Embraer KC-390 Millennium

helmutkohl said:
that's awesome seeing it side by side like that.
When I first saw the C-390, I thought it was smaller, about the same size as the C-295 or like one of those new twin engined Antonov light transports. But dimensions say its the same size as the C-130.
Looking at this pic, I think the reason is the window size. not sure if the C-130"s are tiny or the C-390s are huge or both.
Click to expand...
For me it's because of the more modern and sleek fuselage shape. Feels more compact compared to the brute heavy hauler vibe of C-130.
 
helmutkohl said:
that's awesome seeing it side by side like that.
When I first saw the C-390, I thought it was smaller, about the same size as the C-295 or like one of those new twin engined Antonov light transports. But dimensions say its the same size as the C-130.
Looking at this pic, I think the reason is the window size. not sure if the C-130"s are tiny or the C-390s are huge or both.
Click to expand...
I think it's both.

C-130 windows are small, only like 8-10" square, and the C-390s are big.
 
GTX said:
As I understand it though, often these types are volume limited before they get payload limited. In terms of this the following may be useful:
Click to expand...
Volume is important, especially height and width. And that's where the Herc falls short. F.e. the Austrians say the C-390 can fit 1 Pandur APC or 1 S-70 Blackhawk, the C-130 cannot.
 
eagle said:
Volume is important, especially height and width. And that's where the Herc falls short. F.e. the Austrians say the C-390 can fit 1 Pandur APC or 1 S-70 Blackhawk, the C-130 cannot.
Click to expand...
?

I could have sworn that part of the design specs for the H60 was fitting into a C-130?
 
carvalho2008 said:
The windows are very deceiving....the C-390 is bigger than the C-130J.

It has a maximum payload of 26 tons.
images%20(65).jpeg
Click to expand...
Never happen but I'd love to see it replace the C-130 in the US as long as it can match the short/rough field abilities.
 
sferrin said:
Never happen but I'd love to see it replace the C-130 in the US as long as it can match the short/rough field abilities.
Click to expand...
There was an outside shot it would knock the Herks out of at least some USAF squadrons when the Boeing merger was still on the table. Unless Embraer feels like building it's own US plant, that's done for now.
 
I think with the C-130Js already in production and purchased, there is no chance the USAF adopts a new parts/training stream for another platform no matter where it was built. But it seems like a more capable platform.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think with the C-130Js already in production and purchased, there is no chance the USAF adopts a new parts/training stream for another platform no matter where it was built. But it seems like a more capable platform.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If the -J wasn't already purchased, the C390 would have a chance. Now, with about half the C-130s swapped out for brand new -Js? Not a chance.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Agreed. If the -J wasn't already purchased, the C390 would have a chance. Now, with about half the C-130s swapped out for brand new -Js? Not a chance.
Click to expand...
If they stretch the fuselage then maybe C-390 could have better success in the international market. No doubt it'd be an attractive option.
 
Short field/Unprepared. Unless fully proven, the C-130 will continue to have a field day on the market.
 
snne said:
If they stretch the fuselage then maybe C-390 could have better success in the international market. No doubt it'd be an attractive option.
Click to expand...
Really depends upon your mission.
Sure the (British) Royal Air Force stretched their C-130s after they bulked-out too many times on short missions.
OTOH consider the RCAF mission that covers the entire Canadian Arctic. The most common leg is Thule, Greenland to CFS Alert. You cannot land any farther North on dry land. Since the RCAF has to carry far more tons of fuel - for longer missions - there is little point to stretching RCAF Hercs.
 
Last edited:
So, we know that the C390 is much faster than a Herc, with roughly the same cargo weight and volume. How does the C390 compare with takeoff and landing rolls?
 
It just seems like a better product. Which shouldn't be too surprising given the age of the basic C-130 design.
 
carvalho2008 said:
C-390 has 26 ton Max Payload.
Internal space is bigger than c-130J
img_performance_medidas_internas.jpg
Click to expand...
KC-390: Length 12.68 m (+ 5.82 m length on ramp) X width 3.45 m X height 2.9 m (3.2 m aft of wing)
Payload: 26,000 kg
C-130H-30/J-30: Length 16.9 m (+ 3.12 m length on ramp) X width 3.12 m X height 2.74 m
Payload: 20,000 kg
C-130H/J: Length 12.31 m (+ 3.12 m length on ramp) X width 3.12 m X height 2.74 m
Payload: 20,000 kg
 
Scott Kenny said:
So, we know that the C390 is much faster than a Herc, with roughly the same cargo weight and volume. How does the C390 compare with takeoff and landing rolls?
Click to expand...

For the C390, from here:

Takeoff Dist (CFL, SL, ISA, 500 nm, payload 23 metric tonnes)1,524 m | 5,000 ft
Takeoff Dist (CFL, SL, ISA, 500 nm, payload 16 metric tonnes)1,165 m | 3,820 ft
Vref with 25 klb of useful load116 KCAS
Normal Landing Dist (SL, ISA, 26 metric tonnes)1,000 m | 3,280 ft

I can't find precisely comparable values for the C-130J, but maybe these are close? From here.
Takeoff Run3,290 ft / 1,003 m
Takeoff Run to 15 m4,700 ft / 1,433 m
Takeoff Run using max. effort procedures1,800 ft / 549 m
Landing from 15 m at 58,967 kg AUW2,550 ft / 777 m
Landing Run at 58,967 kg AUW1,400 ft / 427 m
Click to expand...

