RAF Atlas C.1

[tonyot]

Have you tried getting a nice clean exit carrying up to 100lbs of equipment plus parachute and reserve without deflector doors to aid your initial exit from the aircraft?

All modern day para-dropping aircraft with side door exits that I`m aware of have these `baffle' doors fitted as exit speeds are much higher than the old WW2 Dak,......even the wartime Halifax had a baffle to aid the parachutist to exit through the floor,......the Dakota was slow enough not to need one and the Stirling and Albemarle had a long exit door in the floor near the tail which was slightly higher than the belly which may have helped?

During speed drop trials with Boscombe Down in the 80`s where they experimented at dropping us lower (below 500ft and safer from SAM`s!) by flying faster to open the parachutes quicker( PX-4`s,..basically WW2 PX-1 chutes with a net around the edge) I ended up rivet counting down the side of the rear fuselage and have a bent nose to prove it,.....and that was with the baffle doors open! The slightly torn canopy was quite worrying too! The net result of these trials was the lovely new low level chutes that they use today and I think that the faster exit speeds were binned?

Cheers

Tony

PS- One interesting aspect of jumping from a Herk was that the blokes jumping from opposing doors would end up swapping places in the slipstream under the tailplane,.......so if the stagger of the jump was not maintained properly you could end up banging into your oppo as you fell or worse still you could go through each others rigging lines as they deployed thus linking your chutes together and this was quite common to see,.......sometimes they would just come down together but often this resulting in an `air steal' where he lower parachute effectively steals the air from the one above which then deflates,.....only to reopen underneath and then seal the air of the other parachute and this continues in a see saw fashion down to the ground with the unlucky one having a long fall to the ground,......often with very serious consequences!

I mention this because maybe the propeller design of the new Atlas helps to prevent this from occurring?

Edited October 5, 2014 by tonyot

[Aeronut]

Tonytot is correct in saying the Atlas's prop rotation is an attempt to reduce the risk of collision between paras behind the aircraft rather than helping the exit, that's what the air deflector panel is for. Incdentally Airbus, never having designed a military transport before, were positive that a deflector panel wasn't necessary, they were the aircraft designers and knew better than the people who tested parachutes.

Para drop speeds are related to the stall speed of the aircraft which goes up with mass, and as the military always want to drop more the drop speed creeps up. The wartime X type parachute was dropped at 90 knots, the PX was being dropped at up to 130 knots and the current LLP will go to 140 knots. One downside of this increasing drop speed is the longer spread along the ground for a full stick and the need for huge DZs.

[NZKIWI]

Interestingly , I believe one of the top Airbus guys is actually either a skydiver or base jumper and has already tried the aircraft out , perk of the job I guess .

So what changes do we need to make to the 1/72 kit to bring it up to date for an RAF aircraft ?

[tonyot]

Interestingly , I believe one of the top Airbus guys is actually either a skydiver or base jumper and has already tried the aircraft out , perk of the job I guess .

So what changes do we need to make to the 1/72 kit to bring it up to date for an RAF aircraft ?

I`d like to see him do a sim 45 drop onto Breakheart Bottom DZ (honestly,..thats what it is called!) on Salisbury Plain with full equipment following a couple of hours low flying first,.....I bet he wouldn`t be so keen then,.....mind you base jumpers are just plainly bonkers aren`t they?

I`m no expert but I`d say that the current RAF Atlas can be built pretty well from the box at the moment using the Revell kits,......which I think include an AAR probe? Now that the RAF are receiving theirs I might be tempted to buy the monster Revell 72nd scale kit now!

Cheers

Tony

[Dave Fleming]

The better short field capability vs the C-17 is not actually true. It does have a better short field landing distance on paper, being 830m vs 1060m, but the C-17 is rated for 1060m at 77 tons max payload, while the A400M is rated for 830m at 27 tons payload (not its max payload of 37 tons). The reality is that the C-17 can get in and out of the same fields with the same payload, but C-17 operators would rarely bother since they also have C-130's for most of that mission (yes, the C-130J only hauls 19 tons, but in most cases you send 2 C-130's and don't risk the more expensive bird you have less of).

The original leasing terms of the RAF ones specifically excluded rough field capability (along with paradropping and almost everything else other than point to point strategic airlift). I think that has been maintained since we bought them outright.

