Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing May Use Antonov An-72 As Platform For FCA B  
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14389 times:

http://www.flightinternational.com/A...An-72+as+platform+for+FCA+bid.html

My, how times have changed.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14389 times:

Or Boeing could dig this thing out of the desert.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Snorre - VIP Vienna International Planespotters



Nice recognition for the Antonov designers, though. Not that I see it happen.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14316 times:

The timing of this article couldn't hurt if SU is still making up it's mind on the 787 or A350.  scratchchin 


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14310 times:

Antonov is a Ukrainian company, not a Russian one.


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14304 times:

I do not see this happening either. Do we know what other designs Boeing is thinking of offering? So far we have the Alenia C-27J being offered along with the CASA CN 235 and 295. Both of these designs are proven and would fit the criteria quite well. My only concern is that they are both European. I don't have any problems with purchasing either one, I just find it a little disappointing that American engineers and companies don't have anything better.

Okay, here goes and I know this is a rant. WHAT THE HECK is Boeing and Lockheed doing? You can't honestly tell me that with all of their engineers and various professionals they can't come up with a better idea or something NEW?????? How about something NEW, how about showing some creativity like our fore fathers? When Boeing built the original 707s, that was ground breaking and so was the 747. When Lockheed decided to build a new transport in the 1950s, they didn't go backwards to a 1930s design but came up with the C-130. I know that designing aircraft is expensive and time consuming but it seems that we don't progress forward just reheat old ideas

In various industry magazines and journals, there is always talk about this massive brain drain going on in aviation. They talk about young college graduates going to other fields rather than aviation because of opportunities. Well, here is a GREAT opportunity. Get young engineers to design a brand new platform. Let them put their knowledge and education to great use making an aircraft that they feel a part of. Telling someone to design you a platform is much more exciting and challenging than sending someone to Russia to look at a 30+ year old design and see what we can do to slightly update it.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14293 times:

It´s been a class of its own for many years.

http://www.flightlevel350.net/viewer.php?id=2741

A truly versatile aircraft.
http://www.cheburashka.5u.com/photos/An-72P_weapons.jpg


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14286 times:

After watching the video, the AN-70 aircraft aircraft is definitley a worthy design. I would still like to see other ideas but I'll actually put this design ahead of both the C-27J and Casa designs in my unprofessional opinion! What is neat though is the fact that whatever design is choosen, it will be fielded quickly and actually on the flight lines at Air Force bases at about the same time I'm leaving the "school house" of whatever platform I am lucky enough to fly.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14237 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think it'd be a stroke of brilliant procurement. A Russian airplane designed to be used at lowgrade airfields and maintained by minimally trained techs working with basic tools.

If they can put the right electronics in it they'll have all the airplane they need for a third of what it'd cost here in the States.

I'm all for it.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14208 times:

I watched the AN-74 video again and I am truly impressed by this aircraft. How does a jet powered aircraft compare to the propeller driven competition in this fly off? Would these potential aircraft be manufactured in the States or in the airframe's home countries? When will we see one of these aircraft on the ramp of a USAF base?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14104 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
Or Boeing could dig this thing out of the desert.

Sorry, I did my homework now and saw that the YC-14 and YC-15 are much larger and heavier aircraft than the An-72.
On the other end of the scale, the Casas are much lighter than the An-72, too small for serious airlifting.
The ATR is really an airliner and could never make it.
The C-27J is the only in-production aircraft in the same weight class as the An-72 I think. The USAF doesn't seem to have fallen in love with the C-27J though, or have they?



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14103 times:

The USAF has actually operated the C-27 but retired them in the early 90s. Your assessment of the current competition is outstanding. Can we possibly find out what the capabilities of the C-23 Sheppard aircraft is? That is the aircraft this platform is replacing. The requirements are being re-written as we type though. The Air Force and Army have bee told to work together on this and figure out exactly what the requirements are. Hopefully the Air Force operates this aircraft and not the Army. I am happy to see though that the two branches are working together. The Army is the customer of this product while the Air Force is the operator. If both sides work together you get an aircraft that fulfills its missions and delivers what is needed at the same time.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14093 times:

Wow, I must admit that at first I thought to myself what in the world is Boeing smoking in their pipe, but that video certainly got the mind a thinking and as big a fan of the C-27J as I am, I'd love to see some further cooperation between Boeing and Russia as we are seeing with the RRJ.

