- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
As to 'path forward' on FWSAR it seems that the USCG has decided on the CN-295 as part of Deepwater, designated HC-144A, see this link, First Coast Guard Maritime Patrol Aircraft Arrives in Elizabeth City
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Ooops, my bad, yes 235 it is.
Little sister to the CN-295.
Little sister to the CN-295.
S
Skaha
Guest
from the Comments over at The Torch
Maximum Cruise Speed
- C-27J: 325 KTAS (602 km/h)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 260 KTAS (480 km/h)
---
Maximum Engine Power
- C-27J: 4637 SHP
- EADS/CASA C-295: 2645 SHP
---
Ferry Range
- C-27J: 3200 nm (5926 km)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 2810 nm (5204 km)
---
Range with 8000 kg Payload at 2.25g
- C-27J: 1650 nm (3056 km)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 1187 nm (2198 km)
---
Take-off Run at Max. Take-off Weight
- C-27J: 580 m (634 yards)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 844 m (923 yards)
---
Landing Roll at Max. Landing Weight normal
- C-27J: 340 m (372 yards)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 680 m (743 yards)
---
Ability to perform up to 3.0g force manoeuvres
- C-27J: YES
- EADS/CASA C-295: NO
---
Maximum Take-off Weight
- C-27J: 31,800 kg (70,107 lbs)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 23,200 kg (51,146 lbs)
---
Maximum Payload
- C-27J: 11,500 kg (25,353 lbs)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 9250 kg (20,393 lbs)
---
Hydraulic Circuit
- C-27J: DOUBLE
- EADS/CASA C-295: SINGLE
---
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)
- C-27J: YES
- EADS/CASA C-295: NO
---
Cockpit Window Area
- C-27J: > 4.5 m2 (48.4 ft2)
- EADS/CASA C-295: ~ 2.25 m2 (24.2 ft2)
---
Engine Restart Options
- C-27J: 3
- EADS/CASA C-295: 1
Maximum Cruise Speed
- C-27J: 325 KTAS (602 km/h)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 260 KTAS (480 km/h)
---
Maximum Engine Power
- C-27J: 4637 SHP
- EADS/CASA C-295: 2645 SHP
---
Ferry Range
- C-27J: 3200 nm (5926 km)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 2810 nm (5204 km)
---
Range with 8000 kg Payload at 2.25g
- C-27J: 1650 nm (3056 km)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 1187 nm (2198 km)
---
Take-off Run at Max. Take-off Weight
- C-27J: 580 m (634 yards)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 844 m (923 yards)
---
Landing Roll at Max. Landing Weight normal
- C-27J: 340 m (372 yards)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 680 m (743 yards)
---
Ability to perform up to 3.0g force manoeuvres
- C-27J: YES
- EADS/CASA C-295: NO
---
Maximum Take-off Weight
- C-27J: 31,800 kg (70,107 lbs)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 23,200 kg (51,146 lbs)
---
Maximum Payload
- C-27J: 11,500 kg (25,353 lbs)
- EADS/CASA C-295: 9250 kg (20,393 lbs)
---
Hydraulic Circuit
- C-27J: DOUBLE
- EADS/CASA C-295: SINGLE
---
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)
- C-27J: YES
- EADS/CASA C-295: NO
---
Cockpit Window Area
- C-27J: > 4.5 m2 (48.4 ft2)
- EADS/CASA C-295: ~ 2.25 m2 (24.2 ft2)
---
Engine Restart Options
- C-27J: 3
- EADS/CASA C-295: 1
S
Skaha
Guest
geo said:
for sure, no worries . . . although I have been around and commented before, primarily on aviation issues. . .
where do I find the profile page ??
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Skaha said:
Did you look at the top of the page and read the tab that says: "PROFILE"?
