Fixed-wing SAR aircraft: General comparison of C-27J and C-295
Further to this post, a June 8 Jane's international defence review piece (subscriber only); it does not specifically deal with search and rescue capabilities:
Still more on this procurement mess.
C-27J photo (from Alenia's Canadian PR site):
C-295 photo (from Airbus Military's Canadian PR site):
Honours even: C-27J and C-295 have medium-lift bases coveredI've been in favour of a genuine competition for the FWSAR contract--but, as this post argues (see around middle), I do not see any proper chance for either Viking Air's plan to build new Buffalos, or for Bombardier's Q Series. [Update: Bombardier describes their plane as "highly suitable for marine patrol and search and rescue". Note which role comes first--and one for which the Canadian government might consider "A civilian maritime patrol aircraft fleet?".]
Just two medium-lift transport aircraft dominate their section of the defence market, with the C-27J and C-295 sharing the spoils. Nick Brown and Luca Peruzzi explore their relative merits
West-leaning air forces with a requirement for a modern, medium-lift transport aircraft to complement their C-130s or operate in a standalone fleet have only two realistic choices, both of them found within a few hours' flying time of each other in Italy and Spain.
Superficially, the Alenia Aeronautica/Lockheed Martin C-27J Spartan and the Airbus Military (ex-EADS CASA) C-295 appear very similar: both are twin-engined, high-wing transports with an aft loading ramp and rough landing capability.
Perhaps unsurprisingly then, the two designs have regularly faced each other in international competition - and continue to do so - with honours broadly spread evenly between them. This is largely because, despite the apparent similarities, the two design teams have taken subtly different approaches and the aircraft offer capabilities that suit the needs of a range of customers.
Rise of the Spartan
The C-27J was born under the LMATTS (Lockheed Martin Alenia Tactical Transport Systems) joint venture and first took to the air on 24 September 1999 at Alenia Aeronautica's flight-test centre in Turin-Caselle, Italy. The aircraft was type-certified to civil Joint Aviation Regulations Part 25 requirements in June 2001 and received military type certification from the Italian Ministry of Defence (MoD) later that year.
Powered by two Rolls-Royce AE2100-D2 engines developing a total of 4,637 shp, the C-27J features an airframe with a high structural strength - its three-spar wing enabling the aircraft to absorb 3 g tactical manoeuvres - and height/inclination adjustable landing gear designed for operations into and out of unprepared strips.
With a maximum take-off weight of 70,107 lb (31,800 kg), the C-27J can cruise at 325 kt at altitudes up to 30,000 ft and can fly 1,000 n miles with a 22,000 lb payload. It is capable of an advertised landing ground roll of 1,115 ft (334.5 m) and a tactical take-off ground run of 1,903 ft (570.9 m) and can accommodate up to 60 troops or 46 fully-equipped paratroopers. Alternatively it can lift 36 patients on stretchers, plus six attendants.
The C-27J has so far been acquired by eight countries; 25 aircraft have been delivered and have flown more than 12,500 hours between them.
The aircraft features a two-person flight deck with avionics that share a common design concept and technology with the C-130J Hercules. Indeed, this similarity - and a large cabin cross-section - has helped sway several operators, including the US Army, towards the type. Additionally, the C-27J cargo compartment can handle full, 463L standard pallets, making it fully interoperable with the C-130 as there is no need to break down the pallets when transferring loads from the larger aircraft and/or transhipping to CH-47 Chinooks for intra-theatre delivery.
The C-27J presents a large, versatile cargo bay with full-sized doors and seats, double hydraulic and triple-redundant electrical systems, as well as an in-flight operable auxiliary power unit (APU), which makes the aircraft completely independent from external support on the ground. It also features an onboard inert gas generation system for its fuel tanks, underwriting a high degree of survivability and versatility...
In addition to US foreign military sales programme letters of request from Australia, Ghana, Qatar and Taiwan, the C-27J has reportedly attracted the attention of more than 20 countries, potentially interested in a total of more than 100 aircraft for delivery in 10 years' time.
The C-295 option
The emergence of the C-295 could be described as a happy coincidence because, in the early 1990s, the then CASA's original plan was to develop a regional jet to tap into the passenger aircraft market. However, when market research proved unfavourable, the company turned its attention onto a more powerful, stretched version of its CN-235 transport aircraft.
Based on this proven airframe, development accelerated rapidly; the first prototype took to the air just 12 months after the start of the project in November 1996, and the first production model made its maiden flight in December 1998. The aircraft is fully certified with aviation bodies, including the US Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency.
The C-295 shares significant commonality with the CN-235. It retains the latter's wing design, although it is reinforced for the larger aircraft's higher operating weights and the fuselage is stretched by 3 m with the insertion of three standard frames either side of the wing, lending it a nose-forward appearance. The engines are also uprated from the CN-235's two 1,750 shp General Electric CT7-9C3s to two Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127Gs, each developing 2,645 shp (2,929 shp with automatic power reserve should one engine fail) turning a six-, rather than four-bladed, propeller.
