Spectre130Going personal in a hope to avoid looking into details seriously does speak volumes. When I remember well, it was a self-claimed mechanic, who did dispute the expertise of Airbus to built the A400M for tactical landing needs.
That is right, I question how well Airbus can build a tactical aircraft. That can make an airline that last half as long as Boeing, will they make an tactical airlifter that lasts only half as long as a C-130 or An-12?
Adding FBW to a system is an easy thing…making that airplane be able to take a 2g landing time, after time, after time without the wings falling off…now, that is another thing…
The A400M is already a success in sales, now lets see if it will go down in history like the great planes that Antonov and Lockheed have built in the past. Only time will tell if she goes down in the books as a hero or a lemon… I am betting on the the lemon, hoping for the hero.
Spectre130I did realise your remarks in red about H_K a little bit late. Ask real crew members about that. You are not looking in that data seriously to stay polite.
The comparison was about the C-160 and the C-130E at hand in the 60s. To be taken seriously, you have to look into the data and reports about the C-160 seriously. Maybe working along-side a C-130 does not make someone an expert about tactical transports?!
If you do not believe me on what I have done…it matters not to me, I know my accomplishments… I do not need to be drilled by someone who has never had the responsibility…and your “opportunities to get first hand flight experiences and opinions with/from different crews” does not strike me as anyone who actually knows what they are talking about…
Sens, please go back into your flight sim world…
To think that “airbus” has gained more knowledge from the C-160…to put in the A400M then Antonov has gotten from most of its aircraft to put into the An-70 is simply crazy. Antonov has made EVERY aircraft they have ever maid tough as nails…and well Airbus makes things nice and sweet.
Again, I did not enter this thread to pick a fight with the C-160 (seems every time someone says anything bad about a C-160, the french and germans go bonkers and try to pick a fight … naming all the great things the poor selling airplane had done) another thing Sens… To believe for one second that the C-160 was not as good of a seller as the C-130 was…because “Lockheed had a better marketing campaign” is simply delusional.
But, marketing is a player in this discussion. There will not be a fly off between the An-70 and the A400M, sad in a way but Nations simply just do not do much of that anymore. There is a huge bias against Russia and the Ukraine regarding aircraft which is mind-boggling knowing their experience with tactical airlift. On paper- because for now (unless you plug them into Sens’s FlightSim X) that is where the A400M is… if you compare the An-70 and the A400M, there is no question as to what the better plane is. Antonov is better then the A400M in just about every category…including price.
Just like every military contract nowadays…politics is involved.
I was just voicing my opinion that the An-70 is a damn fine plane and it will be a shame not to see her fly.
Spectre130Try hard to answer that and you will find out. I am not so shure that you did work as a mechanic with the C-130. At least when you gave units with “Spectre”, which had nothing to do with combat landings.
In the meanwhile you can try that. No joke, just to remind you about nothing new in aircraft design. The test of the real thing is just to verify if the correct parameters were set and no problems do spring-off assembly. Long before the real thing did fly like the A-380 or A400M crews of different countries tried it in the Sim before.
Sens, I gave you all the units I was involved with (not including deployed units) These listed were both as a mechanic and as a Flight Engineer, if you look real hard, yes, there is the AC-130 unit, but all the rest are tactical airlift units… Thanks for following along, now go pick a fight with someone else.
why are you trying so hard to pick a fight with me Sans, you offer nothing in return.
The sim is useful, but they still never fully know how a plane reacts to real situations…as sim before the plane flies will always be a guess…that is why after the plane flies for the first time there is still a LONG testing phase. Best guess is not good enough
Also, back to tactical aircraft…sometimes less tech is better. Think about breaking in the field.
