[mafets]

Se o individuo que chefia o projecto do KC-390 diz uma coisa dessas, então temo verdadeiramente pelo futuro do KC-390.

- Ui, ui!  

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-redesign-transforms-kc-390-into-all-new-market-threat-400462/

For such an audacious move, Embraer selected a potentially revolutionary configuration.

Turboprop engines have dominated the class of military airlifters below the Boeing C-17. Whether it’s the C-130, the Airbus A400M or the Antonov An-26, the most popular tactical airlifters in the market have always been powered by turboprop engines.

Embraer, however, decided to equip the KC-390 with two modern turbofans. The International Aero Engines (IAE) V2500-A5 was selected after a competition with CFM International. It is the same engine that hangs on the wing of the Airbus A320 family, with no modifications to the turbomachinery. The full authority digital engine control (FADEC) – a system that monitors and controls ignition for maximum efficiency – is new and tailored to the unique mission profile of the KC-390.

The selection of a turbofan engine for a tactical airlift mission raised eyebrows. Gastão acknowledges it is the most frequent question he receives about the aircraft. For Embraer, however, the choice was an engineering no-brainer, he says.

The most common concern raised about the use of a turbofan engine in the tactical airlift role is the threat of damage by foreign objects while taking off, landing or taxiing.

Gastão, not surprisingly, has an extended and well-rehearsed reply. It starts with a brief history of the design of turboprop blades. In the early 1950s, when the C-130 was designed, propeller blades were small and metallic, so their tips sat higher off the ground where they were less prone to damage.

As turbojet and turbofan engines appeared, turboprop blades evolved significantly to stay competitive. “The way of improving propeller efficiency is increasing the diameter and having complex geometries,” Gastão says. “Complex geometries today mean composite material. So when you have big propellers running near the ground made from composite materials, that makes propellers not so robust.”

As propeller blades have become less resistant to damage, the internal core of turbofan engines has improved, he says.

Another concern about foreign object damage is the thrust reverser mechanism on a turbofan engine, which is not necessary on a turboprop engine. But Gastão says the threat of debris ingestion by the thrust reverser is largely a myth. Ingestion occurs only at speeds below 40-50kt, a range at which using the thrust reverser is unnecessary.

Gastão acknowledges there will need to be an exception to this when the KC-390 uses the icy landing strips in Antarctica, where the Brazilian air force supports scientific missions from a Chilean air base. The base has a short runway covered in ice and snow, which requires deployment of the thrust reverser until the KC-390 comes to a stop, he says.

“But in this situation no [foreign object debris] is ingested. You just may ingest some water.”

In the design process, Embraer took note of the Antonov An-32, a re-engined variant of the An-26. The An-32’s launch customer, the Indian air force, needed more power than the An-26 offered to take off from runways in the lower air density of the Himalayan mountains. As a result, the An-32 remains a twin-engined aircraft, but the increased size of the engine means it is over-powered for the majority of its mission, Gastão says.

Embraer faced the same decision with a twin-engined KC-390, but took the opposite approach.

“We decided not to do that because we would jeopardise the efficiency of the aircraft on more than 95% of the operational life,” Gastão says.

As a result, twin-engined aircraft like the An-32 will perform better than the KC-390 in the “high-and-hot” corner of the flight envelope. A four-engined aircraft, such as the C-130 or A400M, also has an advantage in certain conditions, such as engine failure. It is the difference between losing 25% or 50% of the aircraft’s engine power.

Gastão, however, points out that Lockheed made similar design decisions in the 1950s, when jet engine reliability was very low. The decision to use turboprop engines on the A400M came later, but it was still at least a full generation of engine technology ago, in the early 1980s.

“I’m not sure if [Airbus] had to restart today they would keep that decision and develop a better propulsion system for the aircraft,” he says.

Embraer performed systems integration for the first time more than two decades ago with the AMX attack fighter/trainer, which was developed jointly with Aermacchi. But the company took a different approach with commercial aircraft programmes.

The flight control systems of the KC-390 feature a diverse selection of suppliers. Goodrich, a member of United Technologies Aerospace Systems (UTAS), supplies the primary controls. Hamilton Sundstrand, another UTAS company, delivers the secondary flight controls and slats. Sagem provides the horizontal stabilisers. All of the hardware, including BAE electronics and UTAS and Sagem actuators, is integrated into a functioning system by Embraer, Gastão says.