Lighter weight
Like the C-27J, the C-295 can pull +3/-1 g depending on its load, but it has a much lower maximum take-off weight - 51,150 lb (23,200 kg) - than the C-27J, although the C-295's payload capacity is only marginally lower in weight terms, at 20,400 lb. Paco Calzada, Airbus Military's head of marketing for transport aircraft, tells Jane's that this lighter weight makes the C-295 more capable of operating from soft runways than its competition.
Calzada notes that although the C-295's airframe cross-section is slightly smaller than that of a C-130, it can still handle 463L standard pallets and is roughly similar to the hull dimensions of a CH-47 Chinook, which means that cargo loads can be rapidly transhipped for onward intra-theatre dispersal without needing to break them down.
Interestingly, he also asserts that at 12.69 m the stretched hull of the C-295 actually offers a longer 'useful' cabin length than the C-27J's 8.58 m and is even 50 cm longer than that of the C-130. This means that the cabin can swallow four full 463L pallets, with room for a fifth weighing up to 1,000 kg on the tail ramp.
The engines are battery-started, aiding the aircraft's self-sufficiency when away from base, and the port engine can be run without turning the prop to provide hotel and offboard power. Additionally, the C-295 comes complete with a powered scissor-lift dolly (either electric or petrol) that can be stowed away in the aircraft during flight and then used to ease and accelerate the offload of pallets - or provide a handy raised platform during routine maintenance - which can be achieved in five or 10 minutes, according to Calzada. It is controlled by the loadmaster via a tethered handset and can be used to transfer whole pallets from a C-295 to another aircraft.
The standard C-295 cockpit is an all-digital office, with large, fully night-vision goggle-compliant multifunction displays as standard. As with the C-27J, controls are fully redundant to improve survivability...
So far, 72 C-295s have been sold - with the latest order of four aircraft for the air force of the Czech Republic announced in late May - for use by 11 operators, many of whom are repeat buyers or existing operators of earlier CN-235 models. Indeed, this prior history with the CN-235 underpins a lot of interest in and development potential for its larger brother, because more than 250 CN-235s have now been sold in a range of variants, all of which have a direct pull-through in development potential for the C-295...
COMPARISON CHART
Overall length
C-27J: 22.7 m (74 ft 5.5 in); C-295: 24.5 m (80 ft 3 in)
Wingspan
C-27J: 28.7 m (94 ft 2 in); C-295: 25.81 m (84 ft 8.5 in)
Maximum take-off weight
C-27J: 31,800 kg (70,107 lb); C-295: 23,200 kg (51,150 lb)
Maximum payload
C-27J: 10,000 kg (22,000 lb); C-295: 9,250 kg (20,400 lb)
Fuel capacity
C-27J: 12,320 l (3,255 US gal); C-295: 7,700 l (2,034 US gal)
Range equivalency
C-27J: 1,000 n miles with max load; C-295: 690 n miles with max load
Total power
C-27J: 4,637 shp; C-295: 5,290 shp
Maximum cruising speed
C-27J: 601 km/h (325 kt); C-295: 480 km/h (260 kt)
Take-off run
C-27J: 570.9 m (1,903 ft); C-295: 670 m (2,200 ft)
Landing roll
C-27J: 334.5 m (1,115 ft); C-295: 320 m (1,050 ft)
Carriage equivalency
C-27J: 60 soldiers ; C-295: 71 soldiers
C-27J: 46 paratroopers plus 2 loadmasters ; C-295: 49 paratroopers plus jumpmaster
C-27J: 36 stretchers and six attendants; C-295: 24 stretchers and seating for four medics
C-27J: 3 x 463L pallets and half on the ramp; C-295: 4 x 463L pallets and 1 on the ramp
C-27J: 2 x HMMWV-type; C-295: 3 x light vehicles
Total numbers sold
C-27J: 56*; C-295: 72
Number of users
C-27J: 8; C-295: 11
*excluding Slovakian contract under negotiation and 8 US aircraft planned in FY10 budget
Still more on this procurement mess.
C-27J photo (from Alenia's Canadian PR site):
C-295 photo (from Airbus Military's Canadian PR site):
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 2:11 p.m.
8 Comments:
I can only hope that the powers that be settle on the C-27; engine commonality with the C-130J is a hard thing to pass up.
Also, the Jane's article has it wrong: Each of the C-27's engines develop some 4600 SHP.
4591 shp according to their website, but who's gonna quibble over 9 shaft horsepower :)
The engine commonality is wonderful, the cockpit commonality is also a real winner . . . flight crews can be certified on one common flight deck.
The real winner in my mind is the 295 is a militarized version of a civil aircraft. The 27 was designed from the get-go for military
The article unfortunately perpetuates the myth that there remains any useful commonality between the C-27J and the C-130J. Lockheed Martin was the company who modified the G-222 to create the C-27J, and according to them "Several years ago when we helped develop the C-27J there was a high degree of commonality between the two aircraft. Since then the C-27J has taken a separate development path for market reasons and there are now almost no similarities between the C-130J and the current C-27J configuration."
The link for that statement follows http://www.vanguardcanada.com/Interview1
The other point is that the Spartan is about the size of the Buffalo, and the suggestion that it could carry 60 troops or 36 stretchers is hilarious. The USAF determined that the cargo compartment would hold 34 troops and 24 litters, as per the link that follows:
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/cargo/c27_sparatan.htm
Frankly, either of those sound ok - and both are proven designs that have years of service under their belts, which is a very important consideration.
Sorry L-DMax, but the de-linking of commonality is a myth fostered by Lockheed Martin to boost their bid for the Joint Cargo Aircraft program when they went their separate ways from Alenia.
The C-27J was designed and developed to take maximum advantage of the C-130J's features especially in the areas of propulsion and avionics systems, through reusing of hardware, software, verification and testing to the greatest extent possible.
In Stephen Trimble's article on Flightglobal.com today he points out the commonality that exists today which is actually a point of certification verification tests:
"But certification tasks also include checking out the JCA flight control software, which has been the subject of an ownership change.
Alenia's original partner and avionics integrator for the C-27J, Lockheed Martin, dropped out of the JCA bid in 2004, allowing L-3 to become Alenia's prime contractor. After contract award, Alenia acquired Lockheed's rights to the mission computer software, which have been copied over for the JCA configuration."
The avionics architecture has 100% commonality between the C-27J and C-130J. The flight mission computer and management software has approximately 75% of the code from the C-130J.
Even if it were just propulsion systems (i.e. engines and props) that would be about 30% commonality with the 130J.
But beyond that, there is cargo bay height and cargo handling including tie downs, loading systems, and the C130J low altitude parachute extraction system on the C-27J.
There is significant cockpit cockpit commonality with the C-130J (16 window design and layout).
All in all, this would provide significant benefits in terms of cost reduction for training, operations and maintenance over the life of the aircraft.
As for troops and litters, it is 46 paratroopers and 36 litters plus 6 attendants. The link you point out is very outdated and refers to the C-27A - the predecessor to the C-27J. The new plane has been reconfigured from nose to tail.
Another comment on Airbus' Calzada's statements on the cargo capacity and cabin size.
The C-295 cannot handle full 463L pallets which measure 83" high by 88" by 108" because the maximum cabin height is 74" and much less toward the sides. The pallets have to broken down and the contents manually repackaged to squeeze inside the C-295.
As for the longer cabin, it really doesn't matter if fully dressed SARtechs have to crouch to move around or bounce their heads off the cabin ceiling.
The C-27J was designed using a very "spartan" version of the original C-130J avionics, because the cockpit was too small to carry the genuine article. It wound up with a truly orphan system, which has since been left totally behind by the C-130J, which is on version 7 software upgrade, including fully upgraded avionics.
The C-27J is still, after nearly two years, attempting to get FAA certification, asking for waivers for cabin pressurization, fuel tank safety requirements, and has flight stability issues. It is beginning to look like the only certification that is possible will be the same as the C-27A (Amateur/homebuilt).
Further, the cargo handling discussion is pure fantasy. The C-130 handles the same pallets as the C-17, 96 inches high. In order to put them in the C-27J they have to be "broken down and manually repackaged"(reduced in height), turned 90 degrees, and rerigged for the 90 degree change in G force - same as the C-295. Furthermore, the C-27J has a 3 rail cargo system, the C-130J and C-295 have 4 rail systems which means greater pallet stability, less twisting.
Bottom line, LM is 100% correct, and they have told Alenia to stop perpetuating the myth - there is no useful commonality between the C-130J and the C-27J.
The props are the same, the engines are different (same make, different model), the C-27J engines are smaller and lighter than the C-130 engines.
When you start equating cockpit windows with commonality, you really need to shake your head. I suppose the same number of wheels also means commonality of ground handling?
Finally, you can repackage the 1960Fiat (Alenia) G-222, put some lipstick on it, call it the C-27J, and reconfigure the cargo compartment all you want, but that does not change the dimensions of the cargo compartment. Any suggestion that you can magically add seats and litters without changing the size of the box carries about as much weight as your count of the cockpit windows.
I'm glad to see we're getting some good discussion in the comments here, but I'd really like to see full disclosure: if either of you - I'm speaking specifically to L-Dmax and blogwatcher1 - earn a living from a company involved with these aircraft (including a lobby firm, or a PR firm, or a legal firm, etc) you should let us know.
We don't mind biases around here - hell, we've all got them, including me - but we like to be up front about them, okay?
Post a Comment
<< Home