SchorschThe webpage I got the figure from was a canadian page that was comparing the costs of leasing transport aircraft. The Il-76 worked out significantly cheaper… no surprise… why else would anyone in the west actually use it if it wasn’t cheaper?
The cost for development of the Il-76 have been paid by the Soviet tax payer. What is out for leasing is mostly the remnants of that and some clever people make a lot of money with that. The bill is partly paid by someone else.
What you need to consider are the procurement costs of a new built Il-76, cost for engine and airframe maintenance in a Western economic environment (high labor cost), expected total lifetime of one aircraft, general availability (rate of AoG), and that all over an expected service time of 30 years. Most of the systems of the Il-76 are outdated, most significantly the engines. An operator buying it now might have a problem in 20 years organizing new-built spares.
Regarding the comments you made above about the YC-14 I would also add in addition to reducing cruise efficiency the position of the engines makes maintainence harder too. The Ukrainians analysed their use of the An-72 and found they rarely used its short takeoff capability so they ended up looking at redesigning the An-72 with podded underwing engines and found that it would make it easier and cheaper to operate and the loss of performance in short landings was not a huge problem.
That is the issue always present for tactical transports. 98% of their time they will take off and land from airports suitable for normal aircraft. Only 2% will use the STOL capability, if at all. 100% of the time the aircraft flies with its high OEW, oversized engines and miserable cruise performance. When making the field performance requirements tougher (going from 600m down to 100m –> equals VTOL) you get a helicopter, of which even the 21st century newest models do compare so miserably bad in payload-range versus cost against a 1950 piston engined transport.
That is the reason Embrear sees a market for a reduced field performance tactical airlifter.
SchorschDepends on what missions are asked for.
Boeing designed and built Boeing 747-400ER to satisfy a single order for 6 planes – the Qantas ones.
Qantas wanted 747-400ER for the MEL-LAX route. 12 800 km, and LAX-MEL is westwards – 747-400 non-ER has payload-range restrictions.
Qantas 380-841 would enter into service on the same MEL-LAX, because SYD-LAX is comfortable for 747, but even 747-400ER still struggles on MEL-LAX.
SQ wants to use A380-841 on HKG-SFO – 11 200 km. SQ was worried that A380 would struggle with payload-range on the westbound side nevertheless. Now that A380 is flying SIN-SYD, they discovered that the fuel burn is several % better than Airbus promised – it would also be better on SIN-LHR and SFO-HKG…
EK plans flying A380 DXB-JFK (11 000 km).
There are a number of routes now flown by A340-500 and B777-200LR. EK has DXB-GRU (12 200 km). PIA has KHI-JFK (11 700 km). Indian has JFK-BOM (12 500 km). Singapore has A340-500 struggling on SIN-LAX (14100 km) and SIN-EWR (15 400 km).
Are there any attractive routes which are slightly beyond the range of the now A380 and which have sufficiently large demand to fill A380-800 rather than A340-500 or B777-200LR?
Both engine options for the A380-800 yield a range of 8000nm with a normal passenger payload. Now, the OEW for airlines is normally higher, the passenger payload is a bit lower (see SQ with 490 seats instead of 555 initially assumed). In the end, I would say that close to 8000nm is a safe range. The Airbus’ charts for range-payload include bulk freight and some reserve for OEW (mandatory fuel reserves are always included). There is always the option to reduce flight Mach number a tiny bit (.84 instead of .85) and get another ~100 to 200nm of range for it.
I guess these prestigious long range routes are not really for A380. Even if the general demand is present, you need to fill one aircraft that takes off at one time of the day. In the initial phase of operation any airline want to fly routes that can be covered by other aircraft, too, so they can kick in a B747-400 if necessary and pay the excess 100 passengers a drink as they have to stay on the ground (if A380 is fully booked).
SchorschThat’s probably the old Soviet “AWACS”, the Tu-126 he’s thinking about. The radar operators were said to have problems with noise and vibration when sitting in the centre of the the fuselage, directly across from the engines and their props! Also the radiation from the “Liana” main radar and internal electronics was said to cause premature baldness and cancer among the crew as well… not a very comfortable aircraft.
I wonder was there ever a problem with excessive radiation from the radars on the E-3 or the A-50?:confused:
Although we may dispute many aviation topics, I guess it is safe to say that microelectronics were a bit more advanced in the Western world than in the Soviet Union in the 1960s. The Tu-126 was a technical failure, on the other hand there were no many other airframes around. The desire for powerful radar and long endurance off the base increases the required size of the airframe.
SchorschWhat are the next A380 models Airbus would build?
Boeing 747-100 entered into service in January 1970. In June 1971, KLM started service of Boeing 747-200, with increased MTOW.