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
INFO on C 295: [ http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/cn-295.htm ]
Dimensions
Length 24.45 m 80´ 3"
Wing Span 25.81 m 84´ 8"
Cabin Length 12.69 m 41´ 7"
Cabin Height 1.90 m 6´ 3"
Cabin Width 2.70 m 8´ 11"
Weights
Maximum Take-off Weight 23,200 kg 51,146 lb
Maximum Landing Weight 23,200 kg 51,146 lb
Maximum Payload 9,700 kg 21,385 lb
Maximum Fuel 7,650 l 2,019 US Gal
Number of Fully Equipped Troops 78
Number of 88´ x 108´ Pallets 5
Performances
Maximum Cruising Speed 260 ktas
Take-off distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50 ft) 962 m 3,156´
Landing Distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50 ft) 774 m 2,541´
Maximum Range 5,278 km 2,850 nm
Range with full Load 1,333 km 720 nm
Dimensions
Length 24.45 m 80´ 3"
Wing Span 25.81 m 84´ 8"
Cabin Length 12.69 m 41´ 7"
Cabin Height 1.90 m 6´ 3"
Cabin Width 2.70 m 8´ 11"
Weights
Maximum Take-off Weight 23,200 kg 51,146 lb
Maximum Landing Weight 23,200 kg 51,146 lb
Maximum Payload 9,700 kg 21,385 lb
Maximum Fuel 7,650 l 2,019 US Gal
Number of Fully Equipped Troops 78
Number of 88´ x 108´ Pallets 5
Performances
Maximum Cruising Speed 260 ktas
Take-off distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50 ft) 962 m 3,156´
Landing Distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50 ft) 774 m 2,541´
Maximum Range 5,278 km 2,850 nm
Range with full Load 1,333 km 720 nm
- Reaction score
- 16,946
- Points
- 1,260
Sheez -- I get annoyed when the unwashed chime in on weapons and shooting stuff -- but it seems everyone's an expert when it comes to deal with the AirForce.
I could careless about his profile -- if the spec are correct. Its appears to be a NO BRAINER (caveat I am not a pilot or a SAR Tech and I dont even play one on TV).
I could careless about his profile -- if the spec are correct. Its appears to be a NO BRAINER (caveat I am not a pilot or a SAR Tech and I dont even play one on TV).
S
Skaha
Guest
George Wallace said:
obviously not
George, you must be a married man !! Delivered that line with perfect Wife_Unit pitch
I find my keys that way as well. Profile updated . . pretty boring stuff.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I've been looking around the net on this subject.
Seems like EADS is doing a pretty good slag job on the C27 at c-295.ca.
A couple of things come to mind that I wonder if someone 'in the know' could enlighten me.
On the site (noted above) some rather nasty things are said about the C-27A's that the USAF had. Looking at FAS and GlobalSecurity it seemed that these were rather serviceable aircraft that were retired early for cost reasons, but were considered reasonable enough so that there descendants (C-27J) remained in the running for the JCA program.
A lot seems to be made on c-295.ca about some Hellenic airforce J's with leaky windshields. Now I know it's probably a bit more than a tube of silicone, but is this really a valid criticism or is someone just being pishy?
Finally it seems that they are comparing the CN-295 to the C-27A in some places and to the C-27J in other places. Is this fair? I thought that 27 vs 27J was more like the 130 vs 130J, basically a common airframe with just about everything else different.
Just wondering, when I see this kind of sales job, it tweaks my curiosity, it seems that EADS is being rather nasty about this and perhaps a tad loose with the truth.
Seems like EADS is doing a pretty good slag job on the C27 at c-295.ca.
A couple of things come to mind that I wonder if someone 'in the know' could enlighten me.
On the site (noted above) some rather nasty things are said about the C-27A's that the USAF had. Looking at FAS and GlobalSecurity it seemed that these were rather serviceable aircraft that were retired early for cost reasons, but were considered reasonable enough so that there descendants (C-27J) remained in the running for the JCA program.
A lot seems to be made on c-295.ca about some Hellenic airforce J's with leaky windshields. Now I know it's probably a bit more than a tube of silicone, but is this really a valid criticism or is someone just being pishy?
Finally it seems that they are comparing the CN-295 to the C-27A in some places and to the C-27J in other places. Is this fair? I thought that 27 vs 27J was more like the 130 vs 130J, basically a common airframe with just about everything else different.
Just wondering, when I see this kind of sales job, it tweaks my curiosity, it seems that EADS is being rather nasty about this and perhaps a tad loose with the truth.
- Reaction score
- 7,348
- Points
- 1,160
cplcaldwell,
I believe that the C27A was actually the Alenia G222, a very low production aircraft. It was essentially adopted by L-M in a joint venture with Alenia as an airframe that was re-engineered with new avionics and engines from the C130J to ensure maximum compatibility. For some reason L-M has since back-pedalled on the JV and it has been adopted by L3 (Spar in Canada) and Boeing for their entry into both the US FCA programme and the Canadian FWSAR.
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c27.asp
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/the-jca-program-key-west-sabotage/index.php#more
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/bulgaria-finalizes-order-for-8-c27j-baby-hercs/index.php#more
I believe that the C27A was actually the Alenia G222, a very low production aircraft. It was essentially adopted by L-M in a joint venture with Alenia as an airframe that was re-engineered with new avionics and engines from the C130J to ensure maximum compatibility. For some reason L-M has since back-pedalled on the JV and it has been adopted by L3 (Spar in Canada) and Boeing for their entry into both the US FCA programme and the Canadian FWSAR.
