NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd and The Republic of Freedom Country's researchers have come together to develop a cargo plane to replace those currently in service in both our countries. This will also mark the beginning of a long series of the two nation's co-development projects. More information about the aircraft will be updated here shortly.

Rough Draft:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/387586/C-5.JPG

Airframe Materiel: AZ-AA C alloy/FC plastic composite
Powerplant: General Electric TF39-GE-1C turbofans (AZ rebuild)
Avionics:
FC-110 Digital Fly-by-Wire Set
FC-109 Ultra-Tech Touch Technology HUD
Dimensions:
Length: 255 feet (78 meters)
Height: 65 feet (20 meters)
Wingspan: 200 feet (61 meters)
Stabilizer Span: 68 feet (21 meters)
Cargo Compartment:
Height: 14 feet (4 meters)
Width: 19 feet (6 meters)
Capacity:
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 769,000 pounds (346,500 kilograms)
Maximum Wartime Takeoff Weight: 840,000 pounds (378,000 kilograms)
Takeoff Distance: 7,600 feet (2,316 meters)
Landing Distance: 3,950 feet (1,204 meters)
Ceiling: 34,000 feet (10,303 meters)
Range: 5,940 miles (5,165 nautical miles)
Maximum Speed: 900+ mph (Mach 1.2)
Crew: Six, (pilot, co-pilot, two flight engineers, two loadmasters)
Unit Replacement Cost: $190 million (Not for sale as of yet)

The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd and The Republic of Freedom Country's researchers have come together to develop a cargo plane to replace those currently in service in both our countries. This will also mark the beginning of a long series of the two nation's co-development projects. More information about the aircraft will be updated here shortly.

Will this be for sale?

You will have to refer to the Republic of Freedom Country about that, I haven't have much in the way of the financial division (aside from managing and accepting research grants), to tell the truth.

You will have to refer to the Republic of Freedom Country about that, I haven't have much in the way of the financial division (aside from managing and accepting research grants), to tell the truth.

will do, thanks

Here we go!!!!

Right, I have several ideas of which I would like to share with you.

Here:

Me, crookfur and some whole other guy nattered a while ago about making a An-72 based Cargo Plane, and we were going to start, but never got around to it. Personally, I think the An-72 is rather small and not worth it, but for its STOL is may be a brilliant idea!!!

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/ru_aircraft_an72_01.jpg

The C-17, as we all know, is a damn fine airframe with very good capabilities, and should be used well. It both looks fantastic and is very useful, but is getting small compared to some modern jets like the An-124 and C-5 in usefullness size wise. Still, the STOL technology is uses is revolutionary.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c17_2.jpg

The C-5 and An-124 are both huge aircraft, capable of shifting huge loads from A to B. But both require long runways, which are not in great supply in the modern battlefield. Capable of shifting many tanks/packages/soldiers long distances is GREAT, though the runway problem is major.

SO

I have come up to a conclusion!!!

We should, I think, build a totally new plane, and create a new airframe. This way we can come to a happy compimise between airframes.

Anything you like?

Brilliant idea, however the C-17's system specifications also impose demanding maintainability requirements. There has to be 18.6 aircraft maintenance manhours per flying hour. If we are to make a compromise, we have to avoid impracticality in maintenance. We believe since the United Socialist States of Zvarinograd specializes in modification of pre-existing technology and maintenance, we can probably reduce that. Otherwise it is fine.

I suggest a transport variant, a tanker variant and an electronic warfare or AWACS variant. What do you think?

Secret IC:
To: Zvarinograd
From: Attikisch Weltraum

Please let it be known that the first series of the AF-100 fighter used Freedom Country's 'revolutionary' X-1000 Jet Propulsion Engine. It scored extremely low reliability marks and we lost many fighters to engine breakdowns in-flight.

The An-124 can take off in 1200m of rough surface or snow, for an airplane of it's size that's STOL. In fact that's half the run a C-5B requires.

OOC: Hehe.

Trying to bin my credibility?

Well:

A) I binned the idea, for godmodding.

B) I managed to work it, so your maintenance must be shit.

C) We wouldnt even DARE to use it on a cargo.

D) I wasnt going to use it anyway.

Other than that, and AWACS, EW and Tanker version could be built. I also see that the C-17 has difficult maintenance, but with simplified logistics, maintenance friendly layouts and strong parts, this could be a succesful cargo.

