A Large Fixed Wing transport aircraft for Arma 3

[progamer 14]

KC-390

Nuff said. :D

Can the KC-390 land really steeply like the C-17? What are the two aircraft like when compared to each other?

---------- Post added at 03:26 ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 ----------

Can the KC-390 back up on its own like the C-17?

[roberthammer 582]

KC-390 would be best for NATO - it looks great and great replacement for older C130

and UAC/HAL Il-214 for CSAT

Edited August 18, 2013 by RobertHammer

[pharoah 65]

Can the KC-390 land really steeply like the C-17? What are the two aircraft like when compared to each other?

---------- Post added at 03:26 ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 ----------

Can the KC-390 back up on its own like the C-17?

C-17 stats:

Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg)

102 paratroopers

158 troops with palletized and sidewall seats or

53 troops with sidewall seats (allows 13 cargo pallets) only or

36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients or

Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank,[181] three Strykers, or six M1117 Armored Security Vehicles

Other pertinent info:

Takeoff run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,316 m)[178]

Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,060 m)

The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate from unpaved, unimproved runways (although with greater chance of damage to the aircraft).[43] The thrust reversers can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three- (or more) point turn. The thrust reversers can also be used inflight whilst doing a max descent...thats just crazy.

KC-390

Capacity: [14]

80 passengers or

64 airborne troops or

6 pallets (68" X 108") or

74 litter patients with 2 medical personnel or

2-3 HMMWV and Marrua or an Astros II or a LAV III and VBTP-MR Guarani[86]

Cargo compartment: Length 17.75 m X width 3.45 m X height 2.9 m

Payload: 23.6 tons (52,029 lb)

I couldn't find the v speeds for rotation and landing or the rwy length for either.

I'd go for the C17. 'Nuff said' :)

[f27sharps 1]

KC-390 would be best for NATO - it looks great and great replacement for older C130

and UAC/HAL Il-214 for CSAT

@Roberthammer: I Posted the same, and what do you think about C-27J for AAF and MC-27J like gunship for Blufor ?

I find it rather that the players would agree it should be more motivating for developers

[roberthammer 582]

@Roberthammer: I Posted the same, and what do you think about C-27J for AAF and MC-27J like gunship for Blufor ?

I find it rather that the players would agree it should be more motivating for developers

Yes , C-27J is good too ,but even the "old" C130J would be good choice for AAF

[Alistair 10]

C-17 stats:

Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg)

102 paratroopers

158 troops with palletized and sidewall seats or

53 troops with sidewall seats (allows 13 cargo pallets) only or

36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients or

Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank,[181] three Strykers, or six M1117 Armored Security Vehicles

Other pertinent info:

Takeoff run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,316 m)[178]

Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,060 m)

The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate from unpaved, unimproved runways (although with greater chance of damage to the aircraft).[43] The thrust reversers can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three- (or more) point turn. The thrust reversers can also be used inflight whilst doing a max descent...thats just crazy.

KC-390

Capacity: [14]

80 passengers or

64 airborne troops or

6 pallets (68" X 108") or

74 litter patients with 2 medical personnel or

2-3 HMMWV and Marrua or an Astros II or a LAV III and VBTP-MR Guarani[86]

Cargo compartment: Length 17.75 m X width 3.45 m X height 2.9 m

Payload: 23.6 tons (52,029 lb)

I couldn't find the v speeds for rotation and landing or the rwy length for either.

I'd go for the C17. 'Nuff said' :)

We are talking about a plane for close distance operations.The C-17 is more expensive and bigger.It's made for long distance operations,transport of heavy armored vehicles to other continents,etc..Thus the Strategic Airlift role.

The KC-390,in the other hand,is being made to replace the C-130's.it's supposed to be a medium-sized transport aircraft, for missions within a theatre of operations (also known as Tatical airlift).

Now, since NATO is in a bad position with its economy,it wouldn't make sense having unnecessary expenses like this.

So the KC-390 (or equal) is the best choice for this game.

[pharoah 65]

who says you can't use the C17 for short ranged operations? The key to this argument is load capacity (ie. MTOW) vs rwy takeoff length. The C17 is meant to operate from unpaved and unimproved rwys much like the C130.

[Alistair 10]

who says you can't use the C17 for short ranged operations? The key to this argument is load capacity (ie. MTOW) vs rwy takeoff length. The C17 is meant to operate from unpaved and unimproved rwys much like the C130.

I didn't say you couldn't.

But why would you do that if you have a smaller and cheaper aircraft, that is very much capable of supplying the needs of the forces?

[progamer 14]

I didn't say you couldn't.

But why would you do that if you have a smaller and cheaper aircraft, that is very much capable of supplying the needs of the forces?

Bigger is better! And the C-17 is just one amazing bird!

-C-17 can also backup on its own.

-NATO would still have these aircraft as all the previous made ones wouldn't magically disappear.

The KC-390 is also a nice bird, as I have wanted a large transport in Arma with jet engines for a long time!

