Kawasaki C-2 vs Il-76 capacity question

Read the forum code of contact

Profile picture for user J-20 Hotdog

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 3,442

what are the carrying load differences between the new Japanese C-2 vs the Il-76. They are similar in length.. but one being wide bodied and the other narrow. Curious to the difference in the type of load and at what ranges they are capable of.

Original post

Member for

10 years 2 months

Posts: 288

Once again someone wants to compare aircraft with massive age gaps between them, why?

Il-76TD-90/476:

http://s43.radikal.ru/i100/1106/80/5ad078715f1d.jpg

(c/o flateric at paralay's forum)

C-2:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=137541&d=1155302306

(c/o tarou-o on this forum)

So, pretty similar with a slight advantage to the Il-476 in terms of range and max load, but the C-2 better accommodates bulky loads (very similar hold cross section to the An-70 and A400M). This range advantage is a result of the Il-76 having a higher MTOW, so it can carry more fuel at a given payload - it also has to be said though that the OEW in the C-2 spec sheet is rather optimistic. While both this figure and the main landing gear configuration suggest that rough field capabilities (and the associated structural strengthening) were not a priority, 61 tons is still very low. That's 10 tons less than the An-70 or A400M (both around 70 tons, give or take) - if you're wondering why it out-ranges both of them despite having a very similar MTOW, there's your answer! Any weight growth that hasn't yet been factored into these (5 year old) specs may and probably will affect actual performance.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,731

The prospect of C-2 anykind of success is zero. Only 20 been ordered. and first delivery is in 2014.
first two will cost them close to $250m a piece based on 2011 budget.
http://newpacificinstitute.org/jsw/?p=4456

i dont think Aircraft with fat x-section will be efficient.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 3,614


i dont think Aircraft with fat x-section will be efficient.

Which is, of course, why the C-5, B747, A380, DC-10, An-124, and other such aircraft were never a success, I suppose.

:rolleyes:

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 13,432

The prospect of C-2 anykind of success is zero. Only 20 been ordered. and first delivery is in 2014.
first two will cost them close to $250m a piece based on 2011 budget.
http://newpacificinstitute.org/jsw/?p=4456.

What do you mean by success?

It fits the Japanese requirement of providing the transport the armed forces want, while keeping an industrial capability. Since the government refuses to allow arms exports (in general), this is expensive, but that's a matter of choice.

Being bought in small numbers does not mean it is not a success, because that was always expected. As long as it works (yet to be seen), it'll be a success, in the terms relevant for it. It certainly won't be a commercial success, but it was never meant to be.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,731

fits the requirement? what kind of requirements are those that existing aircraft cannot be modified in cooperation.
It is not 1980s that Japan can afford throw money and technical people around for very small utility.

Profile picture for user Boom

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 889

swerve what do you reckon are the chances for japan to change its export policy at least wrt non-aggressive mil items like transports ? given the increasing pressures on japanese economy.

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 13,432

It would be logical, but one must remember that Japanese politics are broken, & logic (other than the logic of satisfying the demands of factional interests within the two main political parties) is often thrown out of the window. :(

fits the requirement? what kind of requirements are those that existing aircraft cannot be modified in cooperation.
It is not 1980s that Japan can afford throw money and technical people around for very small utility.

I know. You're absolutely right. The only sensible choice would have been licence-production of Il-76 with some Japanese systems. It is, after all, the perfect airlifter, & everybody should buy it, not only Japan.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,731

I highly doubt Japan can afford license of IL-476 or Russia willing to give them license for small order of 20 aircraft. Cooperation at most will be for puting Japanese language on LCD displays. that digital cockpit is going to be certified by EASA.


It would be logical, but one must remember that Japanese politics are broken, & logic (other than the logic of satisfying the demands of factional interests within the two main political parties) is often thrown out of the window.