Re the RAF Altas, we need to wait and see what extra kit the RAF stick on them (DASS etc for SF for example)

[marksandygill]

I have the Revell A400 (huge is an understatement) was thinking about making it a bit different by making it a Nimrod replacement, wanted to put underwing pylons for stores (say 2x Torpedos on one side and 1x harpoon on the other), maybe having the mission equipment modular in ISO containers loaded onboard.

Only thing I'm worried about is that the wing doesn't appear to lend itself to stores pylons, the outer wings would probably be the only realistic area?

[Richard E]

Interestingly , I believe one of the top Airbus guys is actually either a skydiver or base jumper and has already tried the aircraft out , perk of the job I guess .

So what changes do we need to make to the 1/72 kit to bring it up to date for an RAF aircraft ?

Indeed - it was Airbus' Chief Executive Tom Enders and the A400 Programme Manager Bruno Delannoy: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-airbus-chief-enders-makes-skydive-from-a400m-349712/

[Jennings Heilig]

Looks like the forlorn love child of a C-130 and a C-17

[tempestfan]

Interestingly , I believe one of the top Airbus guys is actually either a skydiver or base jumper and has already tried the aircraft out , perk of the job I guess .

Tom Enders (Airbus CEO as has been mentioned) is a former German Forces Para and Major of the Reserve.

Looks like the forlorn love child of a C-130 and a C-17

That would be a rare case of the child being more handsome than the parents.

Edited October 7, 2014 by tempestfan

[Truro Model Builder]

Have you tried getting...

...new Atlas helps to prevent this from occurring?

Very interesting and entertaining post, Tony. I will say that I never thought of you as a rivet counter, mind, and I'm sure there are much easier ways to do it . My dad was a para during the Second World War, jumping out of Dakotas (and Whitleys!), and I remember him once seeing some footage of paradropping from both sides of a C-130 and pointing out all the things that he thought could go wrong. Interesting that your post confirms much of what he thought.

[Blacktjet]

It's a 'modern' Belfast!

Don't like that black radome, it doesn't like right with most modern aircraft these days having colour coded radomes.

[marty_hopkirk]

Getting back to the original question - I'm sure it would be custom and practice for the purchaser as part of the spec to provide the primer suitable for the intended operations and the FS colour they required. The FS colour standard is the same the World over, and is not dependent on what the production facility holds or has in stock, any any variation between machines is intentional.

Marty...

Edited October 12, 2014 by marty_hopkirk

[Richard E]

Still grey & boring though!! Need to do something about that !! Would look nice in the Raspberry Ripple finish!

Allan

It's a 'modern' Belfast!

Don't like that black radome, it doesn't like right with most modern aircraft these days having colour coded radomes.

How's this retro scheme:

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=57412

Very much in the Belfast mould ?

Edited October 12, 2014 by Richard E

[Jennings Heilig]

That would be a rare case of the child being more handsome than the parents.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I can only assume the reverse is also true. And in this case, the child didn't get any of the good looks of either parent

[Albeback52]

How's this retro scheme:

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=57412

Very much in the Belfast mould ?

Oh yummy!!!! .

Allan

[Albeback52]

I have the Revell A400 (huge is an understatement) was thinking about making it a bit different by making it a Nimrod replacement, wanted to put underwing pylons for stores (say 2x Torpedos on one side and 1x harpoon on the other), maybe having the mission equipment modular in ISO containers loaded onboard.

Only thing I'm worried about is that the wing doesn't appear to lend itself to stores pylons, the outer wings would probably be the only realistic area?

Still plenty of space though. I think the P3 carried most of its stores externally on pylons outboard of the engines so, I reckon your idea is perfectly feasible

Allan

[Nigel Bunker]

The only feasible Nimrod replacement is the P-8 Poseidon. If we start going our own way the costs will escalate and we'll repeat the Nimrod AEW fiasco. Better to buy a system that works off the shelf.

And if the rumours are correct HMG is having talks with Boeing about leasing some.

[Albeback52]

The only feasible Nimrod replacement is the P-8 Poseidon. If we start going our own way the costs will escalate and we'll repeat the Nimrod AEW fiasco. Better to buy a system that works off the shelf.

And if the rumours are correct HMG is having talks with Boeing about leasing some.