Douglas DC-10-10 entered into service in August 1971. In 1972, Douglas started delivering DC-10-40 and DC-10-30, with new wing, extra middle leg and increased MTOW.
Boeing 707-320 came out not very long after Boeing 707-120.
How much growth capacity is built into the Airbus 380-841?
The MTOW is 569 tons. There are mentions of MTOW like 590 tons, 625 tons, 650 tons…
Airbus 340-600HGW has MTOW of 380 tons and wing area like, 427 square metres. Which is barely more than half the 845 square metre wing area of A380.
If you want to build an A380 model whose wing loading, stall speed and runway length is similar to A340-600HGW, you get MTOW of about 750 tons!
So, what would be the next A380 models? And when would Airbus be ready to deliver them?
Different than B747-100 or early DC-10 the A380-800 already can fly all missions currently asked for. The B747-100 had a range/payload problem due to low MTOW and the mediocre performance of early JT9D engines. Still it was the longest range aircraft and many airlines traded payload for range.
Anyways, the general aerodynamic configuration allows for some growth, which is also a disadvantage for current operators. First thing we’ll may see is a weight increase to ~590t (equals A380F initial specifications) as this is potentially already covered by current design. For a potential -900 (which launch I don’t see before 2010) the MTOW might increase to a level of 620t to prevent big penalties in range. Afterwards a further increase would require substantial re-design and hence investment. The A380 is designed to cover the market for the next 25 years.
Always remember: big aircraft are not like small aircraft and problems are a quadratic function of weight.
SchorschYou’re right, of course, and I wasn’t much serious (duh!) about it.
But I note that the USAF has more than “merely” F-16s ou F-15s (or F-22s, or F-35s) to refuel. They will also have C-17 and B-2s to refuel, isn’t the KC-X a bit “too short” to refuel them ?
And, by the way, the Euro will have their A-400M which has itself a big fuel capacity, and therefore will need a big refueler to feed it. Will the A-330 be enough for that ?
The A330 is sufficient to do that. Most of the time the A400M will land and refuel on ground. Air refueling is expensive and should only be considered in times of crisis or for tactical aircraft. It seems sometimes that it is heritage in the USAF that any aircraft gets air refueled all the time.
SchorschAt $60 million that makes the Il-76MF look pretty good.
It does. But I doubt that life time costs will be so much better. After all, the run for Russian transport hardware is limited, although you obviously get lots of metal for small money.
The prices quoted for Russian hardware are often from manufacturer, while the prices above are often from actually executed contracts (so include all the nasty details).
SchorschYou are correct, it´s almost impossible for Boeing to loose this one.
But reading that Washington Times article and imagining the countless Billions that the European Countries have spent on Viper´s, Hornet´s, Hercules, Starfighters, Phantom´s, Sentry´s, etc, etc, etc… 😡
The USA has a considerable trade deficit with the European Union and generally Europe owes the USA for guaranteeing stability and peace in Europe (with reduced importance in the last years though). The deals of 1950s, 60s and 70s were made exactly in this light, especially in Germany.
The key word is trade on equal terms. Europe and USA should check which part of the others inventory is useful for theirs. The A330-200 MRTT is an option, though I would opt for the B767 and top it up by B777. The European product the USAF may find useful is the A400M and potentially even the Eurofighter.
SchorschMight wanna recheck your numbers 😉
YC-14
Span: 129 ft
Length: 131 ft
Empty Weight: 117,500 lbs (operating empty)
Gross Weight: 170,000 lbs STOL 251,000 lbs Normal takeoff
Payload: 27,000 lbs STOL 81,000 lbs Normal takeoff
Range: 5134 km
Speed: 449 mph cruise.A400
Span: 137.75
Length: 135.8
Empty Weight:
Gross Weight: 244,378 lbs
Payload: 55,115 lbs
Range: 4,000 km with max payload.
What that supposed to tell me? That the YC-14 has better overall performance than the A400M. One must be very very convinced by the stars&stripes printed on the YC-14’s fuselage to truly believe it. Your A400M numbers are seriously outdated.
First, the YC-14 was a dedicated prototype just as the YF-16. Like with the YF-16, many people confuse the performance of the Y-model with that of the production model (many sources still use YF-16 EW as reference for F-16A OEW, despite the 1.5t difference). Safe to say that the production model will have a 5 to 10% jump in OEW.
The YC-14 was designed to bring a payload of 12t over 500nm, land in 600m, and fly back. That is a tough requirement. The consequence is that for normal missions the weights can be increased. The disadvantage of take-off optimized aerodynamic configuration comes in cruise. The YC-14 shows what disadvantages come with that mission: in STOL-mode the useful load (fuel&payload) is only 52klbs, or of the 170lbs gross weight 70% are the aircraft itself. If such a solution is attempted again, it would be useful to scratch some requirements and come along with a more balanced design. One must keep in mind that a YC-14 is supposed to do a mission a helicopter would be doing else, and that such an aircraft should not waste a pound on strategic transport considerations.
