Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Legacy Bashfest II - I told you so...

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Forget all the number crunching, MGTOW, etc... buy the airplane that looks the coolest. The GLEX has this category hands down....
 
I revised the ACS rq data on the internet, the main limitation for an ATR-72 is the desired op. ceiling of 35k ft (the atr-72 ceiling is 25K)
 
Senior_Citizen said:
Why not to use a Turboprop, CN295 or ATR-72 are in the weight class, also burn less fuel, the main problem is the range.

Anyone know the range requeriment for ACS ?

Aerial Common Sensor replaces the RC-12Q Advanced Guardrail V, Aerial Reconnaisance Low Modernized and the EP-3C, all three of which are turbo-props.

The jet must be self-deployable 2500 nm and be self-sustaining for 14 days.

The jet must be able to attain at least 35,000 feet with the Airborne Mission Equipment installed and mission fuel.

The sensor array includes: Electro-Optical (EO), Infrared (IR), Communications Intelligence (COMINT), Electronic Intelligence (ELINT), Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and Moving Target Indicator (MTI). ACS will be linked the Distributed Common Ground Station - Army (DCGS-A).

Due to the failure of the EMB-145 program and Iraq/Afghanistan lessons learned, the Operational Requirments Document (ORD) for ACS is undergoing modification and further development so it is likely that these requirements will become more stringent.

The aircraft you mentioned would be more appropriate for the Army's Medium Multi-Mission Tactical Transport aircraft.

By the way, once you fly beyond 400 nm no turbo-prop is less expensive to operate than a similar sized jet. The jet will always burn more fuel, but it will get to the destination more quickly achieving it's savings in maintenance accrual costs. The military discovered this in the analysis they performed to determine if C-XX would be a turbo-prop or a jet. They made the wise business choice and the non-developmental Cessna Citation V and derivatives became the UC-35B.


GV
 
Notes from the Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder files...

cosmotheassman said:
Forget all the number crunching, MGTOW, etc... buy the airplane that looks the coolest. The GLEX has this category hands down....


[size=+2]De gustibus non est disputandum.


[/size]
 
Forgot to mention that the article mentione "Embraer and non-Embraer alternatives.". Could that mean an ERJ-170 airframe?
 
Senior_Citizen said:
Not sure, defense contractors avoid competition as posssible, The GLEX/GL5000 are the logical choice (just look the british ASTOR), or maybe the 737-600, depending on the endurance rq.

Sorry for the late response - on vacation.

I meant that the original competition put the G450 against the ERJ-145. The ERJ-145-based solution was originally chosen, from a total platform perspective. That's why I suspected that the G450 might be a preferred alternative, but it's sounding like the options are being thrown wide open.
 
Just out of curiosity, how much of my tax money did the governement spend to determine that the FREAKING ERJ HAS WEIGHT ISSUES?!?!?

:eek: Geez, did they even bother to talk to anyone who'd actually flown the airplane??

:D
 

Latest resources

Back
Top