Edit:
Are you serious? This is part of your argument? This is a video game ( http://flyawaysimulation.com/article1655.html )
Spectre130First off, I want to apologize for being abrupt. It was not my intention. I was honestly just trying to respond to the thread about the A400M vs the An-70. I mean no disrespect to any whom I may have offended… that being said…
My understanding has always been that the Transall is the superior tactical aircraft and also better for hauling low density payloads. Meanwhile, the Herc is the better heavy load hauler or “near-strategic” aircraft. I would have to disagree with this…superior how? I said before that a slower speed does not mean that it is better…
The C-130 is not a “near strategic” plane…just because it does have some range and the USAF shot itself in the foot by not filling the gap between the C-141 (C-17) and the C-130 means that the planes has been used for a while for missions that it was never intended nor was it suited to do… she is still a Tactical aircraft through and through.I don’t claim to have flying experience, but at the same time I’m not “blinded” by years of experience on one type. 😉 Contrary to some claims on this thread, the Transall DOES offer some advantages:
Again, I am sorry that I came across as abrupt and in your face type of attitude… Not my intention, but I also do have the experience to back this up, not just numbers out of Jane’s and Wikipedia
– Better soft/rough field performance (bogie undercarriage leading to lower ground pressure, lower tire pressure, better shock absorbers)
Who is to say it is better, this is an opinion? The C-130 is unmatched in soft dirt and the C-130 landing gear was designed for that purpose, the forward back wheels will get stuck less than a side by side because the second is offered traction from the first. Tire pressure in the C-130 mains is not that much greater then the C-160 (IIRC, 95-105 PSI) , but the sheer size of the tires offering a greater radius also helps prevent the plane getting stuck (think off road truck, bigger tires or smaller tires better?) Her Struts are HUGE and paired with the balloon like tires offer great shock absorption.
– Steeper tactical approaches, thanks to airbrakes allowing 10-15 degree approaches (my understanding is the max on the Herc is 8-10 degrees)
I have never seen anything written as far as actual angles of approach for the C-130. What I do know is of the actual landing they have to stay within 540fpm if less than 130,000lbs The approach is fair game, and there is no speed breaks because the C-130 does not need them with the massive barn-door (fowler) Flaps, in an assault landing they are down to 100% and you glide right in…I admit, this is not the best video…but it is all I could find. Clearly the approach is steeper than 8-10 degrees…this is by far not the steepest I have seen.
– Better STOL performance due to lower wing loading & better power loading (up to 55% shorter take-off performance than a C-130) Where is this written?
– Better cargo handling due to kneeling capability (apparently greatly speeds up loading of helicopters, for example) Yes, this is a nice feature but, it is mechanically complex and that is where the newer tactical aircraft have gotten wrong. We never had a problem loading road-graders, capsules, trucks, helicopters without kneeling the plane… better because it has ths feature? Who is to say, nice for the Loadmaster, but when it breaks I am sure the mechanic is bitching and moaning through the night.
– Larger cargo area & volume: 12% more area (580 vs 521 sq. ft), 8% more volume (4,950 vs. 4550 cu. ft.). I will say this again… The little extra volume is not really useful space. They can carry more of less abut that 8% will not offer more when it comes to airdrop, or bulk loads. A load of pingpong balls or pillows yes. I may be wrong, and if I am, I am sorry but I do also believe that the area calculated in the C-160 is calculated also using the ramp/door area where as the C-130s is calculated from FS 245-FS 737, even though the C-130 can carry a full pallet position on the ramp in flight. (as does the C-160 I believe)
– Greater cabin cross-section, especially from the wing box on wards (13% more). This is thanks to the fully external undercarriage fairing, trading lower aircraft speed for an unobstructed cabin and constant cross section.
The area that you are talking about in front of and in back of the MLG does not offer any useful space. sure, you can calculate it for total volume but it does not offer any extra load capacity.
The fully external MLG does offer extra space for paratroops and that is where the C-160 is master…The MLG in the cabin of the C-130 does not protrude into the cabin enough to hinder the loading of connexes, you would never airdrop a load if anything was outside of that imaginary box anyway…so the extra area between the floor and the wall of the aircraft is almost useless.