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c27.asp
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/the-jca-program-key-west-sabotage/index.php#more
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/bulgaria-finalizes-order-for-8-c27j-baby-hercs/index.php#more
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
thx, Kirkhill
Interesting: I just went to lmco.com, and of course, the C-27 is missing from the product list. I wasn't aware of that. I thought Lockheed Martin was still in on the deal.
As for the FCA, now I understand the kerfuffle, the dreaded "Key West Accord" rears its ugly head.... not only is EADS and (now) Boeing at it, but USAF and USA are taking sides based on Key West (or so it would seem)....
Interesting: I just went to lmco.com, and of course, the C-27 is missing from the product list. I wasn't aware of that. I thought Lockheed Martin was still in on the deal.
As for the FCA, now I understand the kerfuffle, the dreaded "Key West Accord" rears its ugly head.... not only is EADS and (now) Boeing at it, but USAF and USA are taking sides based on Key West (or so it would seem)....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
There are a few misleading statements that should be addressed. First, one advantage the Spartan has when making performance claims is that none are actually operational - it is a developmental aircraft (one of those "paper aircraft" that MND keeps talking about). For that reason, it is difficult to confirm or deny performance figures. Also, when you post data to compare aircraft, probably best to post data only from the site that makes the aircraft - the competitor may not have accurate info. For example, the C-295 is not fitted with an APU, but it is an option - that detail will not be included on an Alenia website.
The issue of C-27J commonality with the C-130J is now pretty well limited to the propellers. The engines are smaller and lighter than the 130J, with the multi million dollar upgrades made to the C-130J avionics and software, the cockpit and software commonality "advantage" has vanished. Both the C-27J and C-295 can handle a Hercules Standard (108 x 88) pallet (loaded 98 inches high) by turning it 90 degrees and reducing the height of the cargo on the pallet. The difference is that the Spartan can handle 3 pallets loaded 80 inches high, the C-295 can handle 5 pallets loaded 60 inches high.
The C-295 is FAA certified, the Spartan is not, and the G-222 was not. The CN-235 has Canadian certification. The CN-235 and G-222 history is important, because the two newer aircraft are just re-engined (and modified) versions of the basic aircraft. The structural advantages and disadvantages of each will remain. One of those problems for the Spartan is a high stalling speed - about 10 knots higher than a Hercules with the same SAR load and equivalent fuel endurance. Unfortunately, that is a safety issue for the crew when dealing with mountain contour search, as well significantly degrading the effectiveness of search - the faster a search aircraft goes, the less the spotters see.
The Spartan did not just have water leaks around the windshield on the Greek aircraft, the problems that the Hellenic Air Force encountered included alignment problems with engines, propellers, and landing gear. They are holding payment until the problems are resolved, but did agree to let deliveries continue.
Finally, the Spartan or G-222 has never been used as a search aircraft or Maritime patrol aircraft - which means that the type of problems currently being experienced by the Cormorant (grounding due to corrosion, parts and serviceability issues, and lack of integrated EO/IR capability) should be anticipated by the launch customer for a SAR version. You can ask the SAR techs in Trenton how they are enjoying their Cormorant, but you better duck after you ask - they will not see that aircraft again for at least a couple of years. Instead they are "making do" with Griffons, because the effort required to take the Cormorant to full mature status has resulted in an availability that is a fraction of what the manufacturer claimed, so Trenton gave up their aircraft to the Coastal squadrons.
The bottom line is that the project office has not written a SOR based on SAR requirements, they have written it based on the specifications of the Spartan. That is contrary to Canadian government procurement policy, and does not do either taxpayers or SAR crews any favours in the long run.
The issue of C-27J commonality with the C-130J is now pretty well limited to the propellers. The engines are smaller and lighter than the 130J, with the multi million dollar upgrades made to the C-130J avionics and software, the cockpit and software commonality "advantage" has vanished. Both the C-27J and C-295 can handle a Hercules Standard (108 x 88) pallet (loaded 98 inches high) by turning it 90 degrees and reducing the height of the cargo on the pallet. The difference is that the Spartan can handle 3 pallets loaded 80 inches high, the C-295 can handle 5 pallets loaded 60 inches high.
The C-295 is FAA certified, the Spartan is not, and the G-222 was not. The CN-235 has Canadian certification. The CN-235 and G-222 history is important, because the two newer aircraft are just re-engined (and modified) versions of the basic aircraft. The structural advantages and disadvantages of each will remain. One of those problems for the Spartan is a high stalling speed - about 10 knots higher than a Hercules with the same SAR load and equivalent fuel endurance. Unfortunately, that is a safety issue for the crew when dealing with mountain contour search, as well significantly degrading the effectiveness of search - the faster a search aircraft goes, the less the spotters see.