Politics or not does not matter now. there is $33b draw down from pension fund in single quarter.
so the more logical choice is to windup the avaition industry and concentrate funds & highest techical skills on few core sectors to fend off Koreans/Chinese.
Profile picture for user J-20 Hotdog

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 3,442

I highly doubt Japan can afford license of IL-476

lol. can't tell if you're serious or trolling


Japanese language on LCD displays. that digital cockpit is going to be certified by EASA.

uh, ever look at the cockpits of Japanese airliners or the F-2? it uses alphabet not Japanese. Hell even Chinese aircraft do the same.. go look at a JF-17 or J-10 cockpit.

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4415/j10ex3.jpg
http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/649/PAFJF-17SimulatorMAKS2007001.jpg

Profile picture for user J-20 Hotdog

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 3,442

i dont think Aircraft with fat x-section will be efficient.

hmm yes.. a narrow bodied 4 engine aircraft is more efficient than a wide bodied 2 engine one. makes sense...

Member for

17 years

Posts: 4,674

Do you think the 2-fan configuration was the first choice? Cause the wing should be able to take 4 engines, as the P-X has 4 and it's the same wing. And Kawa is deeply involved in the V2500 which would have the right thrust range.

It's interesting to see that rather complex wing with lots of high lift devices paired with low mounted large fans. They seem to think they'll always operate from hard surface runways. Guess for a An-72/74 like over-wing configuration the CF6 are too large.

Do you think the 2-fan configuration was the first choice?

Yes, apparently it was. They did consider different engine models (CF6-80 which eventually won due to commonality with the 767 tankers/AWACS, PW4000 and Trent 500), but it was always going to be a twin jet.

Cause the wing should be able to take 4 engines, as the P-X has 4 and it's the same wing.

That was the plan, but it was quickly found to be unworkable - actually, only the horizontal stabiliser is common now. I could see 4 of a low-thrust V2500 variant working nicely though.

It's interesting to see that rather complex wing with lots of high lift devices paired with low mounted large fans. They seem to think they'll always operate from hard surface runways.

Concur, the landing gear is another indication to that effect - it's actually like a 777 with all 6 wheels on a single bogie, rather than 3 pairs with independent suspension as on the An-70/A400M. So short but paved runways is what they were apparently designing for.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,731

lol. can't tell if you're serious or trolling

IL-476 is going to be viable for decades to come. there will be huge price to pay for upfront license and than training workers on built methods. as i mentioned before whole is much greater than some of parts.
but these moot point. Only reason Japanese are building this to keep employment as these workers may not be that much usefull in other industries.


uh, ever look at the cockpits of Japanese airliners or the F-2? it uses alphabet not Japanese. Hell even Chinese aircraft do the same.. go look at a JF-17 or J-10 cockpit.

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4415/j10ex3.jpg
http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/649/PAFJF-17SimulatorMAKS2007001.jpg


I havent looked at cockpit but i had JDM navigation system in a car descriptions were in Japanese. Japanese dont make cockpit for Boeing/Airbus. so i am not sure it will be cost effective to entertain them in local language.
Chinese cockpit is irrelevant. as Most of Chinese will have exposure to english.

Member for

2 years 7 months

Posts: 1

This is probably the right place to get some answers as the questions here are almost the same as I had in my mind recently while reading about C-2. I will list them below, hope someone can give a more clear answer

1) The first question I have is related to the payload & thrust - the max thrust generated by C-2's twin engines is at 532 kN (266 x 2) its close to the 468-568 kN (117 or 142 x 4) of the IL76MD-90A and higher than the 468-500 kN (117 or 125 x 4) listed for the Y-20, but both these platforms list a much higher payload capability (~50-66 tn max.) while I understand that the MTOW of the other two are much higher which gives them much higher fuel load and range, shouldn't the similar thrust mean it can carry similar payloads even if it is for a shorter range? Can someone explain to me why such a huge divergence?

2) The next question is related to C-2's MTOW & payload compared to An-70. With a 145tn MTOW, the An 70/188 has a max payload of 47tn but with a 141tn MTOW and a much lower OEW, the max payload of C-2 is a full 10tn less at 37tn. Someone did touch on this briefly, but more from a range perspective I was trying to see why the payload differs so much.