Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing may use Antonov An-72 as platform for FCA bid
FlightInternational.com ^ | 20/01/2006 | STEPHEN TRIMBLE

Posted on 01/25/2006 10:28:11 PM PST by Paleo Conservative

Boeing may introduce a Soviet-era military transport jet as a new option for the US military's need for a new fleet of small airlifters, the airframer told Flight International in Washington, DC yesterday.

The Antonov An-72, a 70-seat jet with over-wing-mounted engines (pictured below in Aeroflot livery), is one of the options Boeing is considering to enter the US Army's pending Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA) competition, says George Muellner, Boeing vice president for Air Force Systems.

A Boeing evaluation team has visited Antonov headquarters in Kiev, the Ukraine, and both companies remain in active discussions, says Muellner.

The FCA competition is on hold for two months to allow army officials time to discuss blending the programme with a US Air Force requirement for a new light cargo aircraft fleet. Muellner says Boeing's plans will not be decided until the army unveils the final requirements for FCA.

As another option, Boeing also is in discussions to Alenia to join the Global Military Aircraft Systems team that plans to offer the Alenia C-27J Spartan. Raytheon and EADS CASA North America also plan to compete, offering the CASA C-295, CN-235, or both, depending on the army's final requirements.

The An-72, if Boeing were to offer it, would be the only jet-powered aircraft in the competition.

STEPHEN TRIMBLE / WASHINGTON, DC


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: an72; antonov; boeing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: null and void

Precisely.


61 posted on 01/26/2006 6:21:59 AM PST by ericthecurdog (The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher

"Them Russians sure build ugly airplanes! "

Yes, but they're very practical and take LOTS of abuse.


62 posted on 01/26/2006 6:34:35 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

" Don't the over wing engines help with short field performance?"

Don't know about short field performance, that would depend more on the wing design but the high engines would be great for rough, unpaved fields. The engines would be much less likely to sustain FOD (foreign object damage).


63 posted on 01/26/2006 6:36:57 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: Egberto
A word of advice. When you see the words "chuckle, chortle, smirk, etc." enclosed in brackets after one of my replies, then it indicates that I'm not being serious. In this specific case, I was enjoying some Cold War humor.
65 posted on 01/26/2006 6:48:33 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Egberto

...and welcome to FR, BTW...


66 posted on 01/26/2006 7:04:00 AM PST by null and void ("Never place a period where God has placed a coma" --Gracie Allen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Egberto
*shrug* If you want big, robust, easy to maintain systems Russia is definitely a place to look.

Small, elegant, delicate stuff, Japan.

Cheap crap, China. (Note: This is how Japan started out)

We try to select the best the world has to offer for any given need...
67 posted on 01/26/2006 7:13:19 AM PST by null and void ("Never place a period where God has placed a coma" --Gracie Allen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Where are the usual jingoistic cheerleaders from the refueling threads who whine that the USAF can't buy aerial tankers from Airbus which would be made in the US? They are strangely silent when Boeing talks about marketing Ukrainian aircraft.
68 posted on 01/26/2006 8:59:17 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Oh great. Now we're going to copy the Russians in the field of avaition?

I'm surprised that plane can get off the ground.


69 posted on 01/26/2006 9:02:34 AM PST by Finalapproach29er (Americans need to remember Osama's "strong horse" -"weak horse" analogy. Let's stop acting weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham; Paleo Conservative
Coanda Effect and its quieter than it would be if you hung the engines below the wing.

If the aerodynamics are that important, why isn't this concept being used on regular aircraft? Even though the engines might not pick up as much FOD (foreign object debris), it is not an efficient design. LOL! There must be politics involved in discussing this with Russia and Alenia. Politics is behind everything, imho.

70 posted on 01/26/2006 9:11:32 AM PST by phantomworker (Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool...and don't accuse me of your imagination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
They are strangely silent when Boeing talks about marketing Ukrainian aircraft.

One word: Politics

71 posted on 01/26/2006 9:18:49 AM PST by phantomworker (Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool...and don't accuse me of your imagination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Finalapproach29er
Oh great. Now we're going to copy the Russians in the field of avaition?

Actually they are copying a copy of their own design.

I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing went into their archives and dusted off the YC-14 blueprints just to see how to incorporate newer technology and metallurgy.

72 posted on 01/26/2006 9:25:35 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker; A.A. Cunningham
If the aerodynamics are that important, why isn't this concept being used on regular aircraft?

I don't think most planes need to land on short gravel runways. It pays for the short field performance with extra structural weight in the wing and shorter range.

73 posted on 01/26/2006 9:39:43 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Finalapproach29er; Paleo Conservative
I'm surprised that plane can get off the ground.

That's exactly what I thought.

It pays for the short field performance with extra structural weight in the wing and shorter range.

But is the extra MTOW, max takeoff weight worth it?

74 posted on 01/26/2006 9:51:04 AM PST by phantomworker (Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool...and don't accuse me of your imagination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: hattend

So boeing does not have to pay someone some royalty by using the espianoge based design of the soviets.

something is not right here.


75 posted on 01/26/2006 9:54:02 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

"With the jet exhaust at overhead level, that sucka has got to be LOUD inside."

Cargo can't hear anything!


76 posted on 01/26/2006 9:57:05 AM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker
But is the extra MTOW, max takeoff weight worth it?

Probably not for most civilian uses. As I recall this is a proposal for a military cargo plane in a class that is smaller than a C-130. The ability to operate from short primitive airstrips near combat zones is more important than the ton mile costs or range. The fact that it is smaller than a C-17 means a C-17 doesn't have to be used to send a small payload when the speed of a jet is needed.

77 posted on 01/26/2006 10:04:25 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Boeing is already building pieces of it's airliners in Russia.

Their marketing a Russian "homage" of their own design is a logical step, I guess. ;-)


78 posted on 01/26/2006 10:12:00 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance

DUDE! Great find. Thanks!

Now all I gotta do is figure out how to save it and store it at Putfile.


79 posted on 01/26/2006 11:11:31 AM PST by martin_fierro (Or a Mr. Niftier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

And edit out the ad at the beginning.


80 posted on 01/26/2006 11:35:11 AM PST by Fierce Allegiance (Never refuse a breath mint.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson