Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The pontoon is where we got off in good weather.....just have to chase off the lizards first, the pilots just manoeuvred a wing over the cross head, and it sends them off. It was a very regular thing. I guess a Chinook could do the same job, but cost more to operate.
One of the other jobs the Turbo Mallards did, is resupply of the ships in remote locations like Vansitart Bay and the Osbourne Islands in the Kimberley area of WA. It could be bringing out a specialist techie, refrigeration mechanic, etc or an urgent spare part for an important bit of kit that just isn't on board.
 
Last edited:

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
And one point, the water does not have to be "Lake flat" to land or take off. Just like a boat , the seaplane gets on the plane very quickly, and there is not much in the water. You would be surprised as what conditions thay can take off and land in. I flew dozens of trips, and not once were we turned away due to conditions (however there were times that I was shitting myself!) .They land in storm conditions, wet season, monsoon conditions.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The pontoon is where we got off in good weather.....just have to chase off the lizards first, the pilots just manoeuvred a wing over the cross head, and it sends them off. It was a very regular thing. I guess a Chinook could do the same job, but cost more to operate.
One of the other jobs the Turbo Mallards did, is resupply of the ships in remote locations like Vansitart Bay and the Osbourne Islands in the Kimberley area of WA. It could be bringing out a specialist techie, refrigeration mechanic, etc or an urgent spare part for an important bit of kit that just isn't on board.
The Mallard is one of 3 in the Paspaley Pearling Co fleet, they were all converted and totally rebuilt from radials to turbo and were part of my responsibilities when GM Ops of the company.
One of the reasons we bought the Mallards (17 pax or 1.5 tons of stores) was that we had already tried chartering float planes and they proved to be unsatisfactory, too much of their performance was eaten up by carting around floats, speed and load were badly effected,
This latter point not has been given enough weight in the previous discussion.
The Mallards have also been used as emergency recovery vehicles bringing in casualties from offshore platforms and a seaplanes performance in choppy seas far exceeds floatplanes
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The Mallard is one of 3 in the Paspaley Pearling Co fleet, they were all converted and totally rebuilt from radials to turbo and were part of my responsibilities when GM Ops of the company.
One of the reasons we bought the Mallards (17 pax or 1.5 tons of stores) was that we had already tried chartering float planes and they proved to be unsatisfactory, too much of their performance was eaten up by carting around floats, speed and load were badly effected,
This latter point not has been given enough weight in the previous discussion.
The Mallards have also been used as emergency recovery vehicles bringing in casualties from offshore platforms and a seaplanes performance in choppy seas far exceeds floatplanes
Interesting discussion.
Great to see some contemporary use of seaplanes in the commercial world. Thanks Assail and Old Faithful
As sea/float planes were well used in WW11 and after I wonder why they lost their appeal?

As an island surrounded by large seas on three sides and a massive island archipelago on the other one would think a modern sea plane would have its place.

Are they just to niche or have other platforms taken over their role.

Some interesting video of the ShinMaywa US-2 landing and taking off in the open ocean




Regards S
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
If you want an amphibious plane - and remember, you need to buy the system, not just the plane - then why would you do a slap-dash job like that Herc. The amount of testing that would need, better to buy a purpose built thing like the US-2. The drag, the single engine out, the reduction in range and speed, the reduction in payload - I laughed when I saw it and I laugh now. It's a solution looking for a problem, and not a good one.

With respect to the system, there has to be some accounting for how this thing operates and where from. How does it unload? What are the weather conditions it can do (a land plane can land in rougher weather than a sea plane)? What is it's actual purpose? What's it lifting? SF - yup, can see a role there. RFSU? Absolutely. But better than a C-130 or C-17?

After that, then you need to do the $$ and workforce. But I'd be surprised if you got to that point... amphib aircraft died a natural death for a reason.

Just don't tell the fighter jocks about the F2Y....
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
If you want an amphibious plane - and remember, you need to buy the system, not just the plane - then why would you do a slap-dash job like that Herc. The amount of testing that would need, better to buy a purpose built thing like the US-2. The drag, the single engine out, the reduction in range and speed, the reduction in payload - I laughed when I saw it and I laugh now. It's a solution looking for a problem, and not a good one.