The external MLG offers lower aircraft speed….umm because of drag? Is this a befit?– Better for paratroop operations (88 vs 64 paratroops, thanks to greater cabin area) Yes, Paratroop, more is better, C-160 wins…where do they stick the extra?
– Better availability and lower logistics footprint (2 engines vs. 4, more fuel efficient due to 30% more payload per pound of aircraft weight)
Whoa..what? Better availability? How so? Parts? you think there are more parts floating around the world for the C-160 vs the C-130? More parts for the Tyne then there is for the T-56?
The 4 engines offer far superior safety advantage…
Overall, the Transall has proven its worth in tactical operations in Africa. I don’t think it deserves to be disparaged. Rather than being an inferior copy of the C-130, it clearly falls in a slightly different niche. Interestingly, it was originally supposed to eventually receive new, much more powerful engines (10,000 shp), but Rolls-Royce never pursued the development. Interesting what-if…
I am not beating down the C-160, It is a decent aircraft and the crews have made he into a great plane… You are also very correct in saying that she is not in the same class as the C-130. But the C-160 is much closer in the class of the c-130 then the C-160 is in the class of the G.222(C-27).
Spectre130C-130 pilots whose opinion was asked for – and who don’t seem to have any problems with a side-stick controller.
As far as I know…the A400M has not flown yet…so how do they know if it will be a problem or not?
Spectre130The Unit, time-scale and name is enough.
16th SOS, 40th AS, 185th AS… 1993-2006
Now book man, what units did you fly for? What experience do you have with Tactical Airlift.
Tell me what a two step approach is…
Now c’mon there Sens…give me some sugar…let me know what makes you an expert.
Spectre130You was, so there is no problem to give further details to allow to verify that.
I am open to questions if you must go on that road…
Verify if you like… you want a copy of my DD214 you are welcome to it :rolleyes:
Since you will not even touch on your experience, I would like a list of your books, video games and websites that you have filled your mushy head full of that useless knowledge. :rolleyes:
Sorry, but your 5100 posts do not make you qualified…
Spectre130It is a good description of yourself and you are carefully enough not going into details for obvious reasons.
Even your political claim is ridiculous, starting with China, India and many more.For the others below.
So, you do have experience on the C-160 that does not include reading numbers off wikipedia? Again, I asked what your experience is with Tactical Airlift Aircraft? You can crunch your numbers all day, they will never make the C-160 come even close in performance and capability as the C-130. With that being said, the C-130 is old and does need to be replaced…the A400M is not that plane…and unfortunately, none of our companies feel the need to fill the whole that the C-130 will leave open here in a bit. She is old and tired and needs a replacement.
Your wizardry in number gathering even further to prove my point that the C-160 is a crappy plane. Cool video though…
I was a Mechanic on Several versions of the C-130. After that I became a Flight Engineer on both AC-130Hs as well as the C-130E,H,H1,and H2.
Spectre130Not worth my time to argue about someone with too limited knowledge. Pushing around numbers with no deeper understanding is proof enough.
Ask C-130 crews in contact about C-160 and their opinions about that.
Below is something from an unkown world to you, like HUD f.e.http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/997.html
How many countries have ordered how many An-70s so far?
Maybe I missed something about that?
You have no personal knowledge that you wish to offer Have you personally flown the C-160? C-130? Any plane? Or are you just a book commando pilot? Or have the latest copy of Flight SimX?
My limited knowledge was built up over many years for flying the type of mission that the A400M might be able to accomplish. I do not go trolling around books to try to get a number here and a number there… I worked along side the C-160 many times and frankly, it could barely cut it.
The A400M will have a nice systems package…but all the systems in the world will not get the plane to land on a uncontrolled dirt strip in the mountains of Afghanistan…you need pilot skill and that pilot will need to feel the plane come in…It will not matter what radar or ILS the plane is fitted for at that point, so frankly, your automated landing system will be worthless in that situation.
