China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft - esp. Y-20/YY-20
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Not entirely true.. the earlier S3As have retractable MAD booms but the later versions like S3B had them removed as well as most of it's ASW components to concentrate on A2G type missions however you are right in this case about the Y-8 .. it is not retractable.
I've considered the numbers a little for GX6's potential, and after a bit of googling, came up with this:
An-12 (so GX6 without the MAD boom) is 33.10m long, with a 38m wingspan, fuselage width of 4.1m, MTOW of 61 tons (although some sources have said Y-9/category III platform that GX6 is based on has a MTOW of 77 tons, and some say 66 tons).
P-3 is 35.61m long, with a 30.38m wingspan, fuselage width of 3.45m, MTOW of 64 tons
P-8 based of 737-800ERX is 39m long with a 38m wingspan, fuselage width of 3.76m, MTOW of 85 tons
So I think the GX6's interior volume may be noticeably better than P-3, but smaller than P-8 (mostly because the aft fuselage of GX6 is not flat, due to it being based off a cargo aircraft rather than a commercial passenger aircraft.
In terms of MTOW, P-8 is obviously superior, although GX6 may come not too far behind, depending on what its actual MTOW is.
In terms of overall dimensions, GX6 will probably have a wingspan very close to P-8, and given its massive MAD boom is about 20% as long as the standard An-12 (so adding 7m on), it will probably have overall length near if not a little longer than P-8.
It will be interesting if we could one day get all three platforms flying together in a photo.
--
I also expect GX6's cabin to resemble P-8 more than P-3C, given they've built enough GX variants to know what's good for crew mission efficiency, and it appears to be more like a commercial airliner than a cargo plane interior.
KJ-200 cabin:
P-8 cabin:
P-3C, much more utilitarian even on the upgarded orions.
An-12 (so GX6 without the MAD boom) is 33.10m long, with a 38m wingspan, fuselage width of 4.1m, MTOW of 61 tons (although some sources have said Y-9/category III platform that GX6 is based on has a MTOW of 77 tons, and some say 66 tons).
P-3 is 35.61m long, with a 30.38m wingspan, fuselage width of 3.45m, MTOW of 64 tons
P-8 based of 737-800ERX is 39m long with a 38m wingspan, fuselage width of 3.76m, MTOW of 85 tons
So I think the GX6's interior volume may be noticeably better than P-3, but smaller than P-8 (mostly because the aft fuselage of GX6 is not flat, due to it being based off a cargo aircraft rather than a commercial passenger aircraft.
In terms of MTOW, P-8 is obviously superior, although GX6 may come not too far behind, depending on what its actual MTOW is.
In terms of overall dimensions, GX6 will probably have a wingspan very close to P-8, and given its massive MAD boom is about 20% as long as the standard An-12 (so adding 7m on), it will probably have overall length near if not a little longer than P-8.
It will be interesting if we could one day get all three platforms flying together in a photo.
--
I also expect GX6's cabin to resemble P-8 more than P-3C, given they've built enough GX variants to know what's good for crew mission efficiency, and it appears to be more like a commercial airliner than a cargo plane interior.
KJ-200 cabin:
P-8 cabin:
P-3C, much more utilitarian even on the upgarded orions.
Last edited:
I've considered the numbers a little for GX6's potential, and after a bit of googling, came up with this:
An-12 (so GX6 without the MAD boom) is 33.10m long, with a 38m wingspan, fuselage width of 4.1m, MTOW of 61 tons (although some sources have said Y-9/category III platform that GX6 is based on has a MTOW of 77 tons, and some say 66 tons).
P-3 is 35.61m long, with a 30.38m wingspan, fuselage width of 3.45m, MTOW of 64 tons
P-8 based of 737-800ERX is 39m long with a 38m wingspan, fuselage width of 3.76m, MTOW of 85 tons
So I think the GX6's interior volume may be noticeably better than P-3, but smaller than P-8 (mostly because the aft fuselage of GX6 is not flat, due to it being based off a cargo aircraft rather than a commercial passenger aircraft.
In terms of MTOW, P-8 is obviously superior, although GX6 may come not too far behind, depending on what its actual MTOW is.
In terms of overall dimensions, GX6 will probably have a wingspan very close to P-8, and given its massive MAD boom is about 20% as long as the standard An-12 (so adding 7m on), it will probably have overall length near if not a little longer than P-8.
It will be interesting if we could one day get all three platforms flying together in a photo.
--
I also expect GX6's cabin to resemble P-8 more than P-3C, given they've built enough GX variants to know what's good for crew mission efficiency, and it appears to be more like a commercial airliner than a cargo plane interior.
KJ-200 cabin:
P-8 cabin:
P-3C, much more utilitarian even on the upgarded orions.
another very fine post sir!
kwaigonegin
Colonel
No of course not. More moving parts means more problems.. Not to mention in the case of the Vikings potentially catastrophic if it fails to retract. As a matter a fact a lot of the Viking pilots very very rarely extend the MAD sensor.
I would desin a retractable mad boom in such a way that it would brake off without endagering the aircraft. But would a broken off mad boom endanger flight deck crew?
The alternative is the old solution: a Mad fish on a line that could be cut if spooling the line fails.
