What's the "western" equivelent to the An-24

Flightcrew of two. Can carry almost four tonnes (8000lb) of cargo in freighter configuration, or seat approximately 30 passengers.

What’s its max payload?

DHC-4A – Max speed 347km/h (187kt), normal cruising speed 293km/h (158kt). Initial rate of climb 1355ft/min. Service ceiling 24,800ft. Range with max payload 390km (210nm), range with max fuel 2105km (1135nm).

How about 2 sheds!

Arthur, srs 2A 748s can carry over 6000kgs – i think the top within our compqny is in the region of 6380? Not sure about those of other operators, or the srs 2B aircraft.

Not that i dislike the Fokkers – have been onboard several, but not flown on one yet.

I have however flown on the AN26, RA26120 last october which was an awesome experiance, up to Billund and onto Lidkoping, then direct back to the UK – an eyeopening evening to say the least, and hopefully i can get another trip onboard one in the near future!

I have seen footage of the F27 display, but with over 300 aircraft built, and at the same time as the Fokker in the DC3 replacement role, similar over 6 tonne cargo capacity (srs 2 748s), and post production large side cargo doors options, i dont think it can be knocked out too easily.

Well, the HS748 is a low-wing design so it’s not an An-24 comparison. But the Fokker production run easily beats that of the Avro: including the license built machines in the US by Fairchild, there were 786 Fokker 27s sold. Production wise it easily knocks out the 748 and Andover combined.

As for max payloads:
HS748 Srs2: 6000kg
F27-500: 6450kg
An-24: 5500kg (over 6000 for the An-26).

Having seen the Andovers from 60sqn at RAF Wildenrath (the only difference between the Andover and the 748 is the rear fuselage, right?) ad nauseum about as much as the Dutch F27 transports: the STOL capabilities are similar, although appearantly the 748 was designed specifically to compete with the Fokker on short-field performance.

I have seen footage of the F27 display, but with over 300 aircraft built, and at the same time as the Fokker in the DC3 replacement role, similar over 6 tonne cargo capacity (srs 2 748s), and post production large side cargo doors options, i dont think it can be knocked out too easily.

Ah but does the Fokker 27 have the same STOL capability as say the HS748? I know that i am slightly biased here…

Yes it has. I can’t finr the length required for landing/take-offs though. I got a book back at my parents place, bu’t not here so can’t look it up. It’s definately STOL though!

Oh, I think so.

Some of our more…ahem… mature colleagues may remember the quite breathtaking display that the F-27 Troopship used to do on the airshow circuit during the 1980s.

The aircraft’s short-field capability was a feature of the routine, if my memory serves me correctly.

Ah but does the Fokker 27 have the same STOL capability as say the HS748? I know that i am slightly biased here…

The F27 is definately the closest equivalent, both are high-wing twin turboprops ment for small airline ops from relatively austere airfields, more or less as DC3/Li-2 replacements. That’s exactly the role the An-24 fulfilled with Aeroflot, and still does with a bunch of Babyflots and other airlines.

The An-26 is an uprated (extra engine power plus a separate APU) variant of the -24 with a rear loading ramp, and compares more to small transports like the G222 or CN235. Definately not yet in the C-130 class, for that you’d be looking at the An-12.

Helicopter-wise, the Soviets always had far more capable heavy lift helos with the Mi-6 and Mi-26 (the latter having the same payload as the aforementioned Hercules).

The C-160 Transall would be a good comparison as well.

As for the Pave Low:

The MH-53M, weighing roughly 50,000 pounds, can carry up to 37 troops or hook load a charge of up to 20,000 pounds.

vs. CH-47 Chinook:

The Chinook can accommodate a wide variety of internal payloads, including vehicles, artillery pieces, 33 to 44 troops, or 24 litters plus two medical attendants. The “D” model can carry up to 26,000 pounds externally.

They’re fairly close actually with a slight advantage going to the Chinook. I’m sure there’s more to each helo that goes beyond the published numbers. One disadvantage of the CH-47 is the complexity of the dual rotor system.

I have to agree with Grey Area. If the mission was to move equipment up and down a river then you’ll have to compare boats, hovercraft, hydrofoils, etc. Each is quite different but they are all capable of completing the mission.

Ah, but if your mission is to move passengers up and down the banks of a river then they are exactly equivalent.

A perfect illustration of my point about differing design philosophies producing different solutions to a given mission profile, if ever there were one. 😀

Fair enough

I just think a helicopter is not much of an equivalent, but a craft designed for a different type of mission and not the missions an AN-24 undertakes.

Like saying a boat is the equivalent of a bus as it carries as many passengers. That may be true… but the two are worlds apart.

I disagree.

Mission concepts and design philosophies vary widely between West and East.

It would be folly to impose artifical restrictions of the type you suggest, as it would render the discussion meaningless.

there are russian helicopter equivalents too.

I think we should stick to fix wing

Hmmm….interesting idea, Whiskey Delta. Can it carry as heavy a load as the Chinook, though?

I suppose there’s always the C-160 Transall. It’s closer in size to the An24/26 and it can certainly operate in rough conditions.

How about the MH-53M Pave Low? It’s a big helo and has air-2-air refueling capability.

The chinook?!

well, it can carry big loads… but I doubt it has the range of a fixed wing aircraft

The C130 is rather larger than the An24, and is more closely equivalent to the An12.

In fact, I’d say that the nearest Western equivalent to the An24 is the CH-47 Chinook rather than any fixed-wing type.

And it’s a Boeing, Sandy! 🙂