Now, the main question: Supersonic or subsonic. I was thinking Concorde-esque engines, using double turbines for added speed (just a wee but, as in added compression and combustion) to propel it for STOL capabilites.

We see you are good at conversions, but I want to know, what are we basing it on? The C-17, it seems.

Supersonic, air mobility is a must for overseas logistics. Especially in the United Socialist States of Zvarinograd as we don't have any naval forces nor any naval vessels for logistics duty. *Some of our researchers suggest a radical modification; a sleeker design of the C-5 and fitting the C-17's Pratt & Whitney F117-PW- 100 turbofan engines with afterburners so that they can reach such speeds, We chose the C-17's engines because they provide almost as much thrust as the C-5's. (40,900 as opposed to 41,000 lbs of thrust.)

*Valkov! If this doesn't work, I'll have your head on my platter!

Of course it will work! Heheh...hehe...heh...

We would rather base it on the C-5, it might sacrifice some of the C-17's STOL ability but the payload is a greater benefit.

OOC:
My design looks like the B-1B Lancer, only bigger.

I don't know about those afterburners though, they might not work out for a C-5 or even a modified C-5 design. Cargo plane's are generally too bulky for them.

Well super sonic large transports are a good way to say good bye to any operational efficencies (mach 0.8-0.9 sems the favourite operating range at the moment as it offers the best combination of speed and efficency, of course if you find soem way round that...).




HHmmm maybe a Crookfur rebiuld of concorde with enetirely new airframes and electronics to make far more user freindly, hhmmmm.

"Igor! to the Lab!"


sorry about that.

OOC:
Heh.

It's true though, it sacrifices reliability, however the B-1B Lancer never has that much problems and it carries a large payload (C-5 carries a 291,000 lbs while the B-1B estimatably carries 287,000 lbs) across intercontinental ranges at supersonic speeds without refueling. I'm thinking we just need to make the C-5 a more aerodynamic design by elongating the nose and giving the wings a delta design or swept back then giving it Concorde-esque engines, finishing off by giving it the C-17's STOL capabilities through another redesigning from the initial draft.

My design may conflict with the STOL though, I'd have to wait for Freedom to clear this up.

Me, crookfur and some whole other guy nattered a while ago about making a An-72 based Cargo Plane, and we were going to start, but never got around to it. Personally, I think the An-72 is rather small and not worth it, but for its STOL is may be a brilliant idea!!!





I belive Im the whloe other guy and we are going to get round to it.

Sorry UE, I forgot. And nobody told me :wink:

Anyway. So, the C-5 body with long delta wings, a pointy nose (a must) and some damn strong engines. I thought we could get some damn strong engines on the thing, like 4 of the Concorde engine modules, which each have 2 engines.

That means we would end up with something with double the thrust of Concorder, and huge. This means, that if we get some nice STRONG brakes, we fcould power it up to afterburner, then let go, meaning STOL. This may be flawed, what do you think?

OOC:
Wait, Freedom, why didn't you just stick to them? Aerospace competition aside, United Elias and Crookfur are more capable of groundbreaking technology in a week than I am in a month.

:P

On a side note, I use the EA-80 transport plane as standard for my logistics and paratrooper divisions.

What type of Transport are you planning to build?

Yeh, but I am on Ally Hunt, and you seem to need help. And yes, I also use the EA-80 for paratroopers and basic short range cargo. My 37th Airborne Division, our most experienced and capable, use it as their prime transport.

Actually, I never knew they had started, so I started with you. And becide, I like the idea and I like you. So, keep going!!! I dont want to kind of dump you, its rude. And also, we have a one sided Dogfight to do :D

For the braking system, we can probably use the same brakes from the Concorde, although replaced with a more durable and smoother (probably by lubricant) material as the United Socialist States of Zvarinograd still remembers a specific Concorde accident.

25 OCT 1993
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-....
While taxying for takeoff (London-Heathrow - Washington) the aircraft suffered a brake lock. This caused a maingear tire to burst. Fragments of the water deflector caused some holes in the fuel tank.

OOC:
One-sided dogfight indeed. Heh.

Enough self-hijacking anyway. :lol:

That means we would end up with something with double the thrust of Concorder, and huge. This means, that if we get some nice STRONG brakes, we fcould power it up to afterburner, then let go, meaning STOL. This may be flawed, what do you think?

Yes its flawed, only provides STOl on landing and after 5-10 cycles the extreme stress will rip the airframe apart.

Oh well.

Anyway, we will keep the idea.