You quote a payload of 25t for the A400M when the max payload is 37t. The A400M has a normal TOW of more like 293klbs, range with 25t more in the region of 5500km.
SchorschDoes anyone know prices paid for C-130J, A400M or C-17?
I’ve got from Wikipedia:
C-17: 260 Million USD (2007 price base)
A400M: 100 Million EUR (no price base given)
SchorschReminds me of an old joke. To modify the joke in this respect… The American B-52s have been serving continuously since the early 50s. Why that plane right there was built in 1960… it has only had 4 new wings and 3 new fuselages fitted… 🙂
While the currently operating B-52H are all from 59 to 61. Still the B-52 was plagued by structural fatigue issues (can’t say if all models to the same extent). The questions remains on how the Soviets deployed their Tu-95 and how many hours actually were flown. There are examples of aircraft that virtually were decommissioned over night, for example the Vickers Valiant.
SchorschThat is exactly it, it is almost certain that the only airframes still flying are the ones new built from 1981. This BS about Bears being 50 years old really needs to be put to bed.
Considering the usually limited service life built into military aircraft in general and Russian aircraft in particular (please refrain from taking the An-2 as opposite example, we are talking about large aircraft), I would also doubt that any currently operating aircraft was built in the early 1950s. The special problems due to sound fatigue and vibrations also play a key role. Most likely is that they built new aircraft because the old were falling apart.
SchorschOn the other hand, i think that SFERRIN might have hit the Jackpot. The good old YC-14 was a very decent design;)
No doubt about that. I would supplement such an “ESTOL” aircraft with an aircraft like the A400M, cover the top with C-17 and leave the airport-2-airport palette hauler job to an A330- or B777-based MRTT.
That gives you:
YC-14: small tactical lifter with exceptional short field capability
A400M: medium sized tactical/strategical lifter with very good capability
C-17A: large sized strategical lifter with very good capability
B777-MRTT: large strategical lifter for established supply chains
SchorschLet me put on thing straight: I don’t think that American industry has any problems in delivering an aircraft that matches the A400M in capability. I wouldn’t necessarily say they make it so much better, but applying the same requirements will generally result in a similar equally well designed aircraft. No, my doubt is on the USAF and USMC planners, primarily those of the USAF.
The problem that might occur is that requirements for an C-130 replacement are set so tight and high, that only a ambitious high-tech solution can fulfill it. Well, great news for the engineers, but ambitious high-tech solutions always come with a huge, sometimes underestimated price tag. On other comparable occasions we have seen excessive delays, cost overruns and sometimes – when Congress was in bad mood – finally the cancellation and write-off of billions (see Comanche, B-2, V-22, F-22, SSN-21). On all occasions it not just the usual overruns, but excessive and threatening delays and cost explosion. There are examples were it worked satisfactory, while any technical program has its share of issues (the F/A-18E/F is an example, the C-130J probably also). All the troubled programs have one in common: they were very very ambitious.
Now, if the USAF pursues with its stealthy transonic vertical transport aircraft able lifting 20t out of a dustbin, it might end up having spent billions, no aircraft at hand (because was canceled) and capabilities vanishing (when the C-5A retire and some more C-130 go into the desert, the airlift problem of the USAF becomes even tougher). Then the A400M might appear as useful, affordable and fitting solution. Especially, when they buy it “unchanged” with industrial compensation from Europe (let’s say France and Germany get themselves some F-35), it comes without R&D overhead and already operationally tested.
That is true “trade”: advantage for both.
SchorschLike the C-17 the A400M suffers from some very practical problems. Both stand at an orderbook of appr. 200 units. Minimum rate is between 15 and 30 frames a year. Consequently, the line of the A400M might close 2015.
A possibility would be to adapt the A400M as civil transport with enlarged fuselage. Taking away the soft field capability (due to higher weight with similar wing), it still has unbeatably low requirements for runway and can be unloaden using simple equipment.
SchorschI doubt if there are any Bears flying that have ’50 years in service’.
Although it is a 50-year old design, most of the current Tu-95MS and Tu-142’s in RusAF service are relatively young airframes – having been built in the 1980’s.
As such, they are probably younger than the US B-52.
Ken
While their 1st generation swept wing shows that the Soviets did not try to truly modernize their aircraft. The Bear is built with some strangeness included. It is kept because the Soviets never been able to develop a reasonable subsonic long range bomber.
Noise as disadvantage? I guess only when on ASW missions and the submarine can actually hear that the overflying aircraft is a Bear and not an Orion. A modern sonar should be able to tell the difference.
Sign In
