|
|
Post by Ykato on Jul 14, 2010 17:16:29 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Jul 14, 2010 22:48:43 GMT 12
It would be good, but i still think that the RNZAF would do better off with a military transport aircraft, there could be many problems trying to adapt the P750, and I know it is a great aircraft but i think it may be a bit small for it to fill some of the gaps left by the C-130, as the idea of the Light transports would be to relive the work of some of the C-130's is it not???
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 14, 2010 23:28:03 GMT 12
Is this for real?
Is this meant to be an added capability for the RNZAF? Or a massive downgrading of capability for No. 42 Squadron? Confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Jul 14, 2010 23:32:28 GMT 12
PAC might be proposing it as a cheaper alternative for using the NH-90s when a helicopter is not needed or perhaps a chute trainer (the RNZAF do hire smaller aircraft for this IIRC)...but there is also a need for twin engine trainer and a smaller transport in the CN-235 category which the PAC - 750 XL is clearly not.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Jul 14, 2010 23:43:47 GMT 12
Errr Ummmmmmmmmmm ........ I'm all supportive of PAC and its venture with L3 to market the P-750 to land locked Afghanistan where such aircraft would be rather handy .... or maybe if they marketed a COIN type attack variant for the RNZAF (heh heh remember that NZ Wings cartoon circa early-80's with an armed PAC Cresco for the RNZAF?) ... or better still if the Govt wanted to re-establish a RNZAF Sqn based in the South Pacific again meaning the P-750 would actually be based in the Islands ......
But to lobby the Minister to say (presumably) that the P-750, single engined, would be suitable for the RNZAF, to carry 10 people cramped for hours flying over the sea from NZ to the Pacific ... you gotta be kidding! Even for VIP use in NZ only, VIP + single engine ... you gotta be kidding!
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jul 14, 2010 23:48:44 GMT 12
Maybe they'll aim for a P-750 Gunship? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Jul 15, 2010 2:05:22 GMT 12
yea one 50. cal mounted in old school WW2 bomber style  |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 15, 2010 9:49:15 GMT 12
Great though the 750 is, I cant see any valid role for it in the RNZAF at the moment. PAC are obviously wanting to get a local military sale as it will help thier bid for the much more lucrative USAF order. There is method in the madness, but madness it is...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 15, 2010 10:49:24 GMT 12
When did the designation of this aircraft change from PAC-750XL to simply P750?
|
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jul 15, 2010 11:03:15 GMT 12
would have thought it would have been a good replacement for the Australian Armys Porters. Since the RNZAF is only getting 8 NH90's it maybe a good replacement for the loss in helicopter numbers...I know it cant do all that a chopper can, but it will be able to do a reasonable amout of its work at a fraction of the cost
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Jul 15, 2010 12:24:19 GMT 12
it may be good for some transport areas but what the RNZAF needs is a platform that can also undertake advanced pilot training, VIP, light/medium transport and if i am right from the rumours of the SN235/295 a military tactical aircraft. If the P750 was purchased we would still have to buy another separate aircraft for advanced training and i imagine that would cost a fair bit more that having it all in one platform. it's an awesome aircraft but i think after all the recent issues with new systems, buying a aircraft that has been already trailed and tested in a military role would be the safer bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jul 15, 2010 19:45:09 GMT 12
yea one 50. cal mounted in old school WW2 bomber style Yeah establish port orbit slide back the door, poke out the .50 - kiwi style gunship |
|
|
|
Post by Kereru on Jul 15, 2010 22:00:28 GMT 12
Would be kept quite busy by PTSU? After all isn't that what the 750XL is designed for?
Save quite a few hours on Hercs and they could get on with modifying the rest of them.
Colin
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 16, 2010 0:04:12 GMT 12
Would the P750 be suitable for static line courses though? When i was in the RNZAF, PTSU used to put through courses of 100+ soldiers at a time and most of their jumps were static line. Is that still the case? I doubt you can even stand up straight in a 750 door, could you?
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Jul 16, 2010 0:34:34 GMT 12
there is a fletcher at Motueka Airdrome (earlier development of the P750 XTOL) and from what i have seen you cant stand in it at all and its rather cramped in there, I was holding short of the runway as it took off and all the jumpers are tight up against the door!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mit on Jul 16, 2010 0:47:20 GMT 12
When did the designation of this aircraft change from PAC-750XL to simply P750? P750 Is the ICAO aircraft type designation. |
|
|
|
Post by nige on Jul 16, 2010 10:25:15 GMT 12
I don't profess to be an expert but I would have thought the P750 would also be unsuitable for PTSU duties i.e. the "para-troopers" may as well practice with the sort of aircraft they would actually deploy from if they went into theatre i.e. C130.
Also even if it was thought that the P750 would make a good basic, cheap, alternative for "paratrooper" cadets in training to gain their wings etc, again would you want to potentially risk these expensive-to-train soldiers in a single engine P750? We're not talking about $100 jumps for the public, but soldiers, airmen etc, that must cost thousands of dollars per year to train up etc. Better that the RNZAF get the CN235 or 295 to be used a cheap alternative to the C130 for PSTU training etc.
If NZ were surrounded by other countries eg we were placed in South America or Asia etc, then having P750's would be useful. But for the RNZAF in a country surrounded by water, what use would they be? Not even for PTSU duties - and even if they were used for that, I doubt it would sway other countries to buy them because of paratroop training.
PAC would be better off talking to South American, Asian or African militaries, who need something cheap and affordable and can be used for a range of tasks. But I do hope PAC stop wasting the time of the NZ Govt suggesting it is suitable for the RNZAF before some boozo politician thinks it might be a good cheap alternative to buying proper mil-spec aircraft for the NZDF!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 16, 2010 11:41:28 GMT 12
Is the PAC-750 actually a cheap aircraft? Everyone keeps inferring it's a "cheap alternative" but what is the actual price of it and how does it compare with other similar types?
Meaning no disrespect to PAC at all, as I think the PAC-750 is an excellent aircrat, but I just wondered if a small production aircraft like this built in a place like NZ would make it much dearer overall to build than say a type that are built in the USA or Europe in much larger numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Jul 16, 2010 13:49:01 GMT 12
The PAC750XL is very good value. Not sure how up to date it is but I have seen pricing of $1.29m US for the 750 vs $1.7m US for a new Cessna Grand Caravan (closest comparison). I dont think "economies of scale" really apply to an aircraft of this nature (probably most aircaft) as most of the cost would be in it's power plant and avionics which are mass produced anyway. Heres a spreadsheet showing cost comparisons (hopefully you can open it) www.utilityaircraft.com/750xloperatingcostcomparisonunfinanced41705.xlsSlightly off topic but why was the PAC-750XL unsuccesful as an AG aircraft? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 16, 2010 15:07:23 GMT 12
Thanks Paul. That puts things into perspective a little.
|
|
