Clark Griswold Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 3 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: LM doesn't seem too concerned about competition. It helps that they keep booking multi-year deals with USG. The A400M continues to be plagued with problems (even France has requested the purchase of new C-130Js!). The An-70 is all but dead. The An-178 and KC-390 are very similar, but no NATO countries will ever buy a Russian-built transport. So that leaves the KC-390. Looking at the specs, it is sized exactly like a Herc, and Embraer brings a lot of commercial success to the table. Not much news since their first flight last year. It has better speed and altitude performance, but STOL performance and ruggedness may suffer due to the swept-wing, twin-jet design. Don't forget about Japan: they have 2 new platforms in flight testing and they are now free to export arms. First is the 4-engine, low-wing Kawasaki P-1 designed as a P-3 replacement and P-8 competitor. Next is the 2-engine, high-wing Kawasaki C-2 which is in the A400M size range. They should be intriguing new entrants to the airlift market. You may be right on the An-70 but Antonov is not giving up on the Western Market and competing in 100k payload range, with it's proposed An-188. http://www.janes.com/article/52287/paris-air-show-2015-antonov-reveals-an-188-strategic-transport-aircraft Too bad, the propfans would have been good tech to further develop. It's interesting, with a couple of exceptions, a lot of the new tac airlifter proposals (Y-20, UAC-TA, KC-390, etc..) are going to turbofans and swept wings (not too swept) forgoing the basic STOL design of straight wings with turboprops. I am guessing they have slats to augment flaps for STOL performance, maybe not down to 3500' at max GW high and hot but still shorter field capable and the trade for higher cruise TAS and service ceiling is worth it for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 On 1/28/2016 at 1:31 PM, Clark Griswold said: You may be right on the An-70 but Antonov is not giving up on the Western Market and competing in 100k payload range, with it's proposed An-188. http://www.janes.com/article/52287/paris-air-show-2015-antonov-reveals-an-188-strategic-transport-aircraft Too bad, the propfans would have been good tech to further develop. It's interesting, with a couple of exceptions, a lot of the new tac airlifter proposals (Y-20, UAC-TA, KC-390, etc..) are going to turbofans and swept wings (not too swept) forgoing the basic STOL design of straight wings with turboprops. I am guessing they have slats to augment flaps for STOL performance, maybe not down to 3500' at max GW high and hot but still shorter field capable and the trade for higher cruise TAS and service ceiling is worth it for them. DoD won't even buy planes from Airbus, let alone from the Russians. And Europe has to support Airbus, so Antonov has some serious headwinds from the West. I agree on propfans. They are the last increment between turboprops and ultra-high-bypass turbofans with lots advantages in low-speed thrust and fuel efficiency. Development advances every time fuel prices spike, but then stalls again when they come back down. On the civil side, there is also a PR problem: passengers don't like seeing big spinning things outside their window. I think you're right about the trend in tac airlifter design. Most operators don't spend much time hopping to short, unprepared runways so they would rather have the inflight performance. They can make up some ground with complex high-lift systems, but in my mind the abundant low-speed thrust, quick response, and powered-lift provided by turboprops make a STOL airplane. The twin-engine design puzzles me too since engine-out performance sets operational limitations. Sure you save weight, cost, and the newer turbofans produce a lot of thrust but you lose 50% with an engine out versus 25% with a 4-engine design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 4 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: DoD won't even buy planes from Airbus, let alone from the Russians. And Europe has to support Airbus, so Antonov has some serious headwinds from the West. I agree on propfans. They are the last increment between turboprops and ultra-high-bypass turbofans with lots advantages in low-speed thrust and fuel efficiency. Development advances every time fuel prices spike, but then stalls again when they come back down. On the civil side, there is also a PR problem: passengers don't like seeing big spinning things outside their window. I think you're right about the trend in tac airlifter design. Most operators don't spend much time hopping to short, unprepared runways so they would rather have the inflight performance. They can make up some ground with complex high-lift systems, but in my mind the abundant low-speed thrust, quick response, and powered-lift provided by turboprops make a STOL airplane. The twin-engine design puzzles me too since engine-out performance sets operational limitations. Sure you save weight, cost, and the newer turbofans produce a lot of thrust but you lose 50% with an engine out versus 25% with a 4-engine design. Yup, Antonov has gotten a few sales but after that slight and on-going falling out with Russia, they need some more customers to keep the doors open. On the trend to go to two