• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Rumszewicz STOL Transport Aircraft Project

ouroboros

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
353
Reaction score
8
Is that supposed to be a containerized cargo plane for bush pilots? Or some sort of cargo feeder aircraft for regional airport?
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,296
Reaction score
4,061
ouroboros said:
Is that supposed to be a containerized cargo plane for bush pilots? Or some sort of cargo feeder aircraft for regional airport?


Hi Ouroboros,


actually I don't know,may be someone can help.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,269
Reaction score
1,110
If the online translator didn't completely fool me, then it's meant either for general cargo (boxes, bags, etc.),
or for palletised or containerised cargo.Interesting faeture, I think, is the single pilot crew.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
676
Website
beyondthesprues.com
This reminds me a bit of the Ayres LM200 Loadmaster:


LM200.jpg



More here
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,269
Reaction score
1,110
The Rumszewicz design could be more flexible with regards to loading/unloading, I think, due to its
forward and rearward loading ramps.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,296
Reaction score
4,061
I agree with that my dear Jemiba,


the rear door is useful than side door.
 

Andrzej

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
2
Reaction score
2
Is that supposed to be a containerized cargo plane for bush pilots? Or some sort of cargo feeder aircraft for regional airport?
The proposed design was intended as a cargo only aircraft. It was supposed to transport a wide range of cargo and mail. The cargo could be transported in bulk, on pallets or using standard containers.
It was intended for big carriers, such as Federal Express, Channel Express, World Cargo, etc, as well as the small ones like White Eagle Aerotech, and others. (The above info is based on the description given in the original proposal file).
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,296
Reaction score
4,061
Welcome aboard Andrzej,and many thanks.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,473
Reaction score
686
Indeed! Welcome! Thanks for the information.
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
316
Reaction score
188
The Rumszewicz design could be more flexible with regards to loading/unloading, I think, due to its
forward and rearward loading ramps.
I'd think that a nose or rear door alone would be adequate. Each imposes weight, drag and cost penalties on the design and it's hard to see how these could be justified in a relatively small freighter.
The C-5 and the An-125 are, I think, unique (OK, maybe the Budd Connestoga also) in having straight-in loading through the nose and tail. All 3 were larger aircraft designed for operation into front area airstips under wartime conditions where delay equals exposure as a target. I doubt that both of these features would be worthwhile in the same airplane, especially a small one, for a civil freight carrier.
 
Last edited:

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,764
Reaction score
578
The civilian AW 650 Argosy had nose and rear doors. The military AW 660 Argosy did without the had its nose door sealed.
AW Argosy.jpg
 
Last edited:

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
316
Reaction score
188
Yep, the Argosy occured to me after the post, so that makes 4 aircraft with straight-thru nose and tail loading. And it kind of makes my point since in RAF service, the Argosy was notoriously short on payload - some of this can be attributed to the extra structural weight and drag penalty imposed by having both a front and back door.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,764
Reaction score
578
I agree about straight-through loading being associated mainly with military transports. I mentioned the Argosy because - in a peculiar twist - the military AW660 had its nose door sealed, where the civilian AW650 had a functional one. Both variants carried the extra structural weight, both suffered in payload.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,269
Reaction score
1,110
I may be wrong, but I think, that for a military transport delivering its payload and taken on new one on the same airport,
probably is quite a rare mission, whereas for civil freighters it should be standard to avoid flights with an empty cargo bay.
And keeping turn around times low may be an important point for achieving a good cost effectiveness.
 

Richard N

Lost in the Sky
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
601
Reaction score
442
If you had a necessity for quick turnaround like emergency or shortage of aircraft, simultaneous loading and unloading from both ends would reduce ground time and increase flight time.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
680
How much does a tail ramp add the empty weight of an air plane?
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
316
Reaction score
188
My armchair opinion is that, in a conventional configuration (tail mounted to fuselage) a tail ramp adds a lot of weight because it probably isn't going to carry flight loads so these have to be routed around the big hole. The aft fuselages of airlifters generally have a pretty complex shape because of this.
For a twin-boom design like the Argosy, the tail ramp drives the whole configuration. The booms are simply a way of transmitting the tail loads around the aft fuselage to avoid the above complications. My suspicion is that a twin-boom configuration is inherently heavier and draggier than a comparable conventional airframe but hope an aerodynamicist can back me up on this.
 
Top