Edited August 18, 2013 by ProGamer

[pharoah 65]

True. The only thing I can think of is that BIS are assuming this will be handled by the V22 Osprey. The wiki specs are below:

Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers/crew chiefs)

Capacity:

24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded), 20,000 lb (9,070 kg) of internal cargo, or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of external cargo (dual hook)

1× Growler light internally transportable ground vehicle[190][191]

Even with the above, I still think they need a large cargo plane...be it the C17 or C130 or KC390 or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for all of them to be in there (I prefer spending my time flying them online).

[progamer 14]

True. The only thing I can think of is that BIS are assuming this will be handled by the V22 Osprey. The wiki specs are below:

Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers/crew chiefs)

Capacity:

24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded), 20,000 lb (9,070 kg) of internal cargo, or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of external cargo (dual hook)

1× Growler light internally transportable ground vehicle[190][191]

Even with the above, I still think they need a large cargo plane...be it the C17 or C130 or KC390 or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for all of them to be in there (I prefer spending my time flying them online).

We're debating on which Cargo planes would be best! :)

[pharoah 65]

lol I'm C17 through and through however atleast we have the Osprey. I just hope BIS release it on the dev branch before full release so we can actually practice flying the thing.

[progamer 14]

lol I'm C17 through and through however atleast we have the Osprey. I just hope BIS release it on the dev branch before full release so we can actually practice flying the thing.

We have the Osprey? Can I see proof? But yea C-17 has a bigger size than the KC-390 but it can back up on its own land really quick and land and take off on unpaved areas.

[pharoah 65]

We have the Osprey? Can I see proof? But yea C-17 has a bigger size than the KC-390 but it can back up on its own land really quick and land and take off on unpaved areas.

oh, so we're not getting the Osprey? I thought I read somewhere that we were.....f##k. The BIS arma 3 page is crap - you can't find a list of confirmed a/c and other things.

and mate, I actually WANT the C-17.

[progamer 14]

oh, so we're not getting the Osprey? I thought I read somewhere that we were.....f##k. The BIS arma 3 page is crap - you can't find a list of confirmed a/c and other things.

and mate, I actually WANT the C-17.

Confirmed to in game here: http://www.arma3.com/launch-countdown This does not include two CAS jets currently under development as a free update after release.

---------- Post added at 01:54 ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 ----------

My hope is like the jet thread which made them start work on two new CAS jets, that this thread would show them people want large transport aircraft like how Arma 2 had a C-130J.

[odie0351 67]

I'd like to see something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_tiltrotor It could fill the large transport role for fixed and rotary wing aircraft for NATO. would certainly fit in with the future setting as well

[progamer 14]

I'd like to see something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_tiltrotor It could fill the large transport role for fixed and rotary wing aircraft for NATO. would certainly fit in with the future setting as well

:) I was waiting as I knew someone would find this! But until we see something like this actually work, I wouldn't want it in Arma 3.

[pharoah 65]

Confirmed to in game here: http://www.arma3.com/launch-countdown This does not include two CAS jets currently under development as a free update after release./QUOTE]

I don't see it...as long as its there, thats the main thing

[odie0351 67]

Fair point, I still stand by it given the game has a futuristic setting and nearly every aircraft currently in game is fictional or based on prototype only aircraft. Granted all with Proven Methods of achieving lift and maintaining stable flight characteristics though.:rolleyes:

[progamer 14]

Fair point, I still stand by it given the game has a futuristic setting and nearly every aircraft currently in game is fictional or based on prototype only aircraft. Granted all with Proven Methods of achieving lift and maintaining stable flight characteristics though.:rolleyes:

The Comanche was in the testing faze or something like that but scrapped while the Kajman the child of 3 real world helicopters. Ghosthawk design was recreated by experts when people examined the crash in Osama Bin Laden's compound and the militeryin response release some data regarding it as people started asking questions and it became famous. The rest of the helicopters in game are based on real life helicopters.

[odie0351 67]

I was going for how most are fictional variants, certainly not saying I don't like them being in game or that they are completely made up. Guess I should have specified what I meant by nearly aircraft being fictional. :o

[chortles 263]

Ahahaha, fair enough... I will note that there are (claimed) numbers for the Comanche out there for BI to have worked off of, while the Ghosthawk is "BI's take" in the sense that there's a photograph out there of a seemingly-unique/modified tail section but otherwise the appearance/performance of the "Stealth Hawks" used in the Abbottabad raid is sheer conjecture (Zero Dark Thirty is an example of such conjecture) further modified by BI to serve as a "not-so-stealthy" transport design thanks to the two Miniguns sticking out of the sides... so the UH-80 Ghosthawk is less a case of "made up by BI out of thin air" than it is "a design based on conjecture because the actual specs are unknowable to the public".

[progamer 14]

Back on topic, here are two videos of the C-17's STOL capabilities which I would say are pretty amazing!

Landing STOL:

Almost doesn't need a runway!

And here is take off STOL:

I bet you could actually land on some roads and take off from them on Altis without crashing if you were skilled enough!

---------- Post added at 04:02 ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 ----------

Fr those of you who think the C-17 is too big, it's not like we want a C-5!

[odie0351 67]

The sound of the engines reverse thrusting on that landing definitely just brought back some memories:) Absolutely agree that the C-17 needs to make its way on here

[pharoah 65]

lol so we all agreed? C-17? :)

actually I would have loved for them to make a DHC 4 Caribou