engines, as with everything follow the money, cheaper to buy, operate & maintain two rather than four. Had An-178 been available when the JCA selection was being made, I think it would have been a serious contender, assuming Antonov could get an American partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Can Ukraine's Biggest Plane Maker Beat Lockheed Martin and the C-130? For military use, no. But the An-178 could apply some price pressure to LM and add more competition for the LM-100J in the commercial market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: Can Ukraine's Biggest Plane Maker Beat Lockheed Martin and the C-130? For military use, no. But the An-178 could apply some price pressure to LM and add more competition for the LM-100J in the commercial market. Maybe but I would not count them out on getting a few other sales here and there for various militaries, they seem to be seeing what the USMC are doing with their Hercs and following suit Looks like a Harvest Hawk An-178, I could not find any example or more information on it but it would not surprise me if they offer to make those hardpoints plummed for AR pods and in one aircraft you can have air mobility, tanker, patrol & strike with what looks like an FMV sensor under the nose, SAR, etc.... jack of all trade, master of none but good enough if you're an air force on a budget. The high end of the price range the oracle of Google says is 70 million a copy, not sure if that includes all the options you would need for the missions I just thought up for one airplane but maybe... Edited March 5, 2016 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/5/2016 at 8:02 PM, Clark Griswold said: Looks like a Harvest Hawk An-178, I could not find any example or more information on it but it would not surprise me if they offer to make those hardpoints plummed for AR pods and in one aircraft you can have air mobility, tanker, patrol & strike with what looks like an FMV sensor under the nose, SAR, etc.... jack of all trade, master of none but good enough if you're an air force on a budget. The high end of the price range the oracle of Google says is 70 million a copy, not sure if that includes all the options you would need for the missions I just thought up for one airplane but maybe... No doubt Antonov is developing the An-178 as a "multi-mission platform" just like Embraer is doing with the KC-390. Just read today that the 2nd KC-390 is nearing first flight and they will be promoting it for the Canadian SAR competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 10 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: No doubt Antonov is developing the An-178 as a "multi-mission platform" just like Embraer is doing with the KC-390. Just read today that the 2nd KC-390 is nearing first flight and they will be promoting it for the Canadian SAR competition. Yep - could be a contender as it could also serve as a tanker if they decide to retire or just augment their tanker the CC-150... Quite a livery... Boeing and Embraer continue to talk about going into business on the KC-390, article a couple of years old but maybe... http://aviationweek.com/blog/boeing-embraers-kc-390-flirting-gets-serious Returning to the venerable Herc, if we could a few more bucks (times a few hundred million) from our rich uncle, a turbofan Herc would be an answer to these new types. Found this proposed variant here, seems like a grab bag of all thing Herc, real and imagined... http://www.combatreform.org/c130.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Found this proposed variant here, seems like a grab bag of all thing Herc, real and imagined... http://www.combatreform.org/c130.htm The number and variety of C-130 mod proposals never ceases to amaze me. This a treasure trove of little-known proposals and a catalog of detailed engineering data on the Credible Sport and HTTB variants. All the engineering work was done on the double-slotted flaps, so why aren't they on the J?! I particularly like the "air cushion landing system." Never seen that one before...certainly a different twist on an amphibious Herc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 5 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: The number and variety of C-130 mod proposals never ceases to amaze me. This a treasure trove of little-known proposals and a catalog of detailed engineering data on the Credible Sport and HTTB variants. All the engineering work was done on the double-slotted flaps, so why aren't they on the J?! I particularly like the "air cushion landing system." Never seen that one before...certainly a different twist on an amphibious Herc. Yep, some old proposals that unfortunately never came to life, as a taxpayer, I'm all about funding science experiments to make cool new toys. On the proposed turbofan Herc, the numbers above the rendering I posted were interesting, it looks like a 380 kts. TAS cruise speed with a 70 kt in the notional mid-mission weight, that is crazy low ref speed, not sure if you would ever need to land it on a postage stamp that would require that but it is impressive they could get a much better TAS for cruise coupled with that kind of STOL performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 18 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Yep, some old proposals that unfortunately never came to life, as a taxpayer, I'm