[Llarry]

Originally Posted by dradernh

Does the Lockheed EC-130 fit in here anywhere?

The C-130A II was the first turbine-powered SIGINT aircraft, used by the USAF in Europe. It was a semi-covert program; the aircraft had no special markings and the antenna system was contained in two fake fuel tanks under the outer wings. One Turkish-based airplane was shot down in 1958 over the Soviet Union with the loss of all crew.

At the time, the standard USAF SIGINT collection aircraft was the RB-50. The C-130 offered significantly improved performance. I haven't included a C-130A II photo as they looked like pretty much any other early C-130. (Actually the fake "fuel tank" was slightly oversize if I remember correctly.)

The RC-135 replaced all the earlier SIGINT aircraft in the Air Force and remains the standard. The UK's Royal Air Force bought three as well.

There are a variety of EC-130s: Electronic warfare jammers and the like. SpecOps units fly a variety of -130s but, to my knowledge, few if any are used for signals intelligence collection.

[3.0L]

I got to go for a ride in this Lancair IVP a few years ago. The pilot of another IVP took this photo. You can
see me taking a picture of him. Moments later, we peeled off in a descending left turn. This particular airplane
has a souped up Continental TSIO-550 engine that made about 425 HP - up from the stock 350 HP. Twin-turbo,
dual intercoolers, pressurized cabin. Very fast; cruises 300+ MPH at 20,000 feet or so. It's also not an airplane
to be toyed with, due to the high wing loading. In the interest of privacy for the current owner, I blotted out the N number.

[Robin_NL]

Airplanes are interesting, and I know a little bit about them. I'm in a SR-71 Blackbird FB group because that bird fascinates me just like Concorde, Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe and Jefferson Airplane

Sorry(probably) to put this video here and it's about WW2 and the dawn of the rocket age so to speak.

Very interesting, more so because from my hometown(where I am now) the Jerries transported V2's and all that stuff to Gaasterland nearby the big lake (about 30 miles from here, in the woods) to get those b*stards launched and heading for London...

as stated in a comment:

Lodewijk Vrije
3 jyears ago (bedited)
V-2's were launched from at least 3 locations in the Netherlands not only Den Haag(The Hague). but also 6 from the area around Serooskerke(province Zeeland, near Flanders southwest Netherlands). and 77 from a forest in "het Rijsterbos" (the riders forest, rijster meaning a person riding a horse as there used to be a horse track in the forest)

In bold that's overhere in Gaasterland, Friesland. I'm from Heerenveen Friesland, Netherlands.

But anyway. The 'positive' thing about war is faster evolution of mech/tech/usable things and inventions/engineering and above all progress PROGRESS in the scientific way. I'm now being ironic off course but it's true unfortunately...

Guess my avatar

Cheers
Robin

[3798j]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

Airplanes are interesting...
But anyway. The 'positive' thing about war is faster evolution of mech/tech/usable things and inventions/engineering and above all progress PROGRESS in the scientific way.

Agree totally...example...these two bombers had their first flights only 11 years apart (1941-1952)...

[Lady Jane]

The RCAF uses two variations of the King Air.

1...The C-90B King Air is used to train pilots who have been chosen for the multi-engine stream. These candidates will go from single-engine training on the CT-156 Harvard II to receiving their wings after learning how to operate in a multi-crew, multi-engine environment.



2...The BE-350 King Air is used for passenger transport, pilot proficiency and surveillance missions. These leased aircraft are primarily used by new pilots to gain valuable air mobility–operations experience before being posted to an operational squadron in Canada.

The BE-350 King Air provides flexible transport services for Royal Canadian Air Force personnel and light cargo.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

Airplanes are interesting, and I know a little bit about them. I'm in a SR-71 Blackbird FB group because that bird fascinates me just like Concorde, Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe and Jefferson Airplane



Cheers
Robin

My brother was in the Air Force back in the mid '70's and stationed at Beale AFB. He managed to get
dad and me onto the flight line so we could see the KC-135 he flew on. While there, we heard an SR-71
fire up on the other side of the field. Eventually, the SR-71 taxied out and took off. We were standing
at the blast wall to the main runway and man, let me tell you how loud it was! It made your guts
rumble! What a sight!

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

The RCAF uses two variations of the King Air.

1...The C-90B King Air is used to train pilots who have been chosen for the multi-engine stream. These candidates will go from single-engine training on the CT-156 Harvard II to receiving their wings after learning how to operate in a multi-crew, multi-engine environment.


