Fight! Fight! Fight! (Canada's Fixed Wing SAR competition)

jcf · December 28, 2008, 09:41:33 PM

Quote from: GTX on December 28, 2008, 11:24:10 AM

The C-27J will NEVER land where the 'bou can/could.

Well, it probably could land where a 'bou can land if necessary...

its the taking off again that would be problematic.

Jon

GTX · December 29, 2008, 10:47:49 AM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on December 28, 2008, 09:41:33 PM
Quote from: GTX on December 28, 2008, 11:24:10 AM

The C-27J will NEVER land where the 'bou can/could.

Well, it probably could land where a 'bou can land if necessary...

its the taking off again that would be problematic.

Jon

Define landing I suppose

- some of those PNG hillside strips are pretty damn short! I wouldn't want to try unless I had a way to stop (intentionally) in time.

Regards,

Greg

B777LR · December 29, 2008, 02:09:49 PM

Quote from: GTX on December 28, 2008, 11:24:10 AM
The C-27J will NEVER land where the 'bou can/could.

There wont ever be a need for an aircraft with the STOL capabilities of the Caribou. As long as it beats the C-130, it is good enough.

Everybody in NATO is building amphibious/assault carriers/support/sealift ships Nobody needs super CSTOL anymore. If it can go by plane, it might as well just airdrop, or land on the airstrips that are already in place

rallymodeller · December 29, 2008, 02:38:23 PM

I disagree. Some of our High Arctic bases require a plane with the Buffalo's capabilities. In fact, some of them are so small (like the Arctic Rangers' support stations) that often only a Twin Otter can get in and out. Canada has some pretty unique requirements.

A good example is that the Buffalo has better cross-wind landing capability than even the Herc. One of the concerns is that neither the C-27 or the C-295 are even Herc-good in a crosswind.

I have a feeling that DND may end up ordering new-build Buffalos from Viking after all, in addition to the Spartans. Maybe not right away, but soon.

nev · December 30, 2008, 04:38:23 AM

QuoteThere wont ever be a need for an aircraft with the STOL capabilities of the Caribou

You've never been to Australia have you? Perth to Sydney is the same distance as London to Moscow and 99% of it is unihabited wilderness. Like Rally says, Oz and Canuckistan are pretty unique. India is another one with unique transport requirements (hence the An-32 which was pretty much built for them).

GTX · December 30, 2008, 10:16:16 AM

QuoteEverybody in NATO is building amphibious/assault carriers/support/sealift ships Nobody needs super CSTOL anymore. If it can go by plane, it might as well just airdrop, or land on the airstrips that are already in place

Having a Carrier or LHD or similar has nothing to do with the need for a Caribou type aircraft!

BTW, when you say Everybody in NATO do you mean: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States?

That's a lot of ships!!! And what about no-NATO countries.

Regards,

Greg

GTX · January 16, 2009, 12:30:33 PM

Re the C-27J and its lack of STOL capability (at least compared to the 'Bou), what if the original Fiat G.222 V/STOL (from which the C-27J is ultimately derived) was revisited - i.e. add some sort of lift fans (maybe derived from the F-35 system) to the nacelles?

Fiat G.222 V/STOL:

A reason why I'd like to get a C-27J model kit!

Regards,

Greg

Doc Yo · January 16, 2009, 01:52:51 PM

Quote from: rallymodeller on December 27, 2008, 07:05:55 PM

I'll be convinced of the STOL characteristics of either of the pretenders to the throne once I see them doing what I saw a Buffalo do in London once: landing into a headwind it descended almost vertically -- it had a ground speed of something like 20kt, and rolled to a stop in less than 200 feet.

Let's see a C-27J do that.

Great Fiesler's Ghost!

apophenia · January 16, 2009, 02:02:33 PM

Well said Nev. Maybe Viking should build the Buffalo in Australia?

Quote from: nev on December 30, 2008, 04:38:23 AM
India is another one with unique transport requirements (hence the An-32 which was pretty much built for them).

The Buffalo was originally in the lead for the Indian competition too. DeHavilland Canada blew it early on by refusing to licence build the DHC-5 in India (which both Aeritalia and Antonov were willing to go along with).

retro_seventies · January 16, 2009, 05:55:34 PM

New build Buffs would be magnificent. I, for one, think that everybody could use a few.

GINge! · January 16, 2009, 10:20:58 PM

Though with a C-27J just announced by Italeri, I wonder if they will jump the gun and include SAR markings?

apophenia · January 17, 2009, 01:17:23 PM

Quote from: GTX on January 16, 2009, 12:30:33 PM...what if the original Fiat G.222 V/STOL (from which the C-27J is ultimately derived) was revisited - i.e. add some sort of lift fans (maybe derived from the F-35 system) to the nacelles?...

Greg,

Reminded me of a Boeing plan for developing the Buffalo Augmentor demonstrator. [Image deleted to spare Download File]

kitnut617 · January 17, 2009, 01:28:57 PM

An updated Buffalo would be great !

As an aside about revamping older designs, I was reading in Combat Aircraft that Brazil is on the verge od signing an order for a bunch of Turbo Trackers. The purchase depending on how many airframes they can find to revamp and do the conversion. I know that at Abbotsford airport there's a compound with about 40 Trackers in various stages of completion

B777LR · January 17, 2009, 02:38:38 PM

Quote from: nev on December 30, 2008, 04:38:23 AM
QuoteThere wont ever be a need for an aircraft with the STOL capabilities of the Caribou

You've never been to Australia have you? Perth to Sydney is the same distance as London to Moscow and 99% of it is unihabited wilderness. Like Rally says, Oz and Canuckistan are pretty unique.

And what exactly would you do once you've landed your Caribou/Buffalo in 80 meters somewhere between Sydney and Perth, more than 1500 km from the nearest civilization?? I fail to get your point, if Australia is so barren, why can you not just land a C-27? Or a C-5? Or a 747?

And from what i understand, Canada will order new planes, just to serve a few artic bases? Last time i checked, the Danish and Swedish arctic patrols were served by C-130s airdropping supplies, with personel being transported in with Air Greenland Twin Otters

Let the Caribou and Buffalo go. They were great, but they are outdated, and are being outperformed by newer planes. There is only a requirement for some 20 - 30 new-built aircraft, for use of their STOL performance. The Air Forces that operate them, including Canada, Australia and the US Army, have all opted not to go for more DHC-5s. Most are now flying in 3rd world countries.

Green Dragon · January 17, 2009, 03:30:03 PM

If I was the Canadian government, in the current economic situation, I would go with the new build Buffalo's and save lots of money going out of the country. I've seen the Buffalo several times at Farnbourgh doing the Khe Sanh dive and there is nothing else of it's size that can stop or take off in such short distances. Just like the only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC3, the only real replacement for the Buffalo is another Buffalo.
Wonder if the defence guy is getting "something" to pick the C-27J.

Paul Harrison

Fight! Fight! Fight! (Canada's Fixed Wing SAR competition)

B777LR

GINge!

B777LR