all about funding science experiments to make cool new toys. On the proposed turbofan Herc, the numbers above the rendering I posted were interesting, it looks like a 380 kts. TAS cruise speed with a 70 kt in the notional mid-mission weight, that is crazy low ref speed, not sure if you would ever need to land it on a postage stamp that would require that but it is impressive they could get a much better TAS for cruise coupled with that kind of STOL performance. The wing is still straight with an even higher aspect ratio, so it wouldn't reach transonic cruise speeds. Instead, the designers opted for much improved low-speed capability with the augmented lift system. It's definitely an internally blown flap system (vs externally blown like the YC-15 or C-17) to drop the stall speed that much. Very effective system, but also complex. The next best thing is some big props moving massive amounts of air over the wings and flaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 8 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: The wing is still straight with an even higher aspect ratio, so it wouldn't reach transonic cruise speeds. Instead, the designers opted for much improved low-speed capability with the augmented lift system. It's definitely an internally blown flap system (vs externally blown like the YC-15 or C-17) to drop the stall speed that much. Very effective system, but also complex. The next best thing is some big props moving massive amounts of air over the wings and flaps. Yup The A400 advertises 0.68-0.72 cruise and still operate on a 3500' runway, if a Next Gen Herc gets funded, a little sweep in the wing and advanced props / propfans might be the best mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Retractable Floats Proposed For Lockheed C-130 Amphibian http://aviationweek.com/defense/retractable-floats-proposed-lockheed-c-130-amphibian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disregard Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Can't be that serious... "The company has tested the concept with a one-sixth-scale model of a Cessna Caravan utility aircraft and previously worked with Boeing on applying the idea to the C-17 Globemaster." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Disregard said: Can't be that serious... "The company has tested the concept with a one-sixth-scale model of a Cessna Caravan utility aircraft and previously worked with Boeing on applying the idea to the C-17 Globemaster." Yeah that seems a tad out there, not technically impossible, but would cost between a lot and a freakin' lot of money to develop that for the 17, once again though seaplanes are cool enough that as a taxpayer I am all for it... As to a 130 Amphibian, the float plane (even with retractable floats) just seems impractical compared to a hull in the water design. Not that I would not like to see a J model Herc Amphibian but if we were serious about this, seems like the Aussies and Kiwis are though, article here on NZ expressing some interest in the Chinese AT600, we (US, Australia, NZ, India, etc...) should look at the Japanese US-2 rather than developing an amphibian Herc Seems like most of the heavy lifting has been done and it uses some common systems, principally the AE2100 family of motors and similar Dowty props. I don't know of any specific requirement other than it would be pure awesomeness to fly but that is enough for me. Edited March 21, 2016 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 MC-130J with winglets spotted at KCEW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 4 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: MC-130J with winglets spotted at KCEW. Nice. Found this from LM on the winglets and other structural projects, 1-3% for J models in fuel savings, older Hercs would probably benefit more. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2012HOC-Presentations/Wednesday/Wed%201600%20Fuel%20Efficiency%20Initiatives-Kyle%20Smith.pdf Another article on 130 winglets and ones for the 5. http://aviationweek.com/awin/lockheed-developing-winglets-c-130-c-5 C-27J got them also last year. http://www.janes.com/article/53325/alenia-completes-trials-of-winglet-fitted-c-27j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) I would put my money on "microvanes" for more drag reduction, less weight, and fewer integration headaches...but winglets are sexier. Here is a good summary of all the drag reduction initiatives in work at LM, as of 2012. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=91 Edited March 30, 2016 by HerkPerfMan spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 On 3/30/2016 at 5:43 PM, HerkPerfMan said: I would put my money on "microvanes" for more drag reduction, less weight, and fewer integration headaches...but winglets are sexier. Here is a good summary of all the drag reduction initiatives in work at LM, as of 2012. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=91 Probably so. Continuing the discussion of Herc variants or derivatives, found the L400 on Codeone's website. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=4686 About 20% bigger than the C-27J so it may have been a smidge too big for the JCA requirements or at that size with two engines not able to meet the short field requirements but would have been interesting to see LM enter a J model version of this for the JCA program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) On 4/2/2016 at 11:58 PM, Clark Griswold said: About 20% bigger than the C-27J so it may have been a smidge too big for the JCA requirements or at that size with two engines not able to meet the short field requirements but would have been interesting to see LM enter a J model version of this for the JCA program. LM ended up partnering with Alenia on the C-27J briefly around the time of the JCA program, rather than build a twin-engine "mini Herc." Snow Aviation developed some interesting mod packages for legacy C-130s but never signed any customers. They were trying to compete with the J by offering performance and avionics upgrades (referred to as "C-130M") as an alternative to fleet recapitalization with Js. Snow had a C-130A that they had a lot of fun with - they were the first to fly with the 8-blade props (NP2000). Snow developed a wingtip fuel tank too as a replacement for the underwing tanks. It had many advantages in lift distribution, aileron effectiveness, and stall delay. Never made it past flight testing. Edited April 4, 2016 by HerkPerfMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 31 minutes ago, HerkPerfMan said: Snow Aviation developed some interesting mod packages for legacy C-130s but never signed any customers. They were trying to compete with the J by offering performance and avionics upgrades (referred to as "C-130M") as an alternative to fleet recapitalization with Js. Snow had a C-130A that they had a lot of fun with - they were the first to fly with the 8-blade props (NP2000). Had never heard of Snow Aviation. Google brought up some interesting info, one of many links below. So the guy basically wanted to sell C-130 upgrades as an alternative to buying the J, but seems like after ten+ years, they couldn't make it happen. Primarily due to the fact they were good engineers and lousy business people. http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2011/12/09/snow-aviation-owner-pledges-to-rise.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Blue said: Had never heard of Snow Aviation. Google brought up some interesting info, one of many links below. So the guy basically wanted to sell C-130 upgrades as an alternative to buying the J, but seems like after ten+ years, they couldn't make it happen. Primarily due to the fact they were good engineers and lousy business people. That about sums it up. They had several good proposals and the technical capability to back it up, but couldn't get traction. LM's competing resources and friends in high places probably had something to do with it as well. I'm not sure the current status of their C-130A...it may be beer cans by now. In the '80s, it appears Lockheed was enamored with the three-hole design after the L-1011 TriStar design. From the same link that Clark posted, I was pleased to see this photo of yet another Herc variant for the Navy with 3 turbofans replacing the 4 turboprops. I remember seeing this design previously but not in the public domain. The ECX-130 (and KCX-130 for the tanker variant) had a completely redesigned aft body with a T-tail, similar to the C-141. But they left the nose exactly the same. This would have been an interesting sight, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 3 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: That about sums it up. They had several good proposals and the technical capability to back it up, but couldn't get traction. LM's competing resources and friends in high places probably had something to do with it as well. I'm not sure the current status of their C-130A...it may be beer cans by now. Hopefully not and very interesting concept Jet Herc. Not too much seems to be out there about the Fat Herc XL proposal from a few years ago: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lockheed-martin-unveils-wider-larger-c-130xl-to-fight-a400m-316314/ Did ever go beyond a few scant details or was a formal pitch made to the AF or a foreign customer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 17 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Did ever go beyond a few scant details or was a formal pitch made to the AF or a foreign customer? I don't think any of the "XL" or "wide body" designs ever got past the study phase since there was never a formal requirement for USAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 5 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: I don't think any of the "XL" or "wide body" designs ever got past the study phase since there was never a formal requirement for USAF. Too bad - looks like they proposed keeping the same wing and I always wondered what they thought the STOL performance of it would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 On 4/5/2016 at 4:03 PM, Clark Griswold said: Too bad - looks like they proposed keeping the same wing and I always wondered what they thought the STOL performance of it would have been. Probably the same wing planform and area, but with improved flaps, slats or drooped leading edge to target equivalent STOL performance at higher gross weights. More photos for the MC-130J with winglets at Eglin. The short description also mentions a Lift Distribution Control System, which was described in several of the LM fuel efficiency papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now