How many countries is irrelevant. The question was asked, out of the two , what is the better aircraft.
If Airbus made the An-70 and Antonov was trying to make the A400M…and they turned out to be exactly like they are today, you would see more countries order the An-70 and not the A400M…it all has to do with politics and not who can build the best aircraft.
Spectre130You do not even try to look into arguments really. You have no idea about the C-160 really. Did you ever look it the missions trained for the C-160 and the way it had to operate? […]
The same misunderstanding about the A400M. No is forced to buy that at all.
Sens, I’ll ask you again. What EXPERIENCE do YOU have with Tactical airlift?
BTW your example is sort of ****-poor
ntow 44,2/ 70,4
mtow 49,1/79,4
wing area 160,10/162,12
This tells me that even with such a large wing area…the TOW of the C-160 was weak at best. The C-130 (you chose E model) with a slightly larger wing area could lift roughly 1 1/2 times more weight…
The C-160 did not save any money, it was a pride thing. It cost LOTS of money to design and build and in the end, it was incapable of achieving what it had set out to do.
I have flown in the C-160. I have flown with two pilots and a Nav. in an exchange program. The three C-160 trained and each had a few thousand hours in that aircraft and they would all confirm what I am saying. The C-160 was built out of pride. And in the end, if you look at design cost, tooling, and manufacturing cost, for the amount of aircraft built, the C-160 was much more expensive then an already built C-130 that the users could have bought.
Out of the three, two asked for extensions to keep flying with us…for another year because they did not want to go back to the C-160…Tells you something doesn’t it?
You tell me, what different mission was it designed for and used that was different than the already flying C-130? And, what could it achieve better results in? Being slower around a threat area is NOT a benefit, it will only get you killed. Plus, the slower you are, the less maneuverability you have to try to defeat the threat…so again, your example is a poor one. You are right, the C-160 does fit in about the same area as the C-130, but that is where the similarity ends.
How we even got on the topic was that you said that Airbus learned a lot from the C-160 and used that heaps of experience into the A400M…if that is truly the case, they are in a load of trouble…
Again, back to the An-70 to the A400M, tell me where the A400M has the advantage…tell me where she will excel over her counterparts?
Pretty defeatist attitude to have for a “can-do” American!:confused:
How many wide-bodied airliners did Airbus built (or any other type of airliner) before they set about developing and selling the Airbus A300?:rolleyes:
If Europe’s first foray into large military transports will be half as successful as their first widebody airliner, they’ll probably be fairly grateful…
Defeatist? How so… what part had you scratching your head?
How long did it take to get the A300 right? Whith who’s money? Also, we are not talking widebody aircraft.
Lockheed has not addressed the need with the poorly managed C-130J program, MD(Boeing) did not answer it with the C-17…
The two on the table right now are the A400M and the An-70
The An-70 is cheaper, and is better in almost every category then the A400M is on paper (plus has flown) …and those paper estimates only go worse…not better.
If they are both successful aircraft, It would be a good day. The US has already taken the experience we have learned with the C-130 and thrown it out the window, instead of improving on it.
Spectre130that newer aircraft doesn’t look like an ‘H’ model herc to me, more like an ‘E’ model.
E model airframe…H model T-56-15 engines
Just like the AC-130H is an E model plane w/ H model engines.
Spectre130Boeing doesn’t have an aircraft the size of the A330-200, except the 787, which isn’t acceptable for many reasons. The smallest 777 is bigger, the smallest 767 is smaller.
I understand that…
but for this competition they offered the 767-200 sized aircraft and not the 767-300. If the Airbus wins, it will be based mostly off of the extra cargo/fuel it can carry and the 767-300 could have gotten it a lot closer.
Am I right in thinking that the KC-30 was offered as a replacement for both the KC-10 and -135, and the 767 was offered a a direct replacement for the -135 with some -10 capabilities if needed?