The Spartan did not just have water leaks around the windshield on the Greek aircraft, the problems that the Hellenic Air Force encountered included alignment problems with engines, propellers, and landing gear. They are holding payment until the problems are resolved, but did agree to let deliveries continue.
Finally, the Spartan or G-222 has never been used as a search aircraft or Maritime patrol aircraft - which means that the type of problems currently being experienced by the Cormorant (grounding due to corrosion, parts and serviceability issues, and lack of integrated EO/IR capability) should be anticipated by the launch customer for a SAR version. You can ask the SAR techs in Trenton how they are enjoying their Cormorant, but you better duck after you ask - they will not see that aircraft again for at least a couple of years. Instead they are "making do" with Griffons, because the effort required to take the Cormorant to full mature status has resulted in an availability that is a fraction of what the manufacturer claimed, so Trenton gave up their aircraft to the Coastal squadrons.
The bottom line is that the project office has not written a SOR based on SAR requirements, they have written it based on the specifications of the Spartan. That is contrary to Canadian government procurement policy, and does not do either taxpayers or SAR crews any favours in the long run.
- Reaction score
- 895
- Points
- 1,060
Rescue Randy said:
Perhaps they have an alternate use in mind?
S
Skaha
Guest
this says it is in service
http://www.sbac.co.uk/community/cms/content/preview/news_item_view.asp?i=14669&t=0
First C-27J In Service with the Italian Air Force
25/10/2006
After completion of the test activities, the Italian Defence Ministry has accepted the first Alenia Aeronautica C-27J tactical transport aircraft.
This aircraft is part of a 12-unit contract, and its related 5-year logistic support, whose supply will be completed by 2008 to the Italian Air Force 46th Wing, Pisa Air Force Base. A second aircraft will be presented to ItAF for test by the end of the year.
http://www.sbac.co.uk/community/cms/content/preview/news_item_view.asp?i=14669&t=0
First C-27J In Service with the Italian Air Force
25/10/2006
After completion of the test activities, the Italian Defence Ministry has accepted the first Alenia Aeronautica C-27J tactical transport aircraft.
This aircraft is part of a 12-unit contract, and its related 5-year logistic support, whose supply will be completed by 2008 to the Italian Air Force 46th Wing, Pisa Air Force Base. A second aircraft will be presented to ItAF for test by the end of the year.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
That is possible, although the only aircraft mentioned so far in this thread that are getting "alternate use" (Special Ops) is the CN-235 - there are a dozen of them with small USAF markings floating around....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Thanks for post at 18:41 Rescue Randy, you have clarified a great many things.
ZB
ZB
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
The issue of the Italian press release also probably could use an explanation. When a fleet of aircraft is purchased, you do not pick them up and start delivering freight. The crews need to be trained on the aircraft - since the Spartan is about 1500 KG heavier than the G-222, all the specifications are different, the handling is different, and so on. There is no simulator for the G-222 or the Spartan, so the crews can not train in advance and just step in the aircraft. They have to build proficiency, and then can work on building operational capability. The user will normally declare IOC (initial operational capability) when they are ready to commence limited operations, then FOC (full operational capability) when they are fully mission capable. It took the Cormorant crews about a year of operations to declare IOC after the first aircraft were delivered.
In the case of the one Italian C-27J that has been "delivered", it is not yet fully configured, does not have air refuelling capability, and is missing some other items required by Italy. It was quickly signed over to the Italian Air Force and then immediately sent to the US to be a backup aircraft for the factory aircraft being used to conduct the Early User Survey for the US Joint Cargo Aircraft program. If you look at the remainder of the press release, you will see that it will go back into the factory on return to Italy to have the rest of the installations done prior to being returned to the Air Force.
In the case of the one Italian C-27J that has been "delivered", it is not yet fully configured, does not have air refuelling capability, and is missing some other items required by Italy. It was quickly signed over to the Italian Air Force and then immediately sent to the US to be a backup aircraft for the factory aircraft being used to conduct the Early User Survey for the US Joint Cargo Aircraft program. If you look at the remainder of the press release, you will see that it will go back into the factory on return to Italy to have the rest of the installations done prior to being returned to the Air Force.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Inch said:
Dosanjh is so partisan in his criticism of the Conservatives that his comments loose all credibility. Ironic when it wouldn't be hard to present fair and balanced criticism. He seems unable to present positive, constructive alternative options. You would think Afghanistan would call for united multiparty support in the face of soldiers putting their lives on the line. Constructive criticism is valued but partisan snipping is just makes the Liberal Defence critic look small minded.
