central Command being more joint in design, then it would be beautiful if it included some "dedicated" mini-Hercs (i.e. an aircraft that could carry more than an emaciated section of troops ... without having preflight drills that include forced bowel/stomach emptying drills to lighten their internal loads ...)

Heck - why do we have to shoot ourselves in the foot all the time ... ?
General Rick has already stated that we should be thinking about buying some medium lift choppers ...
So, why not give some thought to "medium lift" mini-Hercs, too ... ??
Gosh darn it, it would be great if we actually stopped retreating for a change ... and went on the offensive!
We used to have Otters & Caribou's in the inventory (and apparently our Buffalo's need replacement, too), and when we did away with them we virtually erased all memory of their capabilities from our memories ... (i.e. a smaller/cheaper fixed wing aircraft).

I don't want to slag our Reserve Griffon squadrons, but ... heck - we only get to play together in the sandbox once in a blue moon ... when they haven't used up all their flying hours ... and the weather is right ... and the planets are in alignment ...

If the way forward is to be more joint ... then let's go for it.
A "farm team" of mini-Hercs, with transferrable flying/maintenance skills ... to reduce the strain upon our real Hercs ...
Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of "Can Do, instead of Can't Do"!   (chuckle)
« Last Edit: April 08, 2005, 18:38:29 by bossi »
Junior officers and NCOs who neglect to guide the thinking of their men are shirking a command responsibility.
-Feb 1955 Cbt Forces Journal
Those who appreciate true valour should in their daily intercourse set gentleness first and aim to win the love and esteem of others. If you affect valour and act with violence, the world will in the end detest you and look upon you as wild beasts. Of this you should take heed.
-Emperor Meiji: Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors, 4 January 1883

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
  • CH124 Driver
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #78 on: April 08, 2005, 18:48:35 »
HI there sam69   the reason that I used Boxtop 22 as an example was that the new search and rescue choppers have Auto hover. I think thats what it is called .   I   dint know allot about this function I am only a Personal Support Worker .     I had hoped that having the option   might have helped out more in that situation than what the old Labradors could have done . Not that I am insulting the labs efforts please don't be offend I think it was a great chopper for its time but it did not have this function if I recall right ?        Also my final point is if we had a smaller Fixed wing aircraft far the Sar role maby they   could of adapt it for snow landings in rough terrain I am not sure if the Herc can do this . Well   thats all for now have a good day.

karl, what are you trying to get at with auto hover? The Sea King has had it for decades. However, having auto hover will not get you into places you couldn't get into without it, all it does is ease the workload while hovering. You still need to monitor it since it is a mechanical/electrical/computerized system and those systems tend to break at the most inopportune times.

Visibility is a major problem and despite what the general public would like to believe, there are very few airports, if any, in Canada that have the necessary equipment to allow aircraft to auto land. So having an auto hover won't help you much if you can't get back to an airfield with the survivors. Not to mention that if you're in your auto hover, the guy working the hoist still has to be able to see the survivors in order to con you onto a spot to maintain that hover. Being in an auto hover a mile away isn't going to help much so you still need to be able to see the ground which is a problem in the winter when the snow is kicked up by a large SAR helicopter.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #79 on: April 08, 2005, 18:51:21 »
Bossi..i totaly agree with you.   Could we not buy more of the FWSAR bird and have them as dedicated medium tactical airlifters ?   A dedicated SAR fleet would guarantee SAR coverage and a dedicated TAL fleet would garantee that the army would not see its TAL go away for a SAR mission somewhere's else.

What i was refering to in my earlier post is sandhurst01's proposition that the sensors that we could get for SAR are the ones we need for ASW / AsurW.......
« Last Edit: April 09, 2005, 08:46:54 by aesop081 »

Offline kj_gully

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 387
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #80 on: April 09, 2005, 00:42:57 »
Hey, listen, I know youall got the future of the Airforce charted out, but as for me, I sure would like a SAR platform that I can stand upright in to work. That leaves out the CASA. Also, with the experience of the Cormorant purchase, common components is critical to success. This also leaves out the CASA, I think. here's an aricle I just read for youall to peruse



RESOLUTE, Nunavut (CP) - Military planners suggest the future defence of Canada's increasingly busy North will require a combination of high-tech surveillance backed up by old-fashioned boots on the ground.

But the man in charge of that defence says linking those two elements won't work until the Forces solve the same problem that has dogged Canada's overseas military efforts - a lack of enough air transport to move personnel and equipment quickly and efficiently to where they're needed.

