Here you go sir: Fairchild Packet with props and jet enginenukavarapu wrote:
I have yet to come across any aircraft which provides both Jet Engine and Turbo-Prop on same airframe. I think the strength of the structure will be different when putting a turbo-fan instead of a turbo-prop. Well they might think of a basic airframe with turbo-prop i.e. 70 Seater, and an extended, strengthened airframe for 110 seats with a Turbo-Fan. If they can achieve this, it will be feat in itself
saar your statement was:nukavarapu wrote:Don't you think the jet engine is just to provide boost and the primary thrust is achieved by the props?shiv wrote: Here you go sir: Fairchild Packet with props and jet engine
I think you mean pylons for which jets or turboprops are switchable. I have a few comments on that. Turboprops lost out to jets because of your Y>X equation.I have yet to come across any aircraft which provides both Jet Engine and Turbo-Prop on same airframe.
VinodTK wrote:NAL plans new design for its small aircraft
The RTA was envisaged as a 70-90 seat civilian aircraft powered by a turboprop engine—a gas turbine engine used to drive a propeller.
But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well and increasing its capacity to 90-110 passengers.
Pretty ambiguous statement. If it means an option for an all jet aircraft instead of turboprop than it makes sense. Otherwise who is going to buy this tri engine configuration with 2 turboprops and one turbofan? Commercial aircrafts need to be easily maintainable and efficient in order to have successful sales. Now in this configuration the customer airline will require aircraft engineers with jet as well as turboprop liscence. Not to mention the demise of MD/DC/B-717 series aircraft for lack of commonality with other aircrafts. Additional training will be required for pilots to handle such a configuration. This all will include costs in maintaining/operating the aircraft which is a big turnoff to airlines nowdays no matter how cheap your aircraft is acquisition wise. It's easy to reconfigure the aircraft with more powerful engines at this early stage, if increasing the seating capacity is the criteria.But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well
Seen them fly as far back as the mid 70s!! So, they must have come into existence prior to that.rohitvats wrote:^^^ And not to forget that we are pioneers of fitting these Packets with Jet Engines to assist operation in guess where? Ladakh...
IIRC the props would shut down when the jet was engaged - landings/takeoffs were with the props, flight was with the jet IIRC.Don't you think the jet engine is just to provide boost and the primary thrust is achieved by the props?
neerajb wrote:Pretty ambiguous statement. If it means an option for an all jet aircraft instead of turboprop than it makes sense. Otherwise who is going to buy this tri engine configuration with 2 turboprops and one turbofan?But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well
I'm sure the report doesn't mean that. it says that NAL is considering both turboprops and turbofans ATM and might go for either. personally I think they should stick with turboprop, for the lower cost of operations.neerajb wrote:The RTA was envisaged as a 70-90 seat civilian aircraft powered by a turboprop engine—a gas turbine engine used to drive a propeller.
But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well and increasing its capacity to 90-110 passengers.
Pretty ambiguous statement. If it means an option for an all jet aircraft instead of turboprop than it makes sense. Otherwise who is going to buy this tri engine configuration with 2 turboprops and one turbofan? Commercial aircrafts need to be easily maintainable and efficient in order to have successful sales. Now in this configuration the customer airline will require aircraft engineers with jet as well as turboprop liscence. Not to mention the demise of MD/DC/B-717 series aircraft for lack of commonality with other aircrafts. Additional training will be required for pilots to handle such a configuration. This all will include costs in maintaining/operating the aircraft which is a big turnoff to airlines nowdays no matter how cheap your aircraft is acquisition wise. It's easy to reconfigure the aircraft with more powerful engines at this early stage, if increasing the seating capacity is the criteria.But NAL is now thinking of using a jet engine as well
From pictures I was able to see on Airliners.net, there are about 25 folding seats along each side wall of the Il-76, for a total of 50. If you put the center back to back seats, that adds about another 50 seats, for 100 seats (very similar to the C-17 up to there, which carries about 102 troops). With the upper deck, one can add another 40 seats for a total of 140 seats. Granted, even with 140 soldiers, an IL-76 is lightly loaded, with only about 21 tonnes on board. It means that it can take close to 80 tonnes of fuel, enough for a 6 or 7 hours flight.rohitvats wrote:Gilles, AFAIK, the troops carrying capacity of IL-76 is higher than 140. There is an instance quoted in one of the articles on BR (about IL-76 from No.44 Squadron) where three IL-76 were used to airlift an Infantry Battalion. That is close 800 troops.
