Ex-military corporate pilots

[GVFlyer]

Congratulations GV, I hope you will be happy in your move, understand you will be flying the WSCoD

I couldn't get a Legacy, I had to settle for a G550.

Current issue of Aviation Leak has an article on the ACS project; seems that LM really didn't have a clue about the EMB-145 when they chose that platform, now they are looking at both the B737 and G550; the other Embraer option is the E-190. Besides the added weight, seems that the EMB-145 can't generate enough electricty to power the equipment.

With regards to Embraer building the aircraft here in JAX (and for Airbus, for that matter with their A330 USAF tanker project) I guess the phrase "buy American" can mean a lot of different things; from buying from a US based company that produces products overseas and then reselling them back here, to locating a factory here from a foreign based company and then sending the profits back to their country. In either case, it just weakens our country in so many different ways

I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for the kind words and the informative post.

Case in point, if we decide to get some new rides, there are no US produced aircraft that will fill the role.......Boeing cancelled the B717 (the closest) leaving our choice to either Embraer, or Bombardier if they ever decide to go ahead with the C-series. No US manufacture (past or present) can compete with them because their costs are so low; not because they build a superior product.

The death of the B717 is sad. Lee Johnson after wrapping up his duties as GV chief test pilot went to be the chief test pilot for the B717 at Long Beach, so I got to know the airplane pretty well. I think it's a great jet and it's tough - made for 55,000 hours of short fields, hard landings and hard braking.

GV

 

[LegacyDriver]

How much power do they need? My gawd the plane has FIVE generators that can put out 400A apiece(!). Seems like a lot.
Also you are talking about a base airplane that is roughly 30000 lbs BOW. MTOW is over 50000 lbs on the XR I believe. How heavy is all this stuff?

 

[AA717driver]

Legacy--The package became a "Christmas Tree". Everyone started hanging stuff on it. It became heavier than originally intended.TC

 

[LegacyDriver]

Sounds like the old "Mission Creep Demon" strikes again, eh?

 

[mzaharis]

Some interesting quotes from the Aviation Week article:

"One of the top weight drivers is a miscalculation of the amount of cable needed to connect the onboard equipment." Also, "The Army and Lockheed Martin also underestimated the strength and weight of supports needed to house the ACS' electronic boxes." (Both quotes from the article). The article also said that it was not due to additional mission requirements.

Looks like they picked the ERJ-145 based on some "back of the envelope" calculations and had to seriously adjust when they started more detailed engineering.

 

[fokkerjet]

How much power do they need? My gawd the plane has FIVE generators that can put out 400A apiece(!). Seems like a lot.
Also you are talking about a base airplane that is roughly 30000 lbs BOW. MTOW is over 50000 lbs on the XR I believe. How heavy is all this stuff?

But wants the payload and floor loading limit or MZFW? Clear case of picking the lowest bidder then "screwing" the goverment with cost overruns; The cost of this project will go up 50% ($400M)when they change airframes if Congress doesn't kill the project first.

 

[LegacyDriver]

But like the man said, if the original predictions on cable and support structure weight had been "in the ballpark" the airplane would have been okay for the mission.

I agree it's a great waste of money, though. Woulda' been nice to be a civilian instructor on the airplane for the military, too. (Wishful thinking.)

 

[mzaharis]

But like the man said, if the original predictions on cable and support structure weight had been "in the ballpark" the airplane would have been okay for the mission.

It also didn't generate enough electrical power.

"Additionally, the power provided by the smaller Embraer is insufficient to handle the requirements of simultaneously operating onboard sensors, computers, and related equipment, according to the Pentagon source."

This is proving to be a challenge with a number of military aircraft, as ever more systems are being added. Onboard power demands are increasing, especially for an electronic surveillence aircraft.

 

[scarface]

GVFLYER,
You are one articulate, to the point silver tongued invidual. It is my totally unbiased opinion that the Marines and former Marines on this site are by far the most intelligent participants.

 

[LegacyDriver]

I am just amazed at the power requirements. 2000A DC is insufficient... Whew...

 

[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.