"The type of aircraft we need is more in line with the type of aircraft being looked at elsewhere in the Forces," said Col. Normand Couturier, who was flying in the midnight twilight over the unbroken sea ice and rocky islands of the High Arctic on his way to a training exercise with the Canadian Rangers.

The days of the venerable old Twin Otter are coming to an end, he said. A staple of northern flying since the 1960s, the Twin is simply too small and too slow to keep up with the evolution of Canada's northern defence.

"It kind of limits us to what we can do," said Couturier.

Military planners are developing a vision of northern defence that rests on close surveillance of the Arctic with the capability of moving forces up rapidly from the south when they're needed.

Planners suggest that surveillance will rest on three pillars of technology currently being developed or tested: a satellite to monitor Arctic waterways, overflights of the North by an unmanned aircraft, and high-frequency radar at the western and eastern entrances to the Northwest Passage.

Electronic monitoring is the most cost-effective way to keep tabs on an area larger than the entire continent of Europe, said Couturier.

"If you have the right sensors and right surveillance in place, this is not where you need to have large numbers of forces."

The Rangers provide local knowledge and first-response capability to an emergency. But Couturier acknowledges the largely aboriginal reserve units that patrol out of 58 of the North's 65 communities can't be expected to shoulder the entire burden of northern defence.

"As long as we have that reach-back capability to task forces from the south, that's the main thing," he said.

At present, the only military planes stationed in the North are four Twin Otters in Yellowknife. Canada's Hercules military cargo planes, themselves aging, are often busy on international missions.

Ideally, Couturier would like to see the role of the Twin Otters supplanted by an equal number of either C-27 Spartans or Casa 295s. Both planes, although slightly smaller than the Hercules, are being considered by the military, he said.

But something needs to be done to shore up Canada's military presence on its rapidly closing last frontier.

International mining and energy companies - drawn by diamonds, gold, metals and natural gas - are active from Ellesmere Island to the Mackenzie Delta. Thinning ice due to global warming has led to concerns of increased shipping through the Northwest Passage - a waterway most countries consider international waters in defiance of Canada's claim to control over it.

More than 140,000 flights now cross the Arctic every year, a figure that is growing at least five per cent annually. Most of those are international passenger flights. As well, as fishing stocks in southern waters become depleted, fleets are likely to sail further north.

"Natural resources are becoming more and more accessible," said Couturier. "It's important that we maintain sovereignty."

Gen. Paul Hillier, the recently appointed head of the Canadian Forces, is currently assessing the needs of the North as part of an overall defence review.
 

©The Canadian Press, 2005

Offline karl28

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #81 on: April 09, 2005, 02:47:47 »
HI there Inch all I was trying to get at is that I thought it might be able to help  aid in Rescue operations didn't realize all that was involved with the auto hover .      Also thanks for telling me that the sea king has it didn't know that. I thought it was something new for the comerants  . Learn some thing new every day  cheers

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #82 on: April 09, 2005, 07:29:56 »
Hey, listen, I know youall got the future of the Airforce charted out, but as for me, I sure would like a SAR platform that I can stand upright in to work. That leaves out the CASA. Also, with the experience of the Cormorant purchase, common components is critical to success. This also leaves out the CASA, I think.

Hey kj,

I understand your desire for space but, in the world of tight defence budgets, getting you something that you "sure would like" means not getting someone something they "sure would need." It is a zero sum game and we need to focus on getting the required capabilities not just nice to have things. At the end of the day, I don't profess to be a SAR expert nor am I trying to tell you how to do your job. I'm just trying to build a better understanding of the issue and that is why I am participating in this debate.

As for the CASA / C-27J question, I personally have no preference. But I do note that the 295 advertises 6'3" of headroom (see: c-295.ca) which seems adequate to me. As well, I'm not sure what common components the C-27 offers that the 295 does? If you are referring to commonality with the 130J, then it is important to be clear that a) we still don't have 130Js and b) it is not clear that we will necessarily ever have Js (although I admit it is likely).

Cheers,
Sam

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,552
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,540
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #83 on: April 09, 2005, 15:12:03 »
Good comments all around - this is turning into a well thought out debate.

Let me quickly address a few issues and hopefully I may shed a little more light on the issue.

CASA-EADS has raised my ire due mainly to the double-talk that they are trying to spin on the Canadian taxpayer and the boon-doggle that they have caused to the entire FWSAR project.  The SOR for any new FWSAR aircraft has very specific technical issues that must be addressed.  The one that the CASA-EADS propses does not meet that very basic requirement - it must be able to cruise at least 295KIAS (figure taken from memory - no quoting plse).  The CASA bird can't meet this requirement and thus stems the whole reason as to why they think we should establish 3 squadrons of SAR aircraft in the North for that 1%.

This basic cruising speed stems from a reform in the SAR world.  Our geriatric CC-115 Buffalo's cruise at 227KIAS at sea level - so obviously we are not meeting our own requirements at the moment.  This reform is to improve our SAR coverage all across Canada (including the North) for all the reasons already discussed by Sam et al.  CASA's bid is based on the Federal Government's intent to improve SAR coverage to the North - this has already been done by establishing these very basic requirements.

6'3" is not very much when you consider what goes on in the back of our FWSAR aircraft.  What Gully was alluding to is a very important issue for the GIBs.  We carry SKADs, Pumps and Toboggans - all of which are very heavy and cumbersome.  The rear end of the CASA bird does not allow for a grown adult to stand erect across the entire width of the cabin.  If you look at their website - you will see that the cabin is very much sloped on the sides and has a very narrow cabin.  This is not condusive at all to the manual manipulation of all the gear in the back.  CASA touts that it can fit 7 C-130 pallets in its hold.  What it doesn't say is that these pallets are loaded sideways and take up the entire width of the cabin.  The C-27J can fit 3 pallets loaded correctly, and still allow for plenty of room to move with head-room to boot.  In the Buff - we have SAR storage racks that go right up to the cabin ceiling (at least 7') and we still end up putting all of our personal gear in the head!

Final point before I hand this discussion back to you all - all of our SAR squadrons are also Strategic Transport squadrons.  We conduct resupply for the northern communities and we are also mobile repair parties for broken down aircraft anywhere in Canada.  I don't know if the Spartan is quite big enough to transport an intact propellor, but I definately know that the CASA-EADS bird is not a contender.  We are not the USCG or any of the other nations that have ordered the CASA, in the CF every asset we purchase must be able to conduct more than one role - Transport and SAR is our mantra.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Le Adder Noir

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 560
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #84 on: April 09, 2005, 17:37:07 »
My own wee SAR / Tac Pipe dream.....

Manufacturer:   Canadair Aircraft Ltd

Crew/Passengers:   two pilots in ejection seats
Power Plant:   two 1,500 hp Lycoming T-53 turboshaft engines  
Performance:   Max Speed: 321 mph ( 517 km/h) Cruising Speed: 309 mph ( 497 km/h)
 Service Ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,050 m) VTOL Range: 420 mi ( 677 km)
Weights:   Empty: 8,775 lb ( 3,980 kg) Gross VTOL: 12,600 lb ( 5,714 kg)
 Gross STOL: 14,500 lb ( 6,577 kg)  
Dimensions:   Span: 34 ft 8 in ( 10.56 m) Length: 53 ft 7 1/2 in ( 16.34 m)
 Height (wing @ 90 deg): 17 ft 11/2 in (5.22 m) Wing Area: 233 sq ft (21.67 sq m)
Armament:   None but provisions for two 100 gallon (455 litre) drop tanks
Cost:   Unknown




Experience, whether personal or vicarious, is of value to leader and follower alike.  The hard part is using it well -- Adrian Goldsworthy

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #85 on: April 09, 2005, 20:50:57 »
Thanks Z - great reply.

I will need to think on this further.

Sam

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 199,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,854
  • Freespeecher
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #86 on: April 09, 2005, 20:52:52 »
Bit of cross threading here, but surveillance is important both for military reasons and to guide SAR to the site of the crash. A combination of large UAVs like Global Hawk to do the patrols and SB's CL 84 Dynaverts to actually fly in from bases in the far north would seem to cover the bases (Actually, I am partial to the Dynavert as well, but substitute whatever SAR aircraft you like).

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,552
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,540
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #87 on: April 09, 2005, 23:02:33 »
If only it were that easy....

The "S" in SAR is the hard part - if an ELT is broadcasting the crash site location, a UAV could work well in localizing (sp?) the site down to under a mile.

Most times that we lose an aircraft, the ELT is quiet and we can only go on sighting reports and use of the C1A1 Human Eye.  We lost a float plane out West here about 2 months ago - if it weren't for the discovery of one body, we would have been searching a huge area for weeks.  Luckily (for us) we found debris and human remains after only 3 days.  Could a UAV have helped? I don't see why not, but there isn't a surveillance suite that exists which is more accurate than the human eye in all conditions.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Le Adder Noir

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 560
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #88 on: April 10, 2005, 17:24:45 »
More on the dynavert....