I don’t know, my experience isn’t in tankers…just questions…
Spectre130There is no company that has comparable experience in FBW for large aircraft as Airbus. It built everything from 50t to 600t with FBW and has produced close to 3000 aircraft of that kind by now. The A400M has the most advanced flight control design ever built into an (large) aircraft. It is extremely failure resistant, independent of hydraulics, and frankly, you have to aim good to hit all low-voltage FBW wires.
The handling characteristics of the A400M will be a generation beyond the C-17 or C-130. No matter what people think of Airbus, most pilots say that when you push it to the limits an A320 or A380 is agile and responsive, especially at low speeds it behaves much better than “comparable aircraft”.
By the way: in normal law you cannot stall an Airbus, at least when you don’t do non-sense things (like shutting down the engines or entering the flare mode). I guess pilots transferring from any C-130 model will hail the A400M.
My argument isn’t with FBW or non-FWB.
Again, you can not take airliner experience and apply it to tactical airlift (then you get the C-17..that frankly sucks at it TacAir)
Do you know what a two-step approach is? I do not care how much experience they might have in FBW, that isn’t the point. Can they make an airplane that can take a beating? Can they make an airplane that the pilots have complete control over the approach/landing/and take off? Back to my point about yoke (or long pivot stick) vs a side stick with little movement.
Spectre130No crying over spilled milk either way..the decision has been made (and after the 5 years of protests from the loosing company, they might start flying her ….later)
anyhow, to my point.
Most of the recipients of the aircraft will be current users of the KC-135s. If the KC-767 is selected, very little change to the infrastructure will have to be changed. The hangars can all be used, as well as current parking areas…
The KC-30 is larger enough to will require new hangars, and parking areas. I am sure that is factored in as well. That would be a huge cost to take on.
Also, Why did Boeing not offer a -300 sized aircraft as well, did they just bet that the smaller size would be a plus to them?
I am rooting for Boeing, but either way, the KC-135s are tired and its about time to get a new plane for those guys(and chicks) who fly and fix’em
Spectre130Wrong many times. The people of Airbus have a lot of experiences about tactical transports and short landing demands from the C-160 till C-160NG f.e..
Like the traction-control of your car and many other features, even the best driver or pilot can not competite with that. Such A400M landings can be flown in an automatic mode in adversere weather conditions. The crew is just in need for SA and a back-up for worst case situations. Despite that they will do that landings in a semi-automatic mode to have the feeling to be in need for such moments.
Please, the now outdated 50s design from the polished C-130J aside, which is not worth the extra costs about the related software in need for a general change. We keep in mind, that the C-130 like the B-747 had no real contenders in the West for severaI decades. Please remember the claims of the Boeing people, when falling behind in technology to Airbus.
But when you are convinced about your claim, you can promote the An-70 for the USAF f.e. The An-70 is even cheaper than the C-130J!
May I ask what your experience is with tactical airlift?
The C-160 was outdated 15 years before it ever flew…it offered nothing cutting edge and for its size, it was a pathetic failure.
You are telling me that they will do automated landings at dirt strips? At uncontrolled fields? How will this be done wen there are only orange markers to let you know where the ends LZ are? How will the plane guide itself there? Straight up GPS? Would you trust that? Or, are you expecting someone to already be on the ground before the plane arrives with a full ILS setup?
I agree with you 100% on the J model…Lockheed screwed the poochie on that one, but the A400M is not the answer. The fact is, even the C-130J is too advanced to be a true tactical airlifter because if the systems go out, who will work on them in the field? Manual over ride? It needs a full up Air Conditioning unit to cool the systems.
But even with the C-130Js failings…who is its contender now? The A400M is newer then the An-70 but like the C-160, offered nothing new. And will offer less capability.
And being a lifelong C-130 guy, I would pick the An-70 over the C-130J…it is just that good.
Sign In