2...The BE-350 King Air is used for passenger transport, pilot proficiency and surveillance missions. These leased aircraft are primarily used by new pilots to gain valuable air mobility–operations experience before being posted to an operational squadron in Canada.

The BE-350 King Air provides flexible transport services for Royal Canadian Air Force personnel and light cargo.

Good job, Canada, for using two single-pilot aircraft for multi-crew operations.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

Airplanes are interesting, and I know a little bit about them. I'm in a SR-71 Blackbird FB group because that bird fascinates me just like Concorde, Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe and Jefferson Airplane

(some snipped)

Guess my avatar

Cheers
Robin

P-51 Mustang?

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

Good job, Canada, for using two single-pilot aircraft for multi-crew operations.

These are training aircrafts. I'm pretty sure that there's an instructor in the right seat. Anyone who has gone through flight training knows that.

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

These are training aircrafts. I'm pretty sure that there's an instructor in the right seat. Anyone who has gone through flight training knows that.

You mean people like me?

There is training to be a single pilot and there is training to be a crew. While there is overlap between those two, they are not the same.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Oh, geez. Where to start?

To begin with, the jet's got the legs of a sparrow-- which is a BAD thing for an airlifter. In the airlift world, there are two types of transport: intertheater (operations between geographical combatant commands) and intratheater (operations exclusively within a geographical combatant command).

Basically, think of intertheater as flying from the US to Europe or Europe to the Middle East, and intratheater flying entirely within Europe or the Middle East. C-5's and C-17 are supposed to be mostly be intertheater birds and C-130's and the like are intratheater birds. Make sense?

In order to do this, the intertheater crowd is expected to self-support themselves when flying; tanker support will usually chop to a theater (i.e. refuel fighters and the like in the combat zone), so when the balloon goes up, the tankers aren't available to transport category aircraft. An intertheater airlifter is supposed to load up on cargo and gas and fly between continents all by themselves.

But the C-17 has VERY short legs. When I ran their stage operation in Germany years ago, in the winter with a headwind, they could NOT make it from Germany to the east coast without using a tanker or landing short for fuel-- they just didn't have the range. Eventually (around 2005+ iirc), the solution was to put an additional fuel bladder above the cargo box between the wings. That solved the range issue, but since you can either carry gas or cargo, the jet had the range to get there, but still couldn't carry much, if anything. Weight is weight.

The tanker crowd LOVES the jet as it provides a reason for their existence, even in peacetime. C-17 pilots get REALLY good at aerial refueling.

Additionally, it was originally designed to use a different cargo system than EVERY OTHER AIRLIFTER in the AF-- which meant they were going to have to transship cargo every time it changed jets. They eventually (sort of) fixed that, and it can now accept a standard 463L pallet.

Also? It's burn is pretty horrific for what it is-- probably similar to the C-5M now-- and a single C-5 can carry about 2.5 times what a C-17 can carry; i.e. for each two C-5 loads, you'd need to fly five loads in a C-17. The solution was to slow them way back to 0.74 Mach and install winglets to help with the fuel burn.

When it came out, it became the poster child for the Air Mobility Command-- pictures of it were EVERYWHERE-- we used to call it the "porn star of the AF".

Additionally, the C-17 program "cheated". Most of the captains and majors on the acquisition/test and development teams were colonels and generals by the time the C-17 was being purchased, and they used that to their advantage-- C-141 retirements were accelerated, and the C-5 was specifically made to look like it couldn't do any more than the C-17 could do. I was ordered (more than once) to do a fuel stop in the Azores when flying from Germany to the east coast-- because if the C-17 couldn't do it? Well, the C-5 must not (read: will not) be able to either. Additionally, when demonstrating the loading capability to a CODEL (Congressional Delegation), we were specifically directed NOT to drop the forward or aft ramps or open the nose, and were not allowed to kneel the jet to show how easy it was to load a C-5 (you can actually drive in one end and out the other). That way the "horseholders" leading the delegation could tell the congressmen/senators that the C-5 needed special loading equipment to get the cargo waaaaaaay up to the cargo box, whereas the C-17 could just drive on. COMPLETE lie.

Trivia: The official name is the Globemaster III. The unofficial name? Either Buddha (everyone sits around and worships it) or Barney-- Fred's short, fat friend. It helps to know that the C-5's nickname is Fred.