126 is the number of paratroopers which the IL-76 can carry.
Re-read that article, indeed the jurno is talking about two engine optionsRahul M wrote:
.There is an aircraft which exists in both turboprop and jet versions. The Dornier 328.neerajb wrote:Re-read that article, indeed the jurno is talking about two engine optionsRahul M wrote:
But it would be really intresting to see what type of wing design they come up with which would suit both the turboprop as well as turbofan engine.
Cheers....
HAL chairman says wrote: A.N.: (a) SU-30MKI : The present schedule will be completed by 2015-16. Additional orders are anticipated from IAF, and this will keep the production line active till 2017-18.
(b) Hawk: Technology absorption envisaged in the program is completed and production of aircraft from raw materials is under progress. Additional orders are anticipated and will keep the production line active till 2016-17.
(c) ALH: ALH with the Shakti engine suitable for high altitude operations for the IAF and the Army are under production for delivery commencing shortly in 2010. Production of armed variant with turret gun, rocket pod and air-to-air missiles along with Helmet Pointing System is planned in 2010-11.
(d) LCA: Limited Series Production is progressing at HAL. Three more aircraft from the LSP series will join the flight phase during the year. The trainer variant prototype took to the skies in November ’09. The second trainer prototype is under progress. These will hasten up the process of achieving Initial Operation Clearance, which is expected to be achieved in December 2010, and the subsequent induction of the first squadron of LCAs into IAF by 2011.
(e) IJT: The certification process is expected to be completed in 2010. Concurrent production of Limited Series is progressing, and the first aircraft under the Limited Series Aircraft was flight tested in January ’10. A contract for 73 IJT aircraft has been concluded and the production will be undertaken at Kanpur.
(f) LCH: Maiden flight of the first Technology Demonstrator (TD-1) of the Light Combat Helicopter was completed on 29 March 2010. Work on the second prototype is progressing. Initial Operation Clearance is expected by December 2011. Though LCH was intended for induction by IAF, now the Army is also considering its acquisition.
(g) LUH: Government sanction for the project was accorded in February 2009. Mockup build is completed. Design activities at RWRDC are progressing and the first flight is planned in 2012. This will be a light helicopter in the 3-ton category suitable for replacing the Cheetah/Chetak helicopters. LUH will be powered by the Shakti class of engine suitable for high altitude operations.
So confident is Boeing that its top executives say that Boeing is looking forward to be the first in the trials so as to set benchmarks that others in the competition cannot possibly match. The US spends so much in Research & Development (R&D) that “our products are unbeatable in hi-tech and precision engagement,” said Mr Dean Millsap, Regional Director Asia Pacific for Boeing Rotorcraft Systems. The heavy lift Chinook for instance is the only helicopter that can land on water in an emergency, and also operate just above the water level to land or evacuate troops or people in a natural disaster situation.
There is no Transfer of Technology (ToT) clause though for manufacturing the Attack and Heavy Lift helicopters in India.
While capable of taking quite a bit of punishment and able to carry quite a load, there is one fatal flaw in the Ka-50- its a single seater. The workload on a pilot who also has to be the gunner, while keeping an eye out for enemy SAM or AAA fire is very high..dividing the tasks between 2 pilots and having 2 pairs of eyes scanning for targets and threats is a huge plus. If it were upto me, I'd choose the Mi-28N over the Ka-50 due to this diffference.sathyaC wrote:are the Ru's not offing the Kamova 50 in the attack helicopter tender
Six Indian Sukhoi-30MKI fighters, two IL-76 heavy-lift aircraft and a IL-78 mid-air refueller will be leaving for France for a joint air combat exercise with the French Air Force next month.
The exercise, Garuda-IV, will be held at the Istres airbase in France from June 14 to 25. "The exercise will help to further enhance interoperability between the Indian and French air forces since pilots as well as the ground crew will get to see each other's operational, technical and administrative practices from close quarters,'' said an officer.
There is two-seat version as well - Ka52. However, even the Russians seem to prefer the Mi-28N, which also offers a radar.Kartik wrote:While capable of taking quite a bit of punishment and able to carry quite a load, there is one fatal flaw in the Ka-50- its a single seater. The workload on a pilot who also has to be the gunner, while keeping an eye out for enemy SAM or AAA fire is very high..dividing the tasks between 2 pilots and having 2 pairs of eyes scanning for targets and threats is a huge plus. If it were upto me, I'd choose the Mi-28N over the Ka-50 due to this diffference.sathyaC wrote:are the Ru's not offing the Kamova 50 in the attack helicopter tender
UnlikelySingha wrote:perhaps under violent manouvering there is a chance the two layers of rotors could collide or not work that well?
The Mi-28N is chosen because of logistics reason , it is easier from logistics pov to move , train ,maintain existing crew of Mi-24/35 and transition to Mi-28N compared to Ka-50/52 , the ka-50/52 was chosen as a superior platform in mid-90's over Mi-28 , but with change of time other factors made Mi-28 and further derivatives more favorable platform for Russian AF.vijyeta wrote:There is two-seat version as well - Ka52. However, even the Russians seem to prefer the Mi-28N, which also offers a radar.
Might be . Aviataion Week, interview with HAL chairman Ashok Nayakshiv wrote:Saw a Jag with a refuelling probe taking off today. Darin III?
Fresh orders have been received for the supply of IJT, DO-228, and an upgrade of Jaguar DARIN-III standard.
Fresh orders have been received for the supply of IJT, DO-228, and an upgrade of Jaguar DARIN-III standard.
but the range of the Mi 28n is very low compared to the K50/52Austin wrote:The Mi-28N is chosen because of logistics reason , it is easier from logistics pov to move , train ,maintain existing crew of Mi-24/35 and transition to Mi-28N compared to Ka-50/52 , the ka-50/52 was chosen as a superior platform in mid-90's over Mi-28 , but with change of time other factors made Mi-28 and further derivatives more favorable platform for Russian AF.vijyeta wrote:There is two-seat version as well - Ka52. However, even the Russians seem to prefer the Mi-28N, which also offers a radar.
The Ka-52 will still be continued in small numbers and will occupy niche space for command and control and special forces ops.
Gilles wrote:
Re-read that article, indeed the jurno is talking about two engine options
But it would be really intresting to see what type of wing design they come up with which would suit both the turboprop as well as turbofan engine.
Cheers....
There is an aircraft which exists in both turboprop and jet versions. The Dornier 328.
More out of curiosity, do you know if this offer came with "ToT" form engines too?chetak wrote: The Dornier company was in difficulties quite some time back. They had offered to sell and transfer plans, drawings and all tooling and jigs of the 328 to us at a throwaway price.
It would have been wonderful if it had purchased at that time, produced in numbers and later, practical growth options explored rather than persist with some half baked cockamamie scheme for a known troublesome pusher design and that too outsourced to some local small time company.
Such is life. The wheel has to be reinvented.
Just my 2 cents.
but the Mi28 is not very agile as compared to the other choppersAustin wrote:If IAF wants to just drop out the Mi-35 and replace it with new chopper , I think Ka-50/52 is the best bet its a good match of firepower , agility , stealth and comes with an ejection seat
If IAF plans to operate the modernised Mi-35 for a longer period of time then Mi-28NE logistics wise is a good choice. The Mi-28 looks like a heavy tank with wings.
we need chopper that can add a lot of fire powerVivek K wrote:Why can the LCH not replace the Mi 35?
Agreed I dont know about others but when compared to Ka-50/52 its not very agile , If you need Agility ,Stealth ( relatively speaking ) , decent protection and crew safety ( ejection seat ) you better opt for Ka'ssathyaC wrote: but the Mi28 is not very agile as compared to the other choppers