“It’s considered a strategy to have full capability in house,” he says. “It’s very important because with this kind of airplane you may need to tune the software for different parts of the envelope, different missions. So it’s nice to have all that in our hands.”

Paulo Gastão, Embraer’s vice-president for the KC-390, acknowledges the scheduling challenge posed by entering a year-long flight test programme with only two prototypes on the flightline.

“We have a very aggressive approach for our test campaign,” Gastão says. “We have just two flying prototypes. We have a very aggressive schedule to do that.”

As a manufacturer with multiple commercial and military aircraft already in service, Embraer was aware that the flight test schedule would be more “comfortable” with one or two additional prototypes, Gastão says. However, flight test prototypes cost a lot of money upfront to build, and the Brazilian air force contract limited construction to only two examples.

“So we have been working very, very hard to have an efficient test programme to work with those two prototypes in the needed timeframe, and being able to certify the aircraft to civilian and military standards,” he says.

The challenge of having only two aircraft lies in scheduling. By definition, the aim of a flight test campaign is to reveal design deficiencies that must be changed before the aircraft can be delivered to a customer. As changes are rolled in, the prototypes must be grounded temporarily to integrate new components or software.

“We have been working since the beginning of this programme to mitigate to the extent we can the probability of having to modify and do lay-ups on the prototypes,” Gastão says. “We have a lot of mitigating strategies for that purpose.

In 2011, Embraer and the Brazilian air force offered a rare glimpse to the public of a wooden mock-up showing an early version the KC-390’s cargo compartment.

Inside the full-scale mock-up was a moveable aft pressure bulkhead. It was shown in the retracted position, rolled up into the aft ceiling like a garage door.

Within two years, this novel design feature had been removed, but not before offering a revealing insight into how Embraer was learning to design a feature – a rear cargo door that opens and closes in flight.

The movable pressure bulkhead was necessary because Embraer was not yet comfortable with a design for a pressurised ramp door. The wooden mock-up shown in 2011 featured clamshell doors that were not designed to pressurise the cabin upon closing. Instead of using pressurised doors, Embraer proposed the moveable bulkhead, which would retract to offload cargo or paratroopers in flight.

But Embraer continued searching for a better solution to the problem.

“It was a very complex mechanism and we finally got a way to avoid that,” says Paulo Gastão, Embraer’s vice-president for the KC-390.

The design of the clamshell doors was driven by geometric restrictions for the aft fuselage with a Mach 0.8 cruise speed. At that time, Embraer’s design studies had not found a way to provide for the use of a conventional door with enough clearance for dropping cargo without raising the height of the aft fuselage, Gastão says. The extra height would cause an increase in transonic drag.

But Embraer’s engineers kept working the problem until they found a way to eliminate the clamshell doors and install a conventional ramp and pressurised rear door.

Cumprimentos

Ps. O Keys voltou... :roll:

[Get_It]

A Embraer a meter pressão ao governo brasileiro:

Embraer eyeing slowdown of KC-390 program if Brazil cannot pay

Embraer SA has to consider slowing down development of the KC-390 military cargo jet if the Brazilian Air Force, which is funding the program, does not catch up on late payments, Chief Executive Officer Frederico Curado said on a Thursday conference call.

The Brazilian government has fallen behind on around $300 million in payments on defense contracts due to efforts to shore up the federal budget, hurting Embraer's first-quarter earnings, which were released earlier in the day.

Fonte: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/embraer-defense-idUSE6N0W601120150430

Cumprimentos,

[dc]

Estou para ver é se ainda sobra para nós...

[night_runner]

Começo a não entender os responsáveis por este forum...

[mafets]

Segundo os States... Ups. :roll:
http://www.janes.com/article/51116/embraer-reports-losses-in-quarterly-earnings?

Brazilian aerospace conglomerate Embraer reported a USD62 million loss and a 15% fall in revenue in its first quarter 2015 (1Q15) results, announced on 30 April.

The company said tax obligation - USD118 million in 1Q15, compared with USD 18 million for the same quarter last year - accounted for a large portion of the loss.

It also pointed to currency fluctuations that saw a 21% fall in the value of the Brazilian real.

The largest revenue fall occurred in the company's defence and security sector, where it dropped 46% to USD213 million.