Was Airbus not at some point proposing an Airbus A320/321 AEW/Maritime Patrol version?

Allan

[marksandygill]

They are making the decision on the P-8 at the next SDSR (2015), which means they wont...

Would it not make sense to have one common airframe with mission specific payloads, therefore cutting down on training, spares and operating costs?!

[feldr]

IIRC, reading last month's Combat Aircraft/Air International.. reference was made.

1) a number of our aircrews being co-crewed with P-8 , to " keep their hands in"

2) one was made available briefly to " those upstairs " to demo for it's worth....

However, in a separate article, it said that the P-8 had drawbacks, which had not been accounted for..

Similarly Airbus Military had been proposing a platform based on the C297?, for Maritime duty.. something I think our boys probably wouldn't find too capable..

[hovis]

The P8 is nothing like the Nimrod!

If you want the best replacement you need to look at the Kawasaki P1.

[Grizzly]

The only feasible Nimrod replacement is the P-8 Poseidon. If we start going our own way the costs will escalate and we'll repeat the Nimrod AEW fiasco. Better to buy a system that works off the shelf.

And if the rumours are correct HMG is having talks with Boeing about leasing some.

We DID go our own way spent millions on it just got it right then chopped them up !!!

[Truro Model Builder]

Getting back to the original question - I'm sure it would be custom and practice for the purchaser as part of the spec to provide the primer suitable for the intended operations and the FS colour they required. The FS colour standard is the same the World over, and is not dependent on what the production facility holds or has in stock, any any variation between machines is intentional.

Marty...

Are you sure it would be up to the purchaser to provide the paint? To specify which colour they wanted, yes, unless that was what you meant?

[Truro Model Builder]

Was Airbus not at some point proposing an Airbus A320/321 AEW/Maritime Patrol version?

Allan

They have mulled the idea over, but they seem to be content to allow Boeing a clear run. It's a shame, as there will be a lot of maritime patrol aircraft coming up for replacement in the next 10-20 years, quite a lot of them European. Still, there's time yet; I really cannot see the French going lock, stock and barrel for an American aircraft in such a large project.

IIRC, reading last month's Combat Aircraft/Air International.. reference was made.

1) a number of our aircrews being co-crewed with P-8 , to " keep their hands in"

2) one was made available briefly to " those upstairs " to demo for it's worth....

However, in a separate article, it said that the P-8 had drawbacks, which had not been accounted for..

Similarly Airbus Military had been proposing a platform based on the C297?, for Maritime duty.. something I think our boys probably wouldn't find too capable..

Project Seedcorn has been running since the MRA.4 was chopped, with ex-Nimrod crew serving in RAAF, RNZAF and USN P-3s and -I think- RCAF CP-140s as well as P-8s. One all-RAF P-8 crew won the big annual USN competition for MR crews this year. There has been some criticism of various aspects of the P-8 from experienced MR crew, even to the point where it has been suggested that its only advantage over the MRA.4 is that is still in existence. Certainly a lot of the systems and equipment earmarked for the MRA.4 seemed to have been more capable, and there is concern that the 737 airframe is not strong enough for sustained low level ops, despite the strengthening it has received. The USN is conducting a lot more of its P-8 ASW ops from higher altitudes than P-3 SOPs, which is not ideal for that tasking.

The C.295 would be a viable option if we weren't concerned about submarines.

The only feasible Nimrod replacement is the P-8 Poseidon. If we start going our own way the costs will escalate and we'll repeat the Nimrod AEW fiasco. Better to buy a system that works off the shelf.

And if the rumours are correct HMG is having talks with Boeing about leasing some.

I think we should look seriously at the Kawasaki P-1; though it has had its fair share of teething problems, it's four engined and specifically designed from the outset as an MR/ASW platform. Japan has also relaxed a lot of its export restrictions on military equipment and could see a sale to the RAF as an important breakthrough into the European market.

Boeing have, I believe, made an unsolicited proposal to lease a small number of P-8s, but I wouldn't expect any decision until SDSR 2015. In any case, I don't think we should automatically select the P-8 without properly evaluating the alternatives -few though they might be.

[tempestfan]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I can only assume the reverse is also true. And in this case, the child didn't get any of the good looks of either parent

I guess you just proved both of your points. And that some beholders have strange tastes indeed