...and here’s a picture of the propfan flying...Palmdale, CA IIRC
Posted on 12/11/2009 5:12:45 AM PST by wolf78
Algore was finally right about something!
...and here’s a picture of the propfan flying...Palmdale, CA IIRC
Socialism a la US:
A January 1995 GAO report revealed that while the original C-17 budget was US$41.8 billion for 210 aircraft, the 120 aircraft already ordered at that point had already cost US$39.5 billion. [Source Wikipedia]
About 60 % more per aircraft.
Eight blades must be better ...
Giddy up!
55+
Thats bad aint it! {I work for L/M.}
There are now so many blades you wonder why anybody bothers to cut out the holes in between...
Kinda looks like 10 blades might be the practical limit.
The delays on the c-17 were 100% the fault of Honeywell, as well as most of the cost overruns. Fours behind schedule on software development. This is why Gen. Butchko, the Air Force C-17 Program Manager, approved MD’s decision to fire them in 1989 and hire GE. GE delivered operatinal software one year later.
After the OSD planning was put into effect in 1990, the plane flew in late 1991.
Let’s not forget that due to technology advances during that time and changing mission requirements, the Pentagon and DA changed requirements in mid stream several times, which had something to do with Honeywells’ failure. I know, factually, the entire hydraulics systems had to be scrapped to accommodate the new low altitude parachute delivery system.
We are currently selling C-17’s to USAF for that $210 million figure, and for $237 Million to foreign Gov’s.. That’s a reduction of 88-125 million a piece.
Launch reliability, and on-time departure rates nearly 100%
Single mission capability in the low 90’s
Fully mission capable rate in the mid to kigh 80’s.
Fully loaded landings in under 3000’ and less than 90’ wide, and still be able to turn around and take off.
Let’s see the Euro weenies match, or even come close to, the 17’s stats...
A400M-Specs
General characteristics
* Crew: 3 or 4 (2 pilots, 3rd optional, 1 loadmaster)
* Capacity: 37,000 kg (82,000 lb)
o 116 fully equipped troops / paratroops,
o up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel
* Length: 45.1 m (148 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)
* Height: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
* Empty weight: 69,853 kg (154,000 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 141,000 kg (310,852 lb)
* Max. Landing Weight: 114 tonnes (251,000 lb)
* Total Internal Fuel: 50.5 tonnes (111,333 lb)
* Powerplant: 4 × EuroProp International TP400-D6[39] turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,060 hp) each
* Propellers: 8-bladed, 5.3 m (17 ft 5 in) diameter
Performance
* Cruising speed: 780 km/h (480 mph; 420 kn) (Mach 0.68 - 0.72)
* Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW: 9,000 m (29,000 ft)
* Range: 3,298 km (2,049 mi; 1,781 nmi) at max payload (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
o Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,540 km (2,450 nmi)
o Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,390 km (3,450 nmi)
* Ferry range: 8,710 km (5,412 mi; 4,703 nmi)
* Service ceiling: 11,300 m (37,073 ft)
* Maximum Operating Altitude: 12,000 m (40,000 ft)
* Tactical Takeoff Distance: 980 m (3,215 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)
* Tactical Landing Distance: 770 m (2,526 ft) (as above)
* Turning Radius (Ground): 28.6 m
Cost-about 230 Million EU before final price tag
C-17 Globemaster Specs-Foreign (Germany)
General Characteristics
Primary Function: Cargo and troop transport
Prime Contractor: Boeing Company
Power Plant: 4 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofan engines
Thrust: 40,440 pounds, each engine
Speed: 450 knots at 28,000 feet
(8,534 meters) (Mach .74)
Service Ceiling: 45,000 feet at cruising speed
(13,716 meters)
Range: Global with in-flight refueling
Crew: 3 (2 pilots; 1 loadmaster)
Maximum Peacetime
Takeoff Weight: 585,000 pounds (265,352 kilograms)
Load: - 102 troops/paratroops; 48 litter and 54 ambulatory patients and attendants;
- 170,900 pounds (77,519 kilograms) of cargo (18 pallet positions)
Unit Cost Development: $237 million (German)
Sorry, the C-17 wins.
Story goes that in the end it saved plenty of fuel but not enough to offset the cost of retooling back shops and retraining maintenance workers.
I guess the curved blades got rid of the noise problem. History channel had a show about planes and one had a five blade prop. The prop design caused several constant small sonic booms every time they ran the engine on the ground. People near it would get ill from those booms.
And EADS blamed the engines.
Cost-about 230 Million EU before final price tag
26 Billion € for 180 aircraft are about 145 Million € per aircraft. Today about $215 Million. A few years ago $145 Million.
Range: Global with in-flight refueling
Nice joke. A400M is not a unicorn therefore the same range.
Do you know the fuel burn rate of a C-17? More than 20,000 lbs/h. A400M is about 12,000 lbs/h.
The article above is about masses of people hallucinating?
"I have seen an A400M flying ...I myself was flying ... everybody was flying ... everything ..."
In five years of in-field usage, I might be able to say they got a good plane, and it's a good value. But, until then, it's lines drawn on paper.
May I ask you what you think about the tanker contest? There we have an aircraft ready for delivery in 2010 to RAAF and on the over side is a company with a sketch of an older aircraft design, an insufficient boom and problems with wing mounted refueling pods.
By the way does C-17 got a civil certification? That may not be important for US but many other nations got legal problems using military aircrafts for mixed operations e.g. desaster relief.
Answer to last question: NO
I'm also not looking for a job like some Air Force generals do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.