The weight isn't given for that TO run, so I assume it's not a max weight TO.
 
TomS said:
For the C390, from here:

Takeoff Dist (CFL, SL, ISA, 500 nm, payload 23 metric tonnes)1,524 m | 5,000 ft
Takeoff Dist (CFL, SL, ISA, 500 nm, payload 16 metric tonnes)1,165 m | 3,820 ft
Vref with 25 klb of useful load116 KCAS
Normal Landing Dist (SL, ISA, 26 metric tonnes)1,000 m | 3,280 ft

I can't find precisely comparable values for the C-130J, but maybe these are close? From here.


The weight isn't given for that TO run, so I assume it's not a max weight TO.
Click to expand...
Thank you!

The "59tonnes AUW" landing distances for the C130J are at about ~10 tonnes under MTOW. But that would correspond to full cargo and 1/3 fuel.

And looking at those numbers, I can definitely see why the C130 is so popular. There's a lot of places you can go with 1/2 mile straight roads you could use to land on.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thank you!

The "59tonnes AUW" landing distances for the C130J are at about ~10 tonnes under MTOW. But that would correspond to full cargo and 1/3 fuel.

And looking at those numbers, I can definitely see why the C130 is so popular. There's a lot of places you can go with 1/2 mile straight roads you could use to land on.
Click to expand...

its probably an advantage of using props/turbo props. the much shorter landing and take off lengths, and I assume, fuel efficiency as well
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was hoping that the C390 had similar landing distances, but that's probably a bridge too far.
Click to expand...
me too.. the C-390 is exciting because you have a jet engine alternative to the C-130 (the C-2 and A400M is a lot larger, while the C-27J and C-295 are a bit smaller).
but alas, jets likely cant compete with turboprops in fuel efficiency land take off/landing requirements.
but its faster at least.
 
The KC-390 has yet to prove its ability to operate from unpaved airfield.
I don't think it''s a show stopper in the context of Sweden that also use C-130. Given Sweden geography, a faster cruise speed could make some room in the budget for keeping some C-130 in service for the special ops.
See how France can' t make away with their Herc... No matter how hard they try.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thank you!

The "59tonnes AUW" landing distances for the C130J are at about ~10 tonnes under MTOW. But that would correspond to full cargo and 1/3 fuel.

And looking at those numbers, I can definitely see why the C130 is so popular. There's a lot of places you can go with 1/2 mile straight roads you could use to land on.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the C-390 has a slightly greater number of takeoff and landing distances than the C-130J, but they appear to be very similar. Note that the example you gave previously has a very large difference in internal load that makes comparison difficult. The C-390 lands at 1,000 meters with 26 tons. If you reduce this tonnage you will be very close.

I highlight the Embraer brochure.

The height of the cargo cabin is divided into two sections, where the lowest is 2.95 m high (front section) and the rear section is 3.20 m high, where it normally makes it easier to store vehicles with towers and antennas or helis without disassembly. .
https://embraer.bynder.com/m/7dafc1...Millennium_Brochure_Ingles_ONLINE_12aug22.pdf
 
KC-390: more capable than anticipated


"...
the KC-390 has proven to be better than initially designed. One of these cases is the value of the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW in English). In some official documents and presentations of the aircraft, information was given that the transport aircraft would have an MTOW of around 73 – 74 tons.


This was a value initially established for the first FAB tests, where there was a certain restriction on the aircraft's performance due to the EIS (Entry Into Service) version. For these tests, which took place at the beginning of 2020, the aircraft registration FAB 2853 was used, the first KC-390 delivered by Embraer to the FAB.

After the initial restrictions and the crew's greater familiarity with the aircraft itself, not only did the KC-390's flight envelope expand, but its limits and capabilities were extended. Currently, FAB works with an MTOW of 87 tons, a value 17% above the limit of the EIS version. The value is also well above the MTOW of the C-130J, commonly indicated as being 70 tons...."

https://www.aereo.jor.br/2022/08/27/kc-390-mais-capaz-do-que-o-previsto/
 
Hood said:
This feels a little like a gamble.
It's payload capability (57,000lb) is just shy of the KC-130s 60,000lb standard fuel capacity. Sure its more than an MQ-25, but it only 4-5 very thirsty F-35 refuels but for topping off tanks it could handle a larger formation.

Pod and drogue refuelling would be more flexible for the export market but I suspect that might be challenging given the underwing jet nacelles which would seem to rule out rotary-wing refuelling, speed difference might be problematic for that too - so this isn't really a KC-130 replacement either.
Click to expand...

For tanking it is a combo, the KC-390 in this config can carry 77,000lb internal fuel (with its aux tanks), plus another 57,000lb in the displayed cargo hold tanks so fuel layoff will depend on mission but as its MTW is a lot higher, around 40,000lb it will always be able to out tank any C-130/J variant.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom