Ex-military corporate pilots

[Mercury]

Legacy,
Would the five gens (2000A) be including the APU gen? Its been awhile since I flew the 145 and dont know much at all about the legacy corporate jet , so I was just curious if the electrical sys was set up different. Not trying to split hairs or anything just curious.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Yes APU is the fifth gen.

I can't speak for the Electronic Warfare equipment but the max continuous draw you would see on the airplane is 380-400A and one gen can handle that by itself so it seems to me the airplane has plenty of reserve electrical power margin.

I do know EA-6Bs carry some big air-driven gens but they don't have the internal power generation the ERJ does as I understand it. Just amazed at the power demands of this new platform and a little bummed that this is used to denegrate the 145.

 

[mzaharis]

Just for comparison:

One of the airplanes that the EC-3 is replacing is the EP-3 Aries. That aircraft has 3 60-KVA generators (180 kVA total) on the engines, and one on the APU, for 240 KVA total.

According to our resident Legacy expert, the Legacy has 5 generators, kicking out 5000 amps total at 28 v (is this correct?), for a total of 140 KVA.

EDIT - BAD WRONG VALUE FOR AMP OUTPUT!!! That's 2000 amps at 28v - 56 KVA. Oops. Sorry.

My intention is certainly not to denigrate the Legacy (I don't know enough about it to offer an opinion as a corporate jet), but it appears that SIGINT aircraft require a heck of a lot of energy.

 

[Mercury]

Thanks Legacy.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Holy cow!!!! That is a lot of power.

I was not consciously aware of the replacement target being the EP-3 but that should have been a clue to someone. Seems counter-intuitive that a plane as small as a 145 or G-IV (in comparison to an EP-3) could do the same job. 737/E-170 seems better suited to the purpose.

Also + did not take anything you said as denegrating. But the articles cited were a bit unfair. Not your fault!!!!!

 

[mzaharis]

Holy cow!!!! That is a lot of power.

I was not consciously aware of the replacement target being the EP-3 but that should have been a clue to someone. Seems counter-intuitive that a plane as small as a 145 or G-IV (in comparison to an EP-3) could do the same job. 737/E-170 seems better suited to the purpose.

Also + did not take anything you said as denegrating. But the articles cited were a bit unfair. Not your fault!!!!!

The ACS is trying to kill a couple of birds with one stone. Primarily, it is supposed to replace the RC-12 Guardrails (basically King Airs with extensive "blade antennas" - they look like the lovechild of a King Air and "Pinhead" from the movie "Hellraiser") and the Aerial Reconnaissance-Low, a project for which I don't believe they ever selected an airframe. Additionally, the Navy will use them to replace the EP-3 Aries. The article in AvWeek, as well as some others, have indicated that the Navy may decide to use a separate platform, such as a 737 (for commonality with the P-8), but that hasn't happened yet.

It seemed strange to me that the Pentagon was trying to replace two such different airframes (a King-Air and a Lockheed Electra) performing somewhat different missions with a common airframe, but I'm not a SIGINT or reconnaissance expert, so what do I know?

 

[LegacyDriver]

You obviously know a lot more about it than I do!

This is going to be like the F-111 where everyone winds up unhappy.