The company has also been busy with an SEC probe into a potential violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act regarding international sales of aircraft.

Entretanto sobre o KC390, que é o propósito deste tópico:  :roll:
https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Data/News/2015_Cal_Yr/GS/FY15GSNR27-KC390update.aspx

RIO DE JANEIRO (April 14, 2015) - Rockwell Collins today announced its latest progress on the Brazilian Air Force’s KC-390 program, which includes new deliveries of flight test software and transitioning of product manufacturing for the aircraft to Brazil.

Rockwell Collins has provided Embraer with its third delivery of Pro Line Fusion flight test software for the KC-390, offering increased maturity and full functionality in support of the flight test campaign. The high level of maturity provided in the software will allow Embraer to begin taking certification credit from the first of the test campaign.

The KC-390 completed its first 90-minute maiden flight February 3 with the Pro Line Fusion solution, which performed exceptionally well.

Rockwell Collins has also started transitioning display and control panel build capability for the KC-390 into Brazil with a new partner – Jabil do Brasil. Jabil is currently developing test solutions in its U.S. facilities that will transfer to Brazil in 2016 to support the production phase of the program.

“Rockwell Collins continues to grow and deliver quality to our customers in Brazil,” said Alan Prowse, vice president and managing director, Americas, for Rockwell Collins. “And we are reaffirming our commitment to transferring technology and creating economic opportunity in the country.”

The KC-390 program marks the first military application of Rockwell Collins’ highly advanced Pro Line Fusion integrated avionics system, which entered the business jet segment in 2012. It also represents the highest content that Rockwell Collins has on an Embraer military aircraft.

About Rockwell Collins

Rockwell Collins is a pioneer in the development and deployment of innovative communication and aviation electronic solutions for both commercial and government applications. Our expertise in flight deck avionics, cabin electronics, mission communications, simulation and training, and information management is delivered by a global workforce, and a service and support network that crosses more than 150 countries. To find out more, please visithttp://www.rockwellcollins.com.

http://www.defesanet.com.br/kc390/noticia/10192/KC-390---Conclude-Critical-Design-Review

Cumprimentos

[NVF]

Não é externamente, é internamente, ainda que no comprimento total o KC-390 seja mesmo um pouco maior que o J-30, o importante é o compartimento de carga do KC-390 que é maior que do C-130J-30 nas três dimensões, comprimento, altura e largura, além da maior capacidade de tonelagem de carga.

Temo no entanto que o AN-148 ucraniano abocanhe alguma fatia de mercado do KC-390, seu baixo preço de venda não deixa de ser uma ameaça real, nessas horas o bolso pesa na decisão.

Os alicerces da Física acabam de ser abalados de forma profunda. Estamos perante uma das maiores descobertas dos últimos 500 anos! Nem Einstein, nem Planck, nem Schrödinger conseguiram tal feito! Como pode um objecto exceder outro nas três dimensões e, ainda assim, ter menor volume? Novos desenvolvimentos esperam-se da Terra de Vera Cruz.

[mafets]

O problema deste forum é ter de momento "3 senhores" que sabem tanto de aviação que continuam a "confundir" Wingspan (já deu para perceber que o inglês é fraco e a capacidade de pesquisa ainda pior), com algo tão simples e que qualquer criança portuguesa até no pré-escolar conhece que é Leght. Como não tem a mínima noção do que é, assim como volume, comprimento da porta de carga e suas implicações num projecto aeronáutico (sabem lá o que é isso),etc, e que apesar das explicações ofendem os outros foristas porque o objectivo é só esse. Alem disso são estes "transeuntes" que publicam noticias sem fontes (o Keys chegou mesmo a falsifica-las), acham que qualquer projecto por ser Brasileiro é o melhor do mundo, tem de ser comprado, venerado, assim como as forças políticas que o escolhem (na volta são funcionários do partido). Já se percebeu também que o objectivo é fechar tópicos, afastar os outros foristas com ofensas e criar confusão, porque nada mais tem a fazer. Quanto a fontes, tudo o que é publicado tem o site, não concordam questionem directamente as fontes, dêm factos em vez de palavras e ofensas. De resto se mandasse aqui alguma coisa já tinham ido de vela para a terra deles. :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  

http://leehamnews.com/2014/10/13/embraers-big-bet-on-its-largest-airplane-yet/

Saudações

[NVF]

Não sei quem é o Cavok, mas uma tal de Embraer teve a audácia de publicar uma imagem onde é mostrado o real tamanho do compartimento de carga (o tal que é maior que o outro, mas ainda assim tem menor volume).

http://www.embraerdefensesystems.com/english/content/cargo/performance.asp



Uma tal de US Air Force também nos fez o favor de publicar dados do C-130. Mas os pobres de espírito continuam a insistir no comprimento. Que lhes valha o reino dos céus!