Heres a mock up:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/387586/C-5.JPG

Tooka ges, and isnt probably the thing you are after :(

The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd would like to use it's specialized lightweight and stress/heat-resistant alloy in the manufacture of the aircraft. It has proven to take the extreme stress of the AZ-SMF-02's extreme agility and grace.

Our researchers applaud at Freedom Country's design, it is sufficient for our cause.

OOC:
Titanium (60%), Vanadium (5.5%), Aluminum (0.5%) Carbon alloy.

We at Freedom Country use a plastic composite, with Diamond, Titanium and Carbon Pigments in it. This provides large protection, and loads of protection against missiles and shells. But we look forward to using both, in building 2 prototypes, after planning. I build the plasstic, you build the titanium.

But first, the main stuff. Lets get planning. Powerplant?

C-17's Pratt & Whitney F117-PW- 100 turbofan engines outfitted with afterburners, to reach at least (if not more than) a maximum of mach 1.2, same as the B-1B Lancer.

Muscles in:

Eight EPE-365 Turbofans producing 28,000lb of thrust each and 44,000lb when afterburning


Or you can have four engines?

I have put 4 of the Concorde engines on. They are damn powerful, and were alsmot used on Britains answer to the B-1.

I have put 4 of the Concorde engines on. They are damn powerful, and were alsmot used on Britains answer to the B-1.

yeah why not use 1950s/early 60s technology?!

with eight of those, you would need eight as concorde is tiny it would have the fuel efficiency of managing to reach the other end of the runway, just about.

How about the B-1 engines?

I am still not sure about the C-17 ones.

The C-5's engines provides 41,000 lbs of thrust, the C-17's 40,900 lbs and lastly the B-1B gives off 30,000 lbs (This I'm not sure about, for a bomber with a bomb payload far larger than the B-52 or the B-2). Proportionally, C-17 engines with afterburners can accomplish supersonic speeds on the design.

Ok.

I still amnt sure. I know supercruise is out of the question, but I would like to have supersonic speed without the need for huge afterburners.

bump for ZG

We could try a larger and more fuel-efficient version of the Concorde's engines or modify the C-5's General Electric TF39-GE-1C turbofan engines with the Concorde's technology. That might work.

Might work.

May I ask you how, mister grump Late 50s design how the Concorde manages to carry 100 people and their luggage in supercruise at Mach 2 across the channle, with is intercontinental.

So, answer me that :wink:

http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/postpics.gif

OOC:
See the pic above?

Okay, next on the list is avionics, crew (for operation), capacity, maximum/cruising speed, takeoff/landing distance, range, ceiling, dimensions and finally unit replacement cost.

Avionics:
That's yours to decide, I may have a good electronics warfare suite but it's specifically built for low profile airframes.
Dimensions:
Length: 255 feet (78 meters)
Height: 65 feet (20 meters)
Wingspan: 200 feet (61 meters)
Stabilizer Span: 68 feet (21 meters)?
Cargo Compartment:
Height: 14 feet (4 meters)
Width: 19 feet (6 meters)?
Capacity:
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 750,000 pounds (340,194 kilograms).
Maximum Wartime Takeoff Weight: 821,000 pounds (372,399 kilograms)?
Takeoff Distance:
7,600 feet (2,316 meters)?
Landing Distance:
3,950 feet (1,204 meters)?
Ceiling:
34,000 feet (10,303 meters)?
Range:
5,940 miles (5,165 nautical miles)?
Maximum/Cruising speed
Your call.
Crew:
A C-5 normally takes six, (pilot, co-pilot, two flight engineers, two loadmasters) any modifications?
Unit Replacement Cost:
$190 million?

Bump.

All looke good.

Are those the specs from the C-5, cos the wings on this are less wide, more swung back.

All the stuff looks good, and I have a past in Electronics on large aricraft.

The speed, I think might be Mach 1 point something.

Six crew, I also think. Same cargo hold as C-5.

Looks good, I will get on the electronics now.

All looke good.

Thanks.

Are those the specs from the C-5, cos the wings on this are less wide, more swung back.

I took that into consideration and decreased the wingspan from the original C-5

The speed, I think might be Mach 1 point something.

Guess we'll stick to the B-1B's speed then.

Six crew, I also think. Same cargo hold as C-5.

Done and done.

All looke good.

Thanks.

Are those the specs from the C-5, cos the wings on this are less wide, more swung back.

