MAKO69 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) On Airliners.net looking at planes and this pops up. My 4 year daughter sitting next to me says "Oh daddy I love that plane its cute." "I want one." I said if we had the money to buy that plane we would'nt we would get something a little more comfy. Edited June 23, 2009 by MAKO69 Quote
Silverbolt Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Kawasaki C-1 i like it too... here we are developing a similar plane 1st concept: 2 concept: Russia and India were developing one similat to both, but i don't remember the status now India MTA Edited June 23, 2009 by Silverbolt Quote
Hokum Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 The Kawasaki C-1, it is a little dumpy but has given good service to my knowledge over the years. Isn't it due for replacement? Quote
+SayethWhaaaa Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 FC Didn't this one evolve into the C-17...? Quote
+JediMaster Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 I saw the YC-14 and 15 at Pima Air Museum in the 80s. Apparently shortly afterwards they pulled them both out for further testing in support of the C-17 program. Quote
Bravo2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 I saw the YC-14 and 15 at Pima Air Museum in the 80s. Apparently shortly afterwards they pulled them both out for further testing in support of the C-17 program. They are still there last time I checked, which was about 2yrs ago..... Quote
Rambler 1-1 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 ah yes, the dwarfs of the cargo plane world. Personally, I don't see the advantage of a little jet-engined cargo plane over a C-130, but some countries just have to be different... Quote
+FastCargo Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 The main thing would be absolute speed, but only if the aircraft could retain C-130 STOL capabilities. A C-130 is SLOOOOWWW.... FC Quote
MAKO69 Posted June 23, 2009 Author Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Oh I got STOL and speed here. The wife's rig set up for trans national travel. Massachusettes to Orlando FL 18.5 hrs. Edited June 24, 2009 by MAKO69 Quote
+JediMaster Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 They were pulled out, but yes the YC-14 and 15 were returned there after the C-17 began to enter service. Quote
Rambler 1-1 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 The main thing would be absolute speed, but only if the aircraft could retain C-130 STOL capabilities. A C-130 is SLOOOOWWW.... FC well, I suppose that in the cargo hauling biz, capacity AND speed both come before beauty... I'd like to see a C-130 conversion with some little jets and some type of flap-blowing mechanism. Perhaps cheaper then a new plane, and probably nicer looking... Quote
+JediMaster Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 There was talk of a tilt wing/rotor-type C-130 sized plane, looking like a cross between a C-130 and a V-22 with 4 rotors/engines...2 on the front wing, 2 on the rear wing. Doubt anything will come of it. Quote
TX3RN0BILL Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) There was talk of a tilt wing/rotor-type C-130 sized plane, looking like a cross between a C-130 and a V-22 with 4 rotors/engines...2 on the front wing, 2 on the rear wing. Doubt anything will come of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-22 Edit: About the Yc-14... An-70 Coaler anyone? Edited July 6, 2009 by TX3RN0BILL Quote
Rambler 1-1 Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Let us not forget the Canadair (General Dynamics) CL-84 Dynavert. It was an early contendor in the tilt-rotor race and even preformed trials on the USS Guam in 1971. It was too small to be taken seriously as a cargo plane though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84 @ Bill, yeah, the An-70 looks like the type of plane to have. Those counter-rotating propfans look like real maintenance buggers, but a nice comprimise between turboprops and jets, especially for a STOL transport. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.