Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I think the 211 has Transatlantic range.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • A 21-yr old A321 is worth the value of it's engines, nothing more. All of the EI 321s are very high-time airframes. It's probably at a point in it's life where it's just about worth converting to a freighter.

      Comment


      • The Dutch have just announced that they will now replace their 4x C-130's with new aircraft at a cost of €250 million to €1 billion. It was decided that the cost of keeping them in-service and upgrading them was too high.

        Comment


        • They were planning to replace in 2030 anyway. Made little sense to upgrade their H and H-30s for the sake of at best 8 years more. I'd say they are strong contenders for A400M. They already have access to NATO C17s through SAC
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • Will be interesting if the Dutch go with new aircraft of their own or go the joint model with the Germans, they already share the Karel Doorman JSS and contribute to a joint Armoured battalion.

            Comment




            • Here's a cockpit view of a B757-200 landing on 29/11 with a KFOR chalk some years back. Barely uses the runway.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post


                Here's a cockpit view of a B757-200 landing on 29/11 with a KFOR chalk some years back. Barely uses the runway.

                Given that the only insinuation given is that this B757 "barely uses the runway" I will offer some informed commentary.

                1. No KFOR chalk, certainly since the contingent size changed from a Coy to *significantly* less, has been rotated on a dedicated commercial transfer. There's enough info on social media to identify what mission is being rotated in this video.

                2. This B757 crosses the displaced threshold of RWY29 at 10ft above the runway, as per the cockpit callout. Normal operations would dictate that the aircraft is at 50ft above the threshold on landing. This clearly indicates that the crew were executing a short field landing technique.

                2. The main landing gear touches on before the 500' ft markers. The normal touchdown point as per a 3° Glide slope is at the 1000ft markers. Another indication of a short field landing technique being used.

                3. Both PAPI's left and right of RWY29 indicate 3 reds/1 white on short final which indicates that the aircraft is below the optimum approach angle. Another short field technique.

                4. The aircraft in question would have been operating at a significantly reduced landing weight given the limited pax (much less than c.200) and much less cargo would have much improved breaking capacity.

                5. Many 757's operate RR engines, which are noted to be significantly overpowered for the airframe giving significant increases in take off and landing performance. Having a designated alternate about 10km away greatly reduces the alternate fuel required which further reduced the landing weight.

                6. The runway is bone dry which is a significant factor in calculated landing distance but is ultimately more critical for take off performance.

                Again, not entirely sure what the purpose of your video is but if it was to show "here's a 757 landing in Baldonnel..its a non event", then this isn't an accurate reflection of all the considerations to be fair.

                Throw in an aircraft close to MAUW on a limits approach to a non precision runaway in marginal conditions on a contaminated runway and its a different story.

                There's a reason why the DF rotate the bigger mission chalks through Dublin.

                Comment


                • Spot on. 757s are still highly sought after by airlines. they have held their value compared to other airliners, even their Boeing stablemates. Pilots and cabin crews always speak highly of them. The RR engines are less than universally loved but they are very good cruising engines.

                  Comment


                  • My point was to demonstrate that while a mythical former civvy airliner used by the Air Corps for troop transport may not be able to use the runway under normal conditions, it would still be possible, should said aircraft need to return for maintenance/storage.
                    So if we were offered a 757 for lease, we wouldn't necessarily need to refuse it because the runway at Bal is too short. My uneducated eye says they landed that in less than 1000m. Normal operation could work from Dublin, the rest of the time.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chuck View Post
                      Given that the only insinuation given is that this B757 "barely uses the runway" I will offer some informed commentary.

                      1. No KFOR chalk, certainly since the contingent size changed from a Coy to *significantly* less, has been rotated on a dedicated commercial transfer. There's enough info on social media to identify what mission is being rotated in this video.

                      2. This B757 crosses the displaced threshold of RWY29 at 10ft above the runway, as per the cockpit callout. Normal operations would dictate that the aircraft is at 50ft above the threshold on landing. This clearly indicates that the crew were executing a short field landing technique.

                      2. The main landing gear touches on before the 500' ft markers. The normal touchdown point as per a 3° Glide slope is at the 1000ft markers. Another indication of a short field landing technique being used.

                      3. Both PAPI's left and right of RWY29 indicate 3 reds/1 white on short final which indicates that the aircraft is below the optimum approach angle. Another short field technique.

                      4. The aircraft in question would have been operating at a significantly reduced landing weight given the limited pax (much less than c.200) and much less cargo would have much improved breaking capacity.

                      5. Many 757's operate RR engines, which are noted to be significantly overpowered for the airframe giving significant increases in take off and landing performance. Having a designated alternate about 10km away greatly reduces the alternate fuel required which further reduced the landing weight.

                      6. The runway is bone dry which is a significant factor in calculated landing distance but is ultimately more critical for take off performance.

                      Again, not entirely sure what the purpose of your video is but if it was to show "here's a 757 landing in Baldonnel..its a non event", then this isn't an accurate reflection of all the considerations to be fair.

                      Throw in an aircraft close to MAUW on a limits approach to a non precision runaway in marginal conditions on a contaminated runway and its a different story.

                      There's a reason why the DF rotate the bigger mission chalks through Dublin.


                      I returned from UNIFIL into Baldonnel on a Boeing 767-204(ER). Very wet day from what i recall.

                      Comment


                      • Looking at Google Earth, it should be possible to extend the runways, no?

                        Edit: Maximum takeoff run of the 321 at see level is something like 2800m, probably more for the XLR. I still say: relocate the AC to Shannon. Build a new naval port in Barley Harbour and give them a joint base.
                        Last edited by Graylion; 22 October 2020, 00:15.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by A/TEL View Post
                          I returned from UNIFIL into Baldonnel on a Boeing 767-204(ER). Very wet day from what i recall.
                          Yes I am aware, it was soaking wet.

                          Again, you are not aware of the landing weight on the day only that there was roughly X amount on board.

                          Yet again, having Dublin and Shannon both with runways of 8000-1000ft at a stones throw reduces the amount of fuel required.

                          The point is, you can land a 747/380 in Bal if you really have to. It might not ever be able to get out again.

                          For what it's worth, there was considerable watching interest for the 767 when it departed, and it was definitely a contaminated runway. You can be sure it was a max effort short field take off.

                          A 767 rotating a chalk of 180 might carry about 8-10 tonnes in the hold of baggage. It may as well be flying empty. And equivalent civilian flight may carry over 5 tonnes of luggage and 15-20 more in cargo.

                          Also, for the vast majority of operators who tender for rotations, the requirements are less stringent than those which are required for normal passenger operations.

                          Comment


                          • Dublin has built itself around Baldonnel.
                            Not much scope without diverting a few roads also. Not to mention nearby residential areas.
                            Gormo had more scope for expansion and less locals to complain but they gave up the runways. No hangars though.
                            Last edited by na grohmiti; 22 October 2020, 10:49.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                              Dublin has built itself around Baldonnel.
                              Not much scope without diverting a few roads also. Not to mention nearby residential areas.
                              Gordon had more scope for expansion and less locals to complain but they gave up the runways. No hangars though.
                              Gordon?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                                Gordon?
                                This is why I hate posting here on my phone. It autocorrects to the strangest terms. I typed "Gormo". The PC doesnt even corect my smeling pistakes,
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X