[Edited 2006-01-21 20:36:47]

User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3595 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14084 times:

What about spare parts, standardisation, avionics?

No doubt that this is a good airplane, but I guess introduction into the US military would be rather difficult...


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14080 times:

The C-23?! It's merely a Shorts 330, MTOW 22,900 lb, can carry two jeeps, or 30 people. In other words, one third smaller even than the CASA CN-235.

I don't know the FCA requirements, but if the C-27 and An-72 are candidates, I'm suprised that the C-23 is the norm.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14028 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 10):
Can we possibly find out what the capabilities of the C-23 Sheppard aircraft is?

I understand there are still a lot of AKANG guys that are still pissed they had to give up their Twin Otters for the Sherpa.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14016 times:

The Sherpa was designed, for the USAF(E), to carry parts/people around US facilities in Europe.
This Belfast built aircraft was in competition with the CASA 212 in 1983/4, as well as facing hostility from IRA apologists.

It won out, but I guess with the post Cold War USAF(E) being a shadow of it's former self, the aircraft have been deployed elsewhere.

Shorts made a steady living for nearly 20 years with the Skyvan, sold to many airforces and civil agencies throughout the world (Olympic once unusually operated pax versions).
Then came the commuter SD.330, later SD.360, popular with the then embryonic regional airline industry as their 'entry level' aircraft.

The Sherpa came from the SD.330, to supplant the Skyvan.

The AN-72 is an impressive, proven machine.
I expect the US would want western engines/avionics, would this development cost wipe out any lower cost of manufacture/purchase?

In any case, the C-27J, with it's C-130J common engines/many avionics, makes the most sense, for the US services.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14010 times:

While in my personal opinion it would be neat to see the An-72 in US service, the C-27J does make the most sense etc. As I stated earlier, this competition will be exciting as the aircraft will compete, be down selected and put into service rapidly.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13981 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 15):
This Belfast built aircraft was in competition with the CASA 212 in 1983/4, as well as facing hostility from IRA apologists

I think you are thinking of the SC.7 Skyvan. The 330/360 are both 30 seaters like the Casa-235. The 212 was a 19 seater like the Skyvan.

Quoting GDB (Reply 15):
The Sherpa came from the SD.330, to supplant the Skyvan

True of the C-23A's. All of which I belive have been retired. A lot of them ended up with BLM and Forestry flying smoke-jumpers around.

I have been told that the C23B was built from ex-airline SD.360 airframes that had the tails cut off them and replaced by the Sherpa "H" tail and ramp. I don't belive that there where any new build C.23B's



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13888 times:

The current plan to select the replacement by June 2006, and for the purchase of 45 frames between 2007 through 2011.


Alenia's C-27J:


Primary Function: Cargo/passenger transport
Power Plant/Manufacturer: Two General Electric T64-P4D engines
Shaft Horse Power: 3,400 each
Dimension: 74.5 feet long by 34.7 feet wide
Wingspan: 94.2 feet
Speed: 250 knots
Ceiling: 25,000 feet
Takeoff Weight (Typical): 56,878 pounds
Empty Weight: 39,500 pounds
Range: 1,500 nautical miles
Takeoff Distance: 1,500 feet
Runway: 1,800 feet by 45 feet

CASA's C-295:


Primary Function: Cargo/passenger transport
Power Plant/Manufacturer: Two Pratt & Whitney PW127G engines
Shaft Horse Power: 2,645 each
Dimensions: 80.3 feet long by 31.3 feet wide
Wingspan: 84.6 feet
Speed: 220 knots
Ceiling: 25,000 feet
Takeoff Weight (Typical): 51,145 pounds
Range: 2,300 nautical miles
Takeoff Distance: 2,395 ft

-UH60


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 13838 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 18):
Primary Function: Cargo/passenger transport
Power Plant/Manufacturer: Two General Electric T64-P4D engines
Shaft Horse Power: 3,400 each
Dimension: 74.5 feet long by 34.7 feet wide
Wingspan: 94.2 feet
Speed: 250 knots
Ceiling: 25,000 feet
Takeoff Weight (Typical): 56,878 pounds
Empty Weight: 39,500 pounds
Range: 1,500 nautical miles
Takeoff Distance: 1,500 feet
Runway: 1,800 feet by 45 feet

The engine data is obviously for the old G.222, the C-27J has the same engines as the C-130J, the Allison 2100.
And are you sure about takeoff distance ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13738 times:

Antonov sure know how to build planes.