With respect to the system, there has to be some accounting for how this thing operates and where from. How does it unload? What are the weather conditions it can do (a land plane can land in rougher weather than a sea plane)? What is it's actual purpose? What's it lifting? SF - yup, can see a role there. RFSU? Absolutely. But better than a C-130 or C-17?

After that, then you need to do the $$ and workforce. But I'd be surprised if you got to that point... amphib aircraft died a natural death for a reason.

Just don't tell the fighter jocks about the F2Y....
Good points and good questions.
Herc on floats..........No

Japan has being pitching internationally the ShinMaywa US-2 for some time but still no takers.
Even their own fleet numbers are small.

A look at the shnmaywa web site and you get a good overview of what this class of aircraft can do. [ yep its a sale brochure ]
But still very impressive

By Land, Sea, or Air US-2

As a purely land based aircraft its smaller than a C-130J yet bigger than the C-27J.
For a transport, it's main drawback is the lack of a rear ramp and a flat usable cargo bay.
As a STOL aircraft in this size category, it's still an impressive plane.
For the ADF it also has the attribute of very good range
It's main party trick is or course is it's ability to also take off and land on water.

Replacing the C-27J with half a dozen US-2's with also some additional C-130J's and I'd suggest the RAAF would have some very flexible assets.


Regards S
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
For the wider world - see! @Stampede shows what y'all fantasy fleets need to do. He has ID'd pros, cons, a sketch of a CONOPS and a means to pay for it.

Of course, now he's made me think for my rebuttal....bugger.

I'll be back... :cool:
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Good points and good questions.
Herc on floats..........No

Japan has being pitching internationally the ShinMaywa US-2 for some time but still no takers.
Even their own fleet numbers are small.

A look at the shnmaywa web site and you get a good overview of what this class of aircraft can do. [ yep its a sale brochure ]
But still very impressive

By Land, Sea, or Air US-2

As a purely land based aircraft its smaller than a C-130J yet bigger than the C-27J.
For a transport, it's main drawback is the lack of a rear ramp and a flat usable cargo bay.
As a STOL aircraft in this size category, it's still an impressive plane.
For the ADF it also has the attribute of very good range
It's main party trick is or course is it's ability to also take off and land on water.

Replacing the C-27J with half a dozen US-2's with also some additional C-130J's and I'd suggest the RAAF would have some very flexible assets.


Regards S
WRT rear cargo ramp. This is not needed when unloading on water,
The cargo door/doors are less than a metre above sea surface so all unloading can be done by hand onto a pontoon or a low freeboard launch/RHIB whatever.
These planes won’t be carrying anything heavy enough to require wheeled access only hand moveable stores.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I wonder what options will be on the table when contemplating the C-130J replacement. It looks like a replacement for the C-27J might well be bundled in with it and I am thinking perhaps even the C-17. Around that time Australia will also start looking at replacing the MRTT so there could be quite a few force structure options on the table.

Would it be better to go with a diverse selection of specialised aircraft or rationalise it as much as possible with just a couple of different airframe types?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I wonder what options will be on the table when contemplating the C-130J replacement. It looks like a replacement for the C-27J might well be bundled in with it and I am thinking perhaps even the C-17. Around that time Australia will also start looking at replacing the MRTT so there could be quite a few force structure options on the table.

Would it be better to go with a diverse selection of specialised aircraft or rationalise it as much as possible with just a couple of different airframe types?
C-17 and MRTT replacement options are just concepts at the moment. Not a lot of cash for development, especially given the emphasis on new pointy end stuff (hypersonics, 6 th Gen fighters, new vertical lift). The C-17 line should have been preserved better and the MRTT is still viable, supplement it with MQ-25s for contested space…just my opinion.
 

Gooey

Active Member
I was recently listening to a podcast on 31SQN Beaufighter ops in Timor area, from Darwin, during which they took on Zero float-planes ("Rufe"). They were a quite capable opponent apparently and not easy or passive targets.

Thought you guys might be interested given this discussion and to recap some recent Pacific history.


 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
Good points and good questions.
Herc on floats..........No

Japan has being pitching internationally the ShinMaywa US-2 for some time but still no takers.
Even their own fleet numbers are small.