It is quite possible to produce a modernized version to cover our SAR and Martime needs as well as gunship models...

Perhaps replacing the tail rotor with a ducted fan ( similar to the mod on the Hughes series of Helos )

Would such an aircraft be usefull in the SAR role?



Experience, whether personal or vicarious, is of value to leader and follower alike.  The hard part is using it well -- Adrian Goldsworthy

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,552
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,540
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #89 on: April 10, 2005, 19:13:00 »
Boeing has been working on this very concept for many years.

V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor - if they can fix the technology and make it safe, giddie-up!!

Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Le Adder Noir

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 560
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #90 on: April 10, 2005, 20:40:22 »
Boeing has been working on the Osprey now for many years...


But the Dynavert was flown in the early 70's and performed very well......

Typical for examples of Canadian Ingenuity...the last remaining CL84 is in Ottawa, as a museum piece.....

Sigh

We could have been using it for the last 30 odd years....


<<Refrains with difficulty from mentioning HMCS Loch Bras Dor and the Bobcat >>>
Experience, whether personal or vicarious, is of value to leader and follower alike.  The hard part is using it well -- Adrian Goldsworthy

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #91 on: April 10, 2005, 20:46:14 »

...the last remaining CL84 is in Ottawa, as a museum piece.....


That is incorrect, the western canada aviation museum at the winnipeg airport has one, it is somewhat disassembled but it is complete.  I tried to attach the pics of it i took but the files are too large to attach here

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #92 on: April 10, 2005, 20:50:18 »
I uploaded the 2 pics i took to the photo gallery in the aircraft section..i will put them here when they have made it into the system.


Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,332
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,002
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #94 on: April 10, 2005, 21:13:01 »
Quote
<<Refrains with difficulty from mentioning HMCS Loch Bras Dor and the Bobcat >>>

Was just HMCS Bras D'Or no Loch in the name.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Le Adder Noir

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 560
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #95 on: April 10, 2005, 21:27:08 »
Aesop thx for the Info and pics

Ex-Dragoon, thx again for the correction
Experience, whether personal or vicarious, is of value to leader and follower alike.  The hard part is using it well -- Adrian Goldsworthy

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #96 on: April 11, 2005, 12:41:02 »
Boeing has been working on the Osprey now for many years...


But the Dynavert was flown in the early 70's and performed very well......

Typical for examples of Canadian Ingenuity...the last remaining CL84 is in Ottawa, as a museum piece.....

Sigh

We could have been using it for the last 30 odd years....


<<Refrains with difficulty from mentioning HMCS Loch Bras Dor and the Bobcat >>>

So why was the Dynavert cancelled (Ottawa didn't want any?)?  And, if everyone is so high on the Osprey despite it's problems (probably rightly so), why doesn't Bombardier haul-out the plans and start shopping it around?  {This isn't meant to sound sarcastic, I really don't know and am curious}
« Last Edit: April 11, 2005, 18:51:52 by I_am_John_Galt »
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #97 on: April 12, 2005, 17:17:06 »
It is my understanding that, despite the very impressive technical advances of the Dynavert, the reality was that it had virtually no internal cargo capacity (the area behind the pilots  largely occupied by the mechanical mixing and wing tilt mechanicals) and therefore generated little military nor commercial interest. As well, limitations in material technologies at the time would have made it very difficult to scale the aircraft up.

Sam

Offline 404SqnAVSTeach

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 96
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #98 on: April 12, 2005, 21:00:39 »
It is my understanding that, despite the very impressive technical advances of the Dynavert, the reality was that it had virtually no internal cargo capacity (the area behind the pilots  largely occupied by the mechanical mixing and wing tilt mechanicals) and therefore generated little military nor commercial interest. As well, limitations in material technologies at the time would have made it very difficult to scale the aircraft up.

Sam

Might explain why the Osprey as a much bigger propellor.  I only knew that the Dynavert did very well at the time.  My understanding was that there was no requirements for it at the time.  The lesson learned in Vietnam were not on paper yet.  Same goes for the Bras D'or.
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

Offline sandhurst91

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 27
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #99 on: April 13, 2005, 16:01:52 »
Question to folks in Ottawa (if, in fact there are any from this thread)... Is anyone planning to be at Cansec? Apparently both contenders are going to be there in force.... wouldn't mind hearing what they're doing or saying?