Slashdot Mirror
World's Largest Amphibious Aircraft Goes Into Production In China
stephendavion (2872091) writes "Chinese aircraft manufacturer China Aviation Industry General Aircraft (CAIGA) has started trial production of its TA600 amphibious aircraft, claimed to be the world's largest of its kind. With an expected maiden flight late next year, the Chinese plane would replace Japan's ShinMaywa US-2 short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft as the largest of its kind globally."
Take a look at a side profile illustration of the CA-600, on this Korean language page. The TA600 has a huge maximum takeoff weight of 53.5 tons, but looks a bit puny compared to Howard Hughes' H-4 Hercules.
The world's tallest midget!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
We got the idea with the Hercules that you could resupply military fleets or save fuel with launch your cargo ship into the air if time became an issue(because of the war). It was misguided, but at least a reason for the amphibious design.
Why are they building giant amphibious cargo planes today? Who has that need?
So a Chinese spy stumbled across the Spruce Goose exhibit and thought, "Wow, total score! This is better than the Stealth!"?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Someone's overcompensating...
The single one ever made made a single flight, ever, attaining an earth shattering 70 feet above sea level.
At least the Chinese plane will rack up a few more takeoffs than just one, and I imagine they plan to fly it higher than 70 feet.
The Spruce Goose ended development because of the end of the war and the cutback on expenditures. Whether it would have been a reliable and effective aircraft, we'll never know.
And are not yet very good at building aircraft carriers and everything that goes with them (suitable aircraft and command and control).
It's not the "next best thing" or even close - there is a good reason why large 'planes such as this were rapidly abandoned (except by the Soviet Union) after WW2. They take up much more of their usable capacity with fuel and equipment , and are extremely vulnerable on both land and sea, (one submerged log or - more likely these days - a lost shipping container) and your transport and its cargo is scrap.
Of course, I'd still want one :)
This goes into the Pajero and LaPuta for spanish speakers.
But the Martin Mars, still being used for firefighting, has a max. takeoff weight of 165,000 lb.
Why are they building giant amphibious cargo planes today? Who has that need?
Isn't that sort of a self answering question? Let's break it down. 3/4 of the earth's surface is water and there aren't nice paved roads everywhere there is a need for cargo. Ships are slow, planes are not. Planes that can land on water do not need a prepared runway as any sufficiently large, reasonably calm body of water will suffice if there isn't a traditional runway available. Planes that can land/takeoff from water can be refueled there too meaning they do not have to worry about ditching when over water except in rough weather.
So basically anyone who needs relatively fast long distance transport of cargo to a remote area where there is water but possibly not runways. Describes more than a few places on earth.
As I clicked to the fine article I was prepared to see a description of a gigantic airplane, overshadowing a Catalina, perhaps even a Spruce Goose. Yet the actual airplane is a little underwhelming.
TFA reads: "Larger than Boeing's 737 jet, the TA600 aircraft has a maximum takeoff weight of 53.5t and a maximum range of over 5,000km."
If one defines "larger than" as "having a higher MTOW" then the TA600 is indeed larger than a 737. That is, a 737-200 (1968 vintage). More recent versions are considerably heavier.
The other stats, 8.9m-long, 12.46m-wide and a maximum cruise speed of 231km/h aren't very impressive either.
It looks like a nice plane though, I hope it succeeds and that we'll see it often. There aren't enough amphibious planes around. But it will take a lot to make it more awesome than a Grumman Goose ;)
Stachel
Nothing beats a Conwing L-16 ( The Seaduck) /s
So, what is the Chinese term for "it won't fly!"...
But maybe rising sea levels might begin to threaten some of the airstrips close to the water. Planes like this might be used as a temporary measure to deal with the loss of a tiny airport on the beach that worked until now. Some airstrips terminate in the ocean.
Despite how it is next to the sea, China actually can't get out into the Pacific or Indian oceans without brushing near one of its many neighbors.
It just so happens China has territorial disputes with those neighbors.
You may call China crazy or greedy or paranoid or whatever and is in the wrong, but that doesn't change the geography.
Look on the bright side - aircraft carriers are for offence not defence[1].
[1] The US Dept of Defence should more accurately be known as the Department of Offence...
The Martin JRM Mars has more impressive specs ...
General characteristics
o Crew: four (with accommodations for a second relief crew)
o Capacity: 133 troops, or 84 litter patients and 25 attendants
o Payload: 32,000 lb (15,000 kg) of cargo, including up to seven jeeps
o Length: 117 ft 3 in (35.74 m)
o Wingspan: 200 ft 0 in (60.96 m)
o Height: 38 ft 5 in (11.71 m)
o Wing area: 3,686 ft (342.4 mÂ)
o Empty weight: 75,573 lb (34,279 kg)
o Loaded weight: 90,000 lb (40,820 kg)
o Max. takeoff weight: 165,000 lb (74,800 kg)
o Powerplant: 4 x Wright R-3350-24WA Duplex Cyclone 18-cylinder radial engines, 2,500 hp (1,900 kW) each
Performance
o Maximum speed: 192 knots (221 mph, 356 km/h)
o Cruise speed: 165 knots (190 mph, 305 km/h)
o Range: 4,300 nautical miles (5,000 mi, 8,000 km)
o Service ceiling: 14,600 ft (4,450 m)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Still at work.
http://www.martinmars.com/airc...
Where do the Caspian Sea monsters weigh in compared to these? (mainly in cargo capacity)
I thought the Spruce goose can only take off and "land" on water.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
In yet another case of unfortunate naming...
"Caiga" in spanish means "falls" ("to fall", subjunctive, present, 3rd person, singular). As in "let it fall!" ("!que se caiga!").
Goes to the full August 1946 issue of Popular Science, including a first-hand account of Able - the first atomic bomb test at Bikini Atoll. That glimpse into life as a tech geek in 1946 is more interesting than TFA.
Japan and India use them for search and rescue, their intended role. Carriers are big and slow, not suited to SAR work where you need high capacity long range aircraft that can then collect people and even small boats from the water.
Anyway, in warfare carriers are less useful against enemies with hypersonic missiles. The US doesn't have any yet, but since Russia, India and China do I imagine they expect to face them eventually.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's no Caspian Sea Monster.
http://gizmodo.com/this-caspia...
"It was capable of carrying up to 137 tons (270,000 pounds) of troops and equipment—including as many as six nuclear missiles—at speeds up to 350 MPH as far as 1,080 nmi—albeit only 16 feet off the surface of the water."
Yes, the MD-160 was neither amphibious (it's water-only) or an airplane (it's an Ekranoplan surface-effect vehicle).
Seems a bit on the slow side, for a modern aircraft. Also, it can only transport about 1.6 tons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-1
Yep, it is pretty much about having external military bases without getting some local crackpot to play ball.
H.H. is yawning in his grave.
The Be-200 is longer at 32m, and currently in production. It is also has a larger useful payload. It is used for firefighting.
The best de-fense is a good o-fense.
You know who said that? Mel, the cook on Alice.
The picture in the Aerospace-Technology website is wrong. The red rising sun on the tail would have made it obvious, if not for the fact that Wikipedia picture of the ShinMaywa is actually identical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S....
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
Where are the rest of the engines?