 |
Airbus Military has begun flight-testing a modification to add winglets to the C295 medium transport and surveillance aircraft – one of a series of product developments underway on the market-leading type.
The winglets, which are short extensions to the wingtips of the aircraft, have the potential to improve performance in the take-off, climb and cruise phases of flight by increasing the lift-drag ratio.
Possible in-service benefits include improved hot and high runway performance, increased range and endurance, and reduced operating costs.
First flight of the wingletted aircraft took place with complete success at Airbus Military’s Seville facility in Spain on 21 December. Data from that flight is being analysed and will be added to data from future flights, providing the basis for a decision on whether or not to incorporate winglets into the C295 design. The photograph shows the C295 during its first flight with winglets.
|
I'm not sure but I am impressed by how versatile the airplane is. A cargo, airborne early warning, maritime patrol and gunship version exist. Quite honestly a smaller force would be wise to neck down to this one type to save money on maintenance alone, much less pilot training.
UPDATE: Someone responded in the comments section that fully explains why the C-295 has been gobbling up orders all over the world. I honestly had thought it had to do with price but its obvious from the figures put up by the anonymous commenter that the C-295 is indeed a world beater. Next question. How did it lose to the C-27 in the Army's Sherpa replacement contest????
1. CABIN
ReplyDeleteLength (m): C295 has 15.73 vs. C-27J has 10.53 --> C295 has the best mark
Floor Area (m2): C295 has 37.12 vs. C-27J has 25.8 --> C295 has the best mark
Volume (m3): C295 has 64 vs. C-27J has 58 --> C295 has the best mark
Troops: C295 has 71 vs. C-27J has 46 --> C295 has the best mark
Paratroops: C295 has 50 vs. C-27J has 32 --> C295 has the best mark
Pallets (88" x 108"): C295 has 5 vs. C-27J has 3 --> C295 has the best mark
Stretchers: C295 has 24 vs. C-27J has 18 --> C295 has the best mark
Roller System: C295 has 4 row (like C-130) vs. C-27J has 3 --> C295 has the best mark
2. PERFORMANCE
Range (nm): C295 has 3000 vs. C-27J has 3000 --> Equal marks
Runway required (ft / 5000kg / 1000nm): C295 has 2290 vs C-27J has 2750 --> C295 has the best mark, it has better STOL capability.
Trips needed for deployment of Rapid Reaction Force - unpaved runway (800 troops / 200 t in 48h): C295 has 37 vs. C-27J has 89 --> C295 has the best mark
Soft Runway Capability (CBR): C295 has 2 vs. C-27J has 4 --> C295 has the best mark
Payload range (t): C295 has 9 vs. C-27J has 9 --> Equal marks
Fuel consumption (max. ferry range / litre): C295 has 7700 vs. C-27J has 12300 --> C295 has the best mark, it offers fuel savings and therefore cost savings.
Endurance: C295 has 12 hours vs. C-27J has 10 --> C295 has the best mark, it offers 2 hours more search and rescue time.
MMH/FH: C295 has 1.14 vs. C-27J has > 7 --> C295 has the best mark
FAA Certified: C295 YES vs. C-27J NO --> C295 is the only fully certified
Maritime proven: C295 (and CN235) is used in more than 12 countries vs. C-27J not one--> C295 is the clear winner.
Further information:
The C295 offers the best value for users, with lower acquisition and direct operating costs than any other aircraft in its category. The C295 is cheaper to purchase, maintain and operate than the C-27J. The C-27J’s fuel and maintenance needs give it operational costs that are over 60% more expensive than the C295’s.
The Spartan burnt much more fuel per hour than the C295 (as much as 60 per cent more), which meant the C295 could save as much as $300 million on fuel over the 30-year lifespan of a 10-aircraft fleet.
A greater endurance of 12 hours allows the aircrew to remain on-scene longer, collect more information, support other assets, and track targets for longer periods of time.
The C295 has more modern aerodynamics and flight controls than the C-27J Spartan.
It's the only two-engine aircraft in its class that can carry five pallets, providing additional flexibility for intra-theater lift, with a cargo cabin that is the largest of any medium-sized military transport. The C295 can hold a "Hummer" wheeled vehicle with free space to spare. Since C295 has a longer fuselage it can carry more cargo pallets than the C-27J. C295 comes with a nifty pallet loading system, and is cheaper to maintain and fly.
C295's ease of maintenance and low life cycle cost, as well as its operational capabilities represent a clear advantage over any other competitor.
Its horses for courses rather than one being somehow better than the other
ReplyDeleteHad a look at them both here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a400m-atlas-part-5-say-hello-to-my-little-brother/
Most important points(if we forget the rest) i see in the post i posted earlier are fuel and maintenance C27 burns something like 60% more gas per hour (due to larger fuselage crossection),maintenance man hours vs flying hour ratio is a killer MMH/FH: C295 has 1.14 vs. C-27J has > 7 ,C27 needs over 6x times more maintenance man hours per flying hour. Try sustaining that long term.
ReplyDeleteIIRC the C-27J 'won' the competition by touting its so-called commonality with the C-130J (same engines, similar cockpit and avionics etc). Operational experience has been alright, but the AF is now desperate to get rid of them for whatever reason, so you can read your own conclusions into that battle.
ReplyDeleteThe US Army should buy a fleet of C-295s and tell the Air Farce to f*** themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the US Army wasn't getting enough tactical airlift missions from the USAF and decided to buy it's own aircraft. The USAF then was allowed to take over that program, sharply reduce, and then eliminate the program. The issue isn't the platform but rather how the USAF supports her sister services.
DeleteYes, I know, but it would be a great F U, wouldn't it?
DeleteIt's horses for courses. A few of those "stats" need illuminating.
ReplyDeleteFor starters the C-27J can carry 11.5t worth of payload. The C-295 maxes out at 9.5t. The C-27J cruises at 315 knots, the C-295 cruises at 260 knots. The C-27J has a 30,000 feet ceiling, the C-295 has a 25,000 feet ceiling.
The C-27J burns more fuel? Of course it does. So does the C-130J and the A400m and the reason why, is because all of these aircraft fly faster, higher and further than the C-295 can manage, all whilst carrying a significantly larger payload.
The C-295 can only carry 48 seated paratroops, the C-27J can carry 46 seated paratroops. Yeah that's a clear win...
The C-27J DOES have significant commonality with the C-130J, namely engines, avionics, Nav warfare and defensive EW capability, something the C-295 does not. With ANY other aircraft apart from the C-235 from which it derives.
The C-295 is cheaper? Of course it is. It doesn't go as far, as fast, as high or carry as much and it is a design evolved from a civilian regional airliner, (the C-235) NOT a mil-spec tactical airlifter.
If you want to send the troops into combat in a militarised civilian design be my guest, but no-one who can afford better has opted for the C-295.
Out of interest, here's what the Airbus Military CEO had to say about the C-27J when it was selected for the Australian Air Force:
"Urena conceded there were some capabilities the C295 lacked compared to the C-27J, but asked, “what is the value of those requirements versus the total capability that you are looking for?”
What are those "lacking" capabilities in question? Only those relevant for a combat tactical airlifter...