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.
But the Martin Mars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... ) made several flights, and was actually flown until a few years ago as a firefighting plane. And I still think it is bigger than this plane. Probably their claim is that it is bigger than its Japanese counterpart, the ShinMaywa US2 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... )
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 :)
The Goose never flew again because the war was over and the government had stopped paying for it. Hughes made the one flight only to prove he had actually built a working airplane and not defrauded the taxpayers with a phony project.
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
The maximum takeoff weight of the Martin JRM-3 Mars is reported as 165,000 pounds, -- more than 80 tons, and Wikipedia's article has a photograph of the Hawaii Mars II and Phillippine Mars on their landing gear undergoing maintenance; to my knowledge, the H-4 Hercules was never equipped with landing gear, which excludes it from the 'amphibian' category.
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.
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...
maybe the chief engineer trying get this thing through bureaucracy got fed up and yelled at Politburu (or whoever at top govt), "If I can't get this thing to fly, I will leave China!" They probably then gave him the resources he wanted. Most likely not true but don't ruin a good story with facts.
mfwright@batnet.com
I thought the Spruce goose can only take off and "land" on water.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
those aren'tlanding gear.
the Mars does not have landing gear.
those are ground wheels temporarily attached to the hull for the purpose of "drydocking".
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If you look closely at the Mars maintenance picture you will see a couple of things. First the tread on the wheels under the aircraft are quite aggressive. I have never seen that kind of tread on landing gear. Second the wing pontoons are supported by scaffolding and not wheels. My theory is that the Mars has the facility to attach dollies to the air frame to allow it to be pulled out of the water and those are not landing gear.
I also looked up a number of articles and the Mars is always referred to as a flying boat and not an amphibious aircraft. The final kicker is that BC is retiring it's Martin Mars aircraft and here is a quote from an article explaining the decision;
Because of its size, the Martin Mars can only land on and scoop up water from about 113 bodies of water in B.C.
The Martin Mars is not amphibious.
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).
"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."
http://gizmodo.com/this-caspia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-1
H.H. is yawning in his grave.
That makes it sound a bit underwhelming. The KM Ekranoplan had a takeoff weight of 544 tonnes. Of that, the weight of fuel plus payload which could be lifted was 304 tonnes.
"...KM Ekranoplan..." I thought they were the same thing. I only know from the source I cited.
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