|
simplefish posted:Then the question - and bearing in mind that it wasn't my question, so I am guessing - would seem to be along the lines of whether a useful amount of fuel could be carried in a Greyhound, if it is limited not by catapult launch weight limits but rather by maximum gross weight limits  (Regular Hornet for scale. drat, the F-14 was big.) According to Navy.mil, the C-2A can deliver a combined payload of 10,000 pounds over a distance in excess of 1,000 nm. Assuming the AR system and tanks weigh ~1,500 lbs, usable offload would be 8,500 lbs depending on fuel burn. For comparison, according to AFPAM 10-1403, a KC-135 can deliver 99,400 lbs of usable fuel with a 1,000 nm mission radius. There's also the massive optimum cruise difference between the Hornet and the Greyhound. The Navy already has Super Hornet tanker configurations that take care of the organic tanking role better than the C-2 could. EDIT: Found some better scale pictures, click for huge:  
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:28 on May 1, 2015 |
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not worth it. Keep in mind that, dimensionally, the Greyhound isn't much larger than a Super Hornet. Oh theres a 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Oh theres a It's been done, but they can't get the wings to fold so it will fit below decks. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I'm sure Lockheed can figure something out for $$$$$
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
I've got it: KC-130 seaplane. I'm sure there won't be any problems on the high seas with carrier-seaplane fuel transfers!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
I want to see them try to get a swing-wing Hercules covered by the type certificate.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I want to see them try to get a swing-wing Hercules covered by the type certificate. Variable geometry VSTOL F-35
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:
Not the generators themselves, the generator control units. So, the brains controlling the generators. So, it's much more plausible that those could be kept running if the plane itself was never fully unpowered.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I want to see them try to get a swing-wing Hercules covered by the type certificate. Is a type certificate even a thing for military aircraft?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm sure Lockheed can figure something out for $$$$$ hobbesmaster posted:I've got it: KC-130 seaplane. I'm sure there won't be any problems on the high seas with carrier-seaplane fuel transfers! Come on man, you're right there... CLEARLY LockMart should slap together a USMC truly fully VTOL Herc.  
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:Is a type certificate even a thing for military aircraft? Not really, it's a civil regulation. Some of the stuff Big Safari does would turn the FAA's hair white. That said, I think some mil aircraft (like the C-130) fall under the type cert for their civil counterparts when operated in civilian fleets.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
With regard to Navy tanking stuff, an article from USNI last year claimed that the Navy is looking into using UAVs as the tankers themselves: http://news.usni.org/2014/04/01/uclass-used-tanker-carrier-air-wingquote:The U.S. Navy is considering using its forthcoming Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft as an aerial refueling tanker to free up its fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for more strike missions, several sources told USNI News.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I've got it: KC-130 seaplane. I'm sure there won't be any problems on the high seas with carrier-seaplane fuel transfers! Solve that problem (and get political support) by spending more money by building specialized seaplane tenders. They were a thing once upon a time.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I've got it: KC-130 seaplane. I'm sure there won't be any problems on the high seas with carrier-seaplane fuel transfers! Bring back Consolidated, PBY-130 e: I hit google after typing and well poo poo, that's awesome  alright industry, make seaplane versions of fighter jets instead
Ghosts n Gopniks fucked around with this message at 02:01 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
I dont know why that made me think of this instantly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li72poyZsdA
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
That's clearly ridiculous. I said sea plane, not float plane!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
MrLonghair posted:Bring back Consolidated, PBY-130 Like the A6M2-N? 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Make it a gunship and we have a deal.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I've got it: KC-130 seaplane. I'm sure there won't be any problems on the high seas with carrier-seaplane fuel transfers! Bring back the SeaMaster. Dammit.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not worth it. Keep in mind that, dimensionally, the Greyhound isn't much larger than a Super Hornet. Great reply and nice pics, thanks
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That's clearly ridiculous. I said sea plane, not float plane!    http://atomictoasters.com/2013/02/hercules-goes-for-a-swim/
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The C-2 doesn't carry much in the way of weight. This was discussed in the TFR cold war/airpower thread; there's probably enough gas for two Hornets. Except a C-2 can fly at altitude above weather for easier/smoother hookups, while the V-22 can't. Obviously we need to get some Fokker on the problem: 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Except a C-2 can fly at altitude above weather for easier/smoother hookups, while the V-22 can't. This image is breaking my brain.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:This image is breaking my brain. If you think that's ludicrous: http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/05/airliners-landing-aircraft-carrier-oh-yes/  *and* 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:This image is breaking my brain. If a f-111b can operate off a carrier a regional jet can too!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:If you think that's ludicrous: http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/05/airliners-landing-aircraft-carrier-oh-yes/ 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
A Sea-130?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Come on man, you're right there... CLEARLY LockMart should slap together a USMC truly fully VTOL Herc. Variable-geometry Hercules?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
I would love to see that 1/6 model
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Groda posted:Variable-geometry Hercules? Well, it certainly wasn't in the same shape after it landed!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its not a mistake its a feature limitation. Said the GA-ASI software engineers hobbesmaster posted:I've got it: KC-130 seaplane. I'm sure there won't be any problems on the high seas with carrier-seaplane fuel transfers! You laugh but Lockheed has put out draft plans to put floats on a C-130. I'd provide comments on all the other absolutely ludicrous Naval Aviation proposals regarding tanking/COD aircraft but I see that's basically already been covered. Dead Reckoning posted:Not really, it's a civil regulation. Some of the stuff Big Safari does would turn the FAA's hair white. That said, I think some mil aircraft (like the C-130) fall under the type cert for their civil counterparts when operated in civilian fleets. Oh jesus, you've said the magic words of "BS". Big Safari: where "risk acceptance" is simply a matter of writing a blank check tied to a large enough checking account. But seriously, that's basically the level of risk acceptance involved in a lot of areas of what BS touches. YF19pilot posted:Well, it certainly wasn't in the same shape after it landed! lol
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If a f-111b can operate off a carrier a regional jet can too! I want nothing less than a carrier version of a tanker version of Concorde.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Big Safari: where "risk acceptance" is simply a matter of writing a blank check tied to a large enough checking account. This applies to some smaller mil-contract civil aircraft as well. It's amazing what you can get away with after applying a single "Experimental" sticker to the side of a King Air 350.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Except a C-2 can fly at altitude above weather for easier/smoother hookups, while the V-22 can't. Can I just say that I'm very sad this didn't happen. What's Big Safari?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
MrLonghair posted:Bring back Consolidated, PBY-130 They tried once.  Once.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:They tried once. The Ohio replacement needs an organic CAP capacity.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
 Saunders–Roe SR.A/1
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Can I just say that I'm very sad this didn't happen. I wondered the same and it is... it's actually named that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Safari
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:
That one wasn't supersonic and has no place in Our Modern Navy, unlike the Sea Dart which successfully broke the sound barrier! (Before it exploded, I mean)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 07:56
|
|