CX-2 competition: Medium-Range Aeromedical Evacuation Aircraft

[hesham]

Hi,

In Flightglobal I found that mystery competition for me,(Medium-Range
Aeromedical Evacuation Aircraft CX-2),does anyone hear about it ?.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1967/1967%20-%200743.html

 

[TinWing]

Hi,

In Flightglobal I found that mystery competition for me,(Medium-Range
Aeromedical Evacuation Aircraft CX-2),does anyone hear about it ?.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1967/1967%20-%200743.html

Didn't the DC-9 win that competition?

 

[Just call me Ray]

According to FAS the C-9 Nightingale entered service a year later after the competition described in that article.

It also describes the old Dragon AT missile as being "new," which should give you a true idea of how old this thing is

In hindsight I'm kinda surprised that they chose the DC-9 since the Air Force was already operating the T-43. Then again I guess they did it for Marine Corps/Navy commonality, or perhaps the requirements for all services were rolled into one. Ironically enough it's being replaced by the C-40 now (737-700)

 

[hesham]

A more info about CX-2 competition is here;


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a084973.pdf

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19670417/37/2

 

[TsrJoe]

Boeing 737 'Nightingale'

 

[TsrJoe]

I recall mention of the RAF. looking at procuring a limited number (x3?) of dedicated 'aeromedical aircraft' around the time of the US. CX-2 proposal.
The HS. Comet 4 was suggested for conversion as the type was being replaced in the transport role by Vickers VC.10

 

[BlackBat242]

According to FAS the C-9 Nightingale entered service a year later after the competition described in that article.

It also describes the old Dragon AT missile as being "new," which should give you a true idea of how old this thing is

In hindsight I'm kinda surprised that they chose the DC-9 since the Air Force was already operating the T-43. Then again I guess they did it for Marine Corps/Navy commonality, or perhaps the requirements for all services were rolled into one. Ironically enough it's being replaced by the C-40 now (737-700)

Your timeline is a bit messed up.
The DC-9 began deliveries in Dec. 1965 (type certification 23 Nov. 1965), while the B-737 began deliveries in Dec. 1967 (type certification 15 Dec. 1967). By May 1976 more than twice as many DC-9s had been built as B-737s.

The C-9A was ordered by the USAF in 1967 (21), with deliveries from 1968-69.*
The T-43 was ordered by the USAF in May 1971 (19), and were delivered 1973-74.
The C-40s (B-737-700s with wings & lg of -800) were first ordered in 2000 to replace the C-9s.



*The USN mission would include a lot of over-water operations... the C-9B for the USN had added auxiliary fuel tanks in the lower cargo hold - 29 of these were ordered in the early 1970s (deliveries 1973-76).

 

[DesScorp]

In hindsight I'm kinda surprised that they chose the DC-9 since the Air Force was already operating the T-43. Then again I guess they did it for Marine Corps/Navy commonality, or perhaps the requirements for all services were rolled into one. Ironically enough it's being replaced by the C-40 now (737-700)

While it may have had nothing to do with THIS particular selection, keep in mind that the Pentagon sometimes chooses vendors based on "industrial stability" concerns, i.e. "OK, we've got three choices, all of them are good, and we kind of like X and Y the best, but Z's manufacturer is out of contracts and we need to keep the industrial base strong, and X and Y have plenty of work elsewhere. So give it to Z".

The Pentagon doesn't like to admit that this happens, but it DOES happen, and used to happen pretty frequently back in the day.