A look at the shnmaywa web site and you get a good overview of what this class of aircraft can do. [ yep its a sale brochure ]
But still very impressive

By Land, Sea, or Air US-2

As a purely land based aircraft its smaller than a C-130J yet bigger than the C-27J.
For a transport, it's main drawback is the lack of a rear ramp and a flat usable cargo bay.
As a STOL aircraft in this size category, it's still an impressive plane.
For the ADF it also has the attribute of very good range
It's main party trick is or course is it's ability to also take off and land on water.

Replacing the C-27J with half a dozen US-2's with also some additional C-130J's and I'd suggest the RAAF would have some very flexible assets.


Regards S
It's a good trick, though. With long range it's a good fit for use in the archipelagos of the Indo-pacific, especially in settings where airfields may be damaged or hard to come by.

It's has amazingly short take off and landing in water, (280 and 330m respectively) whereas taking off from land requires 490m and landing requires a very substantial 1500 m. I think I understand the difference between landing in water and on the ground, water offering more resistance than brakes/spoilers when landing on terra firma. I really don't understand why taking off from land should be 210m longer than from the sea. I've asked Dr Google without finding an answer. The only thing I can think of is the angle of attack of the wing may be greater on water or increases more rapidly on water than land, thus more lift. Anyone help me?
 

the road runner

Active Member
It's has amazingly short take off and landing in water, (280 and 330m respectively) whereas taking off from land requires 490m and landing requires a very substantial 1500 m. I think I understand the difference between landing in water and on the ground, water offering more resistance than brakes/spoilers when landing on terra firma. I really don't understand why taking off from land should be 210m longer than from the sea. I've asked Dr Google without finding an answer. The only thing I can think of is the angle of attack of the wing may be greater on water or increases more rapidly on water than land, thus more lift. Anyone help me?
I Assume when taking off on water the plane can point itself into a headwind, that will assist with a shorter takeoff.... Similar concept how aircraft carriers can move the boat into a head wind to assist with takeoff from a carrier..
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
I Assume when taking off on water the plane can point itself into a headwind, that will assist with a shorter takeoff.... Similar concept how aircraft carriers can move the boat into a head wind to assist with takeoff from a carrier..
Yes. Good point, you can nearly always take off into the wind.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
It's a good trick, though. With long range it's a good fit for use in the archipelagos of the Indo-pacific, especially in settings where airfields may be damaged or hard to come by.

It's has amazingly short take off and landing in water, (280 and 330m respectively) whereas taking off from land requires 490m and landing requires a very substantial 1500 m. I think I understand the difference between landing in water and on the ground, water offering more resistance than brakes/spoilers when landing on terra firma. I really don't understand why taking off from land should be 210m longer than from the sea. I've asked Dr Google without finding an answer. The only thing I can think of is the angle of attack of the wing may be greater on water or increases more rapidly on water than land, thus more lift. Anyone help me?
Pointing towards headwind as road runner mentions, But also at least from videos seen of take off's the nose points up quite a bit (guessing bouncy and such sending most the weight to the back?) which would give them a larger surface area on the wings to create lift, More lift less the pontoons are in the water meaning less drag... But thats just my spit balling.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
It's has amazingly short take off and landing in water, (280 and 330m respectively) whereas taking off from land requires 490m and landing requires a very substantial 1500 m. I think I understand the difference between landing in water and on the ground, water offering more resistance than brakes/spoilers when landing on terra firma. I really don't understand why taking off from land should be 210m longer than from the sea. I've asked Dr Google without finding an answer. The only thing I can think of is the angle of attack of the wing may be greater on water or increases more rapidly on water than land, thus more lift. Anyone help me?
I don't think those 490 m and 1500 m are applicable to the US-2. I think what they are saying is they are the average distances for a commercial airliner, the US-2 does it in less.

I'd say there is some creative maths in defining the average. A 747 for instance, is probably included, probably adds a chunk, but is an irrelevant comparison.
 

Mark_Evans

Member
Mods, Just a question and I am not sure of the recommended process. Any idea when the navy forum is going to come out of the naughty corner?
 
Top