I took that into consideration and decreased the wingspan from the original C-5

The speed, I think might be Mach 1 point something.

Guess we'll stick to the B-1B's speed then.

Six crew, I also think. Same cargo hold as C-5.

Well done on this one.

I will do avionics later, and do the description and stuff. I am good at writing the poaragraphs about them, its what I do best :wink:

Done and done.

bump

With both the avionics and description settled, that leaves only the power plant to finalize, is it going to be either modified Concorde engines or modified C-5 engines (Concorde technology)?

My suggestions:

B-1 Engines - 4 of them

Modified C-17's - 4

Modified C-5's - 4

Now, pick 'em off!!!

General Electric TF39-GE-1C turbofans with modifications.

Compressors - Seven-stage low-pressure and seven-stage high-pressure
Combustion - Eight cased flame-tubes
Turbine - Two-stage
Added reheat

Giving the original a 34.78260869565217391304347826087% increase i thrust. (Taken from the proportion of the modifications of the original Rolls Royce/SNECMA Olympus turbojets into the Concorde's version, from 23,000 lbs to 31,000 lbs.)

Amounting to a staggering 55,260 lbs of thrust.

The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd and The Republic of Freedom Country's researchers have come together to develop a cargo plane to replace those currently in service in both our countries.

The Republic of Ozymandias IV is interested in specifications of the older cargo planes you plan to replace with this new model. While our Grand Army of the Republic is primarily defensive in nature, we recognize the need to be able to transport our troops to hot spots for peacekeeping duties and mutual training exercises.

You will have to refer to the Elias Air Force (of the Dictatorship of United Elias) for that, we use thier EA-80 transport plane.

Bump.

Mass bump.

*FC-109 Ultra-Tech Touch Technology HUD*

Using nano created cameras placed on certain areas of the cockpit, and a small Infrared laser placed on the pilots helmet, stats on the HUD shone onto the glass shield over the pilot wherever he looks. For example, if he looks up, the HUD moves with him, meaning the stats are also moved. On the centre of the screen, in the middle of the cockpit, screens are placed there, putting dials and buttons within both pilots reach.

Using small nano sensors on the crews gloves, all buttons are on the screen infront of them, meaning they touch the screen at head level to adjust or set something. This means the pilots sit firther forward, meaning a bigger line of sight.

More edited later.

Excellent. Simply, excellent.

Continued:

Due to the fact that the pilots sit further forward and most of the dials are on the glass, more glass (for better observation) can be added around the cockpit. Also, this saves money and resources in building many HUD's and guage boards.

*FC-110 Digital Fly by Wire Set*

Using a few small wires running from small receivers in the cockpit to several computers, and from there to their respective operating areas, these wires control the plane. Running from a small box at each of the pilots feet, these things control the plane.

The receiver gets signals from Nodes on the pilots hands (which are in turn connected to the motion and touch sensors on his fingertips), this means every virtual button the pilot presses is recorded, and the plane is told what to do. The same happens witht he jostick, yet it is more conventional.

The computer that controls it all is made up of 3 areas. When told a command, each individual one decides what to do. They then compare what to do, and react, sendng the plane the way its meant to go. Also, if the plane is being taken to its limits (max G's) or the plane is 30 degrees plus down near the ground (50 feet minus) it pulls up, in vain attempt to save it.

OOC: If you dont like it (or someone else doesnt) I will changeit. I just liek to think big :wink:

It's acceptable.

Bump.

Still got Flight Control Computers :evil:

Updated and Bump.

Bump for FC, let's finish this off with the computers.

FC-103 Flight Control Computers:

inked via infrared laser and/or cables to the reciever that monitors all movements and choices made by the pilot, and signals recieved there are transferred to a powerful computer behind the pilots. There the selection is transferred to the 3 seperate computers, and on to the control surfaces.

It also monitors via cables all the planes major points and several minors aswell. For example, if something is leaking, it will automatically shut off the flow (after telling the pilots). If side doors are opened at a speed too high for Paratroopers (Mach 0.8 upwards, I think) the pilots will be warned and the door closed.

The Autopilot is innovative. It can be told to do a paradrop run, where it will fly straight and slow to a sufficient speed and stay there, refuel in air, land and even evade missiles. This is alongside its normal flight control measures.

We have made sure that speed is high and every control system runs alongside each other, via the computer. It can even tell the others what to do, if told.

It is also maintenance easy and user friendly, though it does not require supervision at all through flight. We hope you like.