Length: C-130E/H/J: 97 feet, 9 inches (29.3 meters)
C-130J-30: 112 feet, 9 inches (34.69 meters)
Height: 38 feet, 10 inches (11. 9 meters)
Wingspan: 132 feet, 7 inches (39.7 meters)
Cargo Compartment:
C-130E/H/J: length, 40 feet (12.31 meters); width, 119 inches (3.Remove 12 meters); height, 9 feet (2.74 meters). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 meters); width, 119 inches (3.02 meters)
C-130J-30: length, 55 feet (16.9 meters); width, 119 inches (3.12 meters); height, 9 feet (2.74 meters). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 meters); width, 119 inches (3.02 meters)

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104517/c-130-hercules.aspx

[mafets]

Extraordinário o conhecimento de aviação que este "senhor" demonstra. Depois do "chorrilho" de asneiras sobre o C-130, An178, A400 e Gripen, agora nem sabe algo tão simples como "inglês". Mas onde será que tão "conhecedor" de aeronáutica e matérias de defesa, vê aqui o comprimento?        :roll: ), sendo que os dados referentes ao Kc390 não estão certificados (portanto as estimativas podem ser revistas em alta ou em baixa). Mas são os Portugueses e a Jane's que mentem, já que os 3 "Brasileiros" que aqui postam, sem fontes, "mudando" noticias, propagandiando e que passam o tempo todo a ofender os outros foristas, sejam portugueses ou espanhóis, é que falam verdade. :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:    
http://www.janes.com/article/48682/update-kc-390-airlifter-makes-maiden-flight

Saudações

[NVF]

Atenção que esse hold volume parece incluir a zona da rampa (não sei bem o que tencionam transportar na rampa, mas enfim). O volume sem a zona da rampa anda à volta dos 130 m³.

[mafets]

Atenção que esse hold volume parece incluir a zona da rampa (não sei bem o que tencionam transportar na rampa, mas enfim). O volume sem a zona da rampa anda à volta dos 130 m³.

Exacto, como está bem patente na imagem da Leeham Co que precisamente coloca o volume de carga do Kc390 em 129m3, pois não conta com a rampa de carga. No mesmo caso do C130J 30,  fica nos 143 m3 o que uma diferença significativa.

http://leehamnews.com/2014/10/13/embraers-big-bet-on-its-largest-airplane-yet/

Porem, os 3 "experts" que por aqui gravitam, além de não conhecerem a diferença entre comprimento de asa e comprimento do avião, estão a basear-se nas imagens com o comprimento do aparelho que inclui rampa e porta de carga, não explicando aqui aos pobres e incultos lusitanos o que esperam transportar na dita rampa de carga (a imagem abaixo coloca lá uma palete de carga e parte do terceiro Humvee :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:    

 

http://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/tag/kc-390/page/5?print=pdf-page  

Cumprimentos

[NVF]

Lá está ele entrando, todo desmateladinho, pobre coitado do AMV Patria.



http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patria/patria6.html

Esta aqui é a versão do AMV Patria especialmente desenvolvida para ser transportada em rampa de carga:

[nelson38899]

C130H

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/

[olisipo]

O Patria é um blindado fabricado em Finlândia. O Piranha é suiço. São dois vehículos diferentes.

[lexivia]

Ocorre que o Brasil tem excelentes relações com a Alemanha - tem na verdade com todos os países do mundo - e os alemães, a exemplo de Inglaterra, França, Rússia, China e EUA, querem sempre manter uma boa harmonia com o Brasil, é claro que isso tem a ver com interesses econômicos.

http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2011/01/12/brasil-impede-escala-de-navio-de-guerra-britanico-no-rio-de-janeiro/

http://aluizioamorim.blogspot.pt/2011/01/governo-da-dilma-impede-que-navio.html

Apesar de ter sido em 2011, desconfio que não haverá mais navios "Type nn" usados para a MB.