Also? It was designed by McDonnell Douglas, with all of the Bad that went with that. Douglas pretty much told the government that if they didn't buy the C-17, they'd go out of business. They did, and they did-- which is how it ended up being a Boeing product. Lockheed offered a C-5D with about 40% parts commonality, two-person crew, and a lighter footprint AND a -J model C-130 for each unit cost of the C-17. But, since they'd just gotten the F-22 contract, that wasn't going to happen. In fact, iirc, Lockheed was specifically directed to destroy all the C-5 tools and dies that were in storage so they couldn't make any more C-5's to compete against C-17 production.

R.

Thanks for that detailed explanation. I was almost afraid to ask because I figured it would be some government BS like this.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

You mean people like me?

There is training to be a single pilot and there is training to be a crew. While there is overlap between those two, they are not the same.

Of course. What do I know. You should send your extensive military CV to the RCAF and show them how to run their training program.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

You mean people like me?

There is training to be a single pilot and there is training to be a crew. While there is overlap between those two, they are not the same.

Is it the syllabus, the airplane, or both?

[Chick Webb]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

Good job, Canada, for using two single-pilot aircraft for multi-crew operations.

While it is a single-pilot aircraft, it can be (and is) used to teach both multi-engine ops and CRM. It is an important platform for transitioning to from single-pilot to multi-pilot, multi-engine aircraft for a number of militaries, including in the US. My oldest son received his ratings in the USN/Marines version of the King Air (T-44C) just a couple of years ago. He moved on from that to a C-130, taking his CRM training and knowledge with him.

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Of course. What do I know. You should send your extensive military CV to the RCAF and show them how to run their training program.

Ah, yes. The ol' "You're not military, so what do you know?" approach.

Maybe, just maybe, the military isn't the end-all, be-all of pilot training. Maybe those mil guys fuck up just as much as civilian guys. For the record, they do.

If you want your pilots to be confident as well as competent, let them go solo for a few hundred hours.

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by Chick Webb

While it is a single-pilot aircraft, it can be (and is) used to teach both multi-engine ops and CRM. It is an important platform for transitioning to from single-pilot to multi-pilot, multi-engine aircraft for a number of militaries, including in the US. My oldest son received his ratings in the USN/Marines version of the King Air (T-44C) just a couple of years ago. He moved on from that to a C-130, taking his CRM training and knowledge with him.

The military has to work within the constraints it has, but the King Air family is not a good airplane for teaching crew flying and CRM. It is an easily flown airplane that is stable and slow. The military would be better off teaching CRM in a jet aircraft where the pilot flying has his hands full flying the plane while the pilot monitoring does everything else.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

The military has to work within the constraints it has, but the King Air family is not a good airplane for teaching crew flying and CRM. It is an easily flown airplane that is stable and slow. The military would be better off teaching CRM in a jet aircraft where the pilot flying has his hands full flying the plane while the pilot monitoring does everything else.

I must apologize. I didn't know that you were a pilot and an expert in CRM training for the USAF and other NATO countries.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

I'm just going to sit this one out with a box of popcorn and watch the grenades go off as they get thrown.

No grenades from me.

Any arguments about their training methods should be taken with the RCAF. Here's a list of the aircrafts and a brief description of their missions.


https://www.canada.ca/en/air-force/s.../aircraft.html

[Lady Jane]

The Airbus A400M.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas



Size comparison with C-17 and C-130J

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

The Airbus A400M.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas

Attachment 3044065

Size comparison with C-17 and C-130J

Attachment 3044066

You're missing one -- but we would need a bigger screen to show the C-5M...

[Llarry]

Lady Jane's post with RCAF King Airs reminds me that I posted about U.S. Navy electronic recon aircraft and U.S. Air Force electronic aircraft but there is another service using recon aircraft: The U.S. Army has operated various models of the Beech King Air for many years, calling them Guardrail aircraft. The operators do not sit in the airplane, but the information is data linked back to a ground site where the operators are located.

Check out the photo of the RC-12N aircraft: talk about antennas!

The Army wants to replace the Guardrail system with a new jet-powered aircraft. Speaking as a neutral (Navy) observer, I suspect the USAF is going to pitch a fit over that plan; there is constant tension between the Army and the Air Force and there have been many Army aircraft procurement plans that have foundered on the rocks of Air Force opposition.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

The Airbus A400M.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas

Attachment 3044065

Size comparison with C-17 and C-130J

Attachment 3044066

Props are for boats.