Here are some specifications.

Engine: 2 63.7kN (14,330lb) ZMKB Progress D36 turbofans.
Max speed 705km/h (380kt)
cruising speed 550 - 600km/h (295 to 325kt).
Service ceiling 35,000ft.
Range between 1150km (620nm) to 5300km (2860nm).

Wing span 31.89m (104ft 8in)
length 28.07m (92ft 1in)
height 8.65m (28ft 5in)
Wing area 98.6m2 (1062sq ft)

3-crew cockpit


The way I see it, a new modern engine would be needed along with a modern 2-crew cockpit. I wonder what engine would be selected.

Here is a wild idea. Taking the 737NG fuselage, with high mounted wing, and a ramp door behind for fast loading and unloading of cargo and of course a new undercarriage.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13704 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 20):
Here is a wild idea. Taking the 737NG fuselage

I don't think a 737 fuselage would be good to drive in e.g a hummer or cargo palets.

Those are design starting points for a transporter..



User currently offlineSonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13568 times:

Did any thing come of this?

"In 1996, after more than 15 years in storage in the Arizona desert, the McDonnell Douglas YC-15 was being brought out of mothballs to continue its mission as an Advanced Technology Demonstrator .Boeing, will be operating the YC-15 on an eight-year no-cost lease from the U.S. Air Force. It was the first Air Force developmental aircraft to be leased back to a contractor under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement."

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/amst.asp


User currently offlineSonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13543 times:

As much as I can find out the YC-15 was brought out of mothballs and restored to a flyable state just like the article states. The YC-15 made a 2 hour test flight in 1997 but after that I can't find any information.

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13521 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
don't think a 737 fuselage would be good to drive in e.g a hummer or cargo palets.

The hummer and the cargo pallets would fit, although I get your point  Smile



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
25 AeroWeanie : The crew lost an engine and put down in Palmdale, where it now sits. It is likely to never fly again.
26 Sonic67 : Was the plane damaged? Why wouldn't they repair it and continue the test flights Boeing had an eight-year no-cost lease from the U.S. Air Force ?
27 Post contains links Ptrjong : I think it's clear now that the YC-14 is far too big for the FCA requirement. I shouldn't have introduced it into this thread perhaps. However, its c
28 AeroWeanie : To quote Bill Norton's book "STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to a Large STOL Aircraft and the C-17A": "The aircraft flew again on 11 July 1998
29 Keesje : 34.38 10´.65" N, 118.0545.26 W for folks that want to see a recent satelite photo on google earth..
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing May Use Antonov An-72 As Platform For FCA B
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Seattle PI: Boeing May Move 767 Line To LGB posted Wed Feb 15 2006 08:05:18 by N328KF
Will Boeing Come Up With An Improved KC767 Offer? posted Wed Nov 24 2004 16:02:07 by KEESJE
Antonov An-70 posted Sun Nov 16 2003 10:10:17 by Flyf15
Boeing Willing To Use 787 As Tanker posted Wed Sep 14 2005 16:10:29 by N328KF
Usmc Looks To Revive OV-10s For Use In Iraq posted Sat Oct 14 2006 17:16:32 by Papoose
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
Use Of Distilled Water For AV-8B Harrier II posted Fri Sep 16 2005 16:00:26 by 777
767 Tanker Deal: Bailout For Boeing posted Fri Jun 10 2005 07:52:13 by Scotron11
Boeing Test Fires Airborne Laser For ABL Program posted Mon Nov 15 2004 16:22:55 by Greaser
Boeing/Grumman Team-up For CEV posted Thu Nov 11 2004 23:41:28 by DfwRevolution

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format