otr1
Sergeant
Posts: 14 
|
Post by otr1 on Apr 20, 2015 7:27:17 GMT 12
Landing in the Lone Star state last week.  |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Apr 20, 2015 14:33:16 GMT 12
Ugly little thing
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Apr 20, 2015 15:15:28 GMT 12
It's undercart isn't doing it any favours in the looks department.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Apr 20, 2015 15:58:42 GMT 12
Yeah that's not pretty..............mind you it flies!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 20, 2015 17:24:00 GMT 12
I agree with the consensus, it ain't good looking. A rough strip with those tetchy little legs will be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 20, 2015 21:14:27 GMT 12
Just think, that kangaroo could be a kiwi in 5 years time
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on Apr 21, 2015 8:01:53 GMT 12
To a certain degree it reminds me of the old C-123 Provider with a few more 'modern' bits attached; it has essentially the same basic configuration with a pair of turbo props instead of the radials. A question though: As New Zealand is a long way from anywhere, surely ANY 'military cargo carrier would need to have four engines, and a large fuel capacity to even get anywhere beyond Oz? Twins are all very well, but for reliability, safety and range, four engines would seem to be better. We could of course always purchase the superb Lockheed C-130... (Oh, wait a minute, I see - these could be the Herc's replacements. Oh dear...)
|
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Apr 21, 2015 9:51:03 GMT 12
One of my abiding memories of the 2007 Avalon show is walking about of a display hall, looking up and seeing one of these inverted in the middle of an aileron roll during its display.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Apr 21, 2015 12:59:50 GMT 12
To a certain degree it reminds me of the old C-123 Provider with a few more 'modern' bits attached; it has essentially the same basic configuration with a pair of turbo props instead of the radials. A question though: As New Zealand is a long way from anywhere, surely ANY 'military cargo carrier would need to have four engines, and a large fuel capacity to even get anywhere beyond Oz? Twins are all very well, but for reliability, safety and range, four engines would seem to be better. We could of course always purchase the superb Lockheed C-130... (Oh, wait a minute, I see - these could be the Herc's replacements. Oh dear...) "4 engine safety" is a pretty outdated concept with the current generation of reliable turboprops - the twins will fly quite safely with decent range on one. Not many 4 engined airliners being made now! also, we have had twin engined transports servicing the pacific region since WW2 - no particular issues with those operations. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Apr 21, 2015 19:58:41 GMT 12
I agree with the consensus, it ain't good looking. A rough strip with those tetchy little legs will be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 21, 2015 20:14:58 GMT 12
That's not really a rough strip. Just a grass strip.
|
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Apr 21, 2015 20:24:51 GMT 12
Considering the design requirements included operating of unprepared rough strips of 500m length, I reckon those legs will do the job fine.
The C-27J can land on almost any surface — snow, sand, and soft soil below CBR 4 (California Bearing Ratio is one of the most widely used methods for measuring load-bearing structure of unprepared airstrips and the soil underneath it). Additionally, it is capable of taking off from and landing on unprepared airstrips less than 500 meters long-a significantly shorter distance than other competitors in its class. Moreover, the aircraft has the best ground manoeuvrability compared with other military transport aircraft, a quality that enables the C-27J to access to a larger number of airfields and airstrips around the country. The minimum strip width for ground inversion 12.1 m.
There are several unique system features that enable the C-27J's outstanding STOL capability. First, the aircraft is equipped with landing gear and a brake system that are optimized for unprepared airstrips. Secondly, the aerodynamic design dimensions of the aircraft and advanced on-board avionics enable crews to optimize the flight profile in approach and in takeoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Apr 21, 2015 22:50:09 GMT 12
The reason the legs look so funny is they are trailing link type, with very long stroke. When they are unloaded the oleos will make the trailing links hang down a long way. Its actually one of the best ways of designing undercarriages for rough fields. Its not pretty, but it is effective (a bit of an illusion really...) The C130 has straight oleos on a moving frame - not that you ever see them due to the low ground clearance and the way the gear doors hide them. Pretty sturdy, but not as clever as trailing link.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 22, 2015 1:42:35 GMT 12
OK, I take it all back. Still very ugly though.
|
|
