Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,004
- Points
- 1,160
Ostrozac said:
Plus, the fact that the company last July announced a two year delay in its certification probably didn't help any.
Plus, the fact that the company last July announced a two year delay in its certification probably didn't help any.
- Reaction score
- 1,783
- Points
- 1,060
RaceAddict said:
What is the performance benefit of a C-27 over the C-130?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the C-27's soft field performance is worse than the C-130's. Can anyone confirm that?
Did not the USAF rid themselves of the C-27 due to costs?
Does anyone know what the takeoff distances are? I pulled 2100ft for the C-27 and 3127 for the C-130 off the internet
It appears, according to the news this morning, that Lockheed Martin never submitted a bid, but Embraer did. Alenia and Airbus were the only other bidders. Looks like the C-130J is out, but the KC-390 is a go, along with the C-27J and CN-295. It's a bit of a surprise for a lot of people I'm sure.
RaceAddict
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 580
From a flightglobal.com article published last month:
Ok... but when, in the last decade or two, has any large aircraft been delivered on time?
Ok... but when, in the last decade or two, has any large aircraft been delivered on time?
Dimsum said:
The C-17 had a troubled development and was nearly cancelled a number of times in the 1990s.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/12/business/pentagon-warns-mcdonnell-it-may-cancel-c-17-program.html
The Canadian purchase of the C-17 is pretty much the exact opposite of the KC-390. We bought the C-17 at the end of its production cycle, years after all developmental issues had been solved. If we buy the KC-390 it will be a purchase of a developmental aircraft at the start of its production. There are risks and benefits to both apporaches but if the goal is to replace an old fleet(s) quickly buying a developmental aircraft is not a good way to go.
There are risks and benefits to both apporaches but if the goal is to replace an old fleet(s) quickly buying a developmental aircraft is not a good way to go.
[/quote]
I have been non-active since the turn of the century. Renewing the SAR fleet was becoming a priority topic then. Unless our current fleet is actually grounded or arguably about to be grounded as unsafe a delay of even 24 months is totally acceptable. A properly written contract would contain penalties if the aircraft were not delivered on time. These penalties can be tailored around the refurbishing costs of our current aircraft (including replacing engines on the DH5 {Viking would be delighted to help]) so it is a no-lose proposition if and again I emphasize IF, the KC-390 best suits our needs. On paper it looks far superior: it has range, lift, loiter time before re-fueling, and the speed to actually get to there from here sometime before next week. Handling, short field performance, cold weather capability and other task related criteria should but probably won't be the dominant factor.
[/quote]
I have been non-active since the turn of the century. Renewing the SAR fleet was becoming a priority topic then. Unless our current fleet is actually grounded or arguably about to be grounded as unsafe a delay of even 24 months is totally acceptable. A properly written contract would contain penalties if the aircraft were not delivered on time. These penalties can be tailored around the refurbishing costs of our current aircraft (including replacing engines on the DH5 {Viking would be delighted to help]) so it is a no-lose proposition if and again I emphasize IF, the KC-390 best suits our needs. On paper it looks far superior: it has range, lift, loiter time before re-fueling, and the speed to actually get to there from here sometime before next week. Handling, short field performance, cold weather capability and other task related criteria should but probably won't be the dominant factor.
YZT580 said:
I have no opinion of which aircraft we should buy. However, buying a developmental aircraft from a yet to be developed production line is riskier from both a technical and schedule point view. The question to those making the decision is whether the benefit is worth the risk.
RaceAddict
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 580
Dimsum said:
I was talking about the delivery of a brand new aircraft...
The C-17 was first ordered in 1985 with delivery scheduled for 1990. First flight (not delivery) was in 1991 and introduction into service was 1995.
and flight crews are unanimous that the end product justified the delays. Its a good airplane. Give the same timeline to Embraer and you have entry into service in 2018/19. They have enough hours now to be able to give a reasonable guarantee of performance and Embraer is no rookie at bringing new aircraft to market. If the product is good and affordable and is the best one out there to meet our requirements then wait. I admit that there are a lot of if's in that statement but the competition are all 40 year old airframes that have been updated. You might just as well sole source a contract to Viking to rebuild the buffalo or to bombardier to come up with a ramp for the Q400. At least then the jobs would stay in Canada and goodness knows Toronto in particular could use the cash to try and make up for 15 years of liberal spending.
- Reaction score
- 8,490
- Points
- 1,160
YZT580 said:
You could make much the same argument for the Bombardier C-series...... Bombardier has a lot of experience building aircraft and bringing developmental craft on line. And yet they seem to be struggling.
Bombardier ran into difficulty trying to integrate new technology. The 390 does not require cutting edge fabrication so, provided their pause is not because of any huge design flaws, it should be good to go as scheduled. On another note though, assuming the purchase of one of the other two for a moment, what would be the best allocation of assets? Should Comox and Trenton remain as primary centres or should the aircraft be stationed elsewhere? Do you propose a purchase mix of say a fleet of medium helicopters for Comox and fix wing elsewhere? What would be best for us?
- Reaction score
- 8,490
- Points
- 1,160
My view is that for the RCAF the primary focus of any aircraft, other than fighters and bombers (and I will include the LRPAs in the latter category) should be on transport. Search and Rescue should be a secondary function on which the aircraft can be employed.
The SAR functionality of a modern transport aircraft is/could-be/should-be enhanced by greater capabilities in low level navigation and optics in all aircraft, unlike an old Dakota with someone hanging out the hatch spotting the ground.
I would opt for the C27 if it is truly half-a-herc. If it isn't then I would have added more Hercs with good low-level, night navigation, eo/ir systems. And added more Chinooks and/or Cormorants to the fleet.
The SAR functionality of a modern transport aircraft is/could-be/should-be enhanced by greater capabilities in low level navigation and optics in all aircraft, unlike an old Dakota with someone hanging out the hatch spotting the ground.
I would opt for the C27 if it is truly half-a-herc. If it isn't then I would have added more Hercs with good low-level, night navigation, eo/ir systems. And added more Chinooks and/or Cormorants to the fleet.
Agree with your comments re: transport Chris. But if you are truly after that capability than only the C130 (in current production) and the 390 would suit. Neither of the other two candidates have sufficient range to be considered an effective transport. At full gross (25000 lb load) the Spartan can only manage 1100nm and change while the 295 needs refueling after on 700nm with 22000 lb of useful load. Those are pathetic numbers for a country of our size.
- Reaction score
- 363
- Points
- 880
Transporting cargo is a second line of tasking for SAR squadrons. They don't really do it. We have dedicated lift in the MAG community in the form of J-Hercs, C-17s, Airbus and Twotter. It is very rare that a dedicated SAR squadron will get tasked by 1 CAD to transport cargo - let the trash hauler units take care of that. The C-130 is overkill for SAR and really too big to be an effective platform in any sort of dynamic environment.
quadrapiper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 521
- Points
- 840
Messing about in fjords and among mountains in poor weather?Ditch said:
- Reaction score
- 363
- Points
- 880
That's a good example. I've worked below cloud cover - at 500' doing a shore crawl in a Fjord. There's no way a Herc could turn in that - can't see through clouds either.quadrapiper said:
Here's my one main concern about the 390 - ok maybe I have a few:
1) Embrarer has a spotty serviceability record - Air Canada has excess of the jungle jet so that they have extras to fill in when the birds are broken; and
2) The 390 is a turbo-fan - it lacks the instantaneous power that a turbo-prop has. It's thrust curve will limit the low end throttle response that is required down low and slow.
Admittedly my first concern is not anecdotal - in that I am basing it on previous maintenance woes. My second concern is related to all turbo-fan aircraft - props are far superior when it comes to low speed acceleration and reaction. This is based on experience - I've flown both.
