Rumszewicz STOL Transport Aircraft Project

Is that supposed to be a containerized cargo plane for bush pilots? Or some sort of cargo feeder aircraft for regional airport?
 
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.
 
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.
 
This reminds me a bit of the Ayres LM200 Loadmaster:


LM200.jpg



More here
 
The Rumszewicz design could be more flexible with regards to loading/unloading, I think, due to its
forward and rearward loading ramps.
 
I agree with that my dear Jemiba,


the rear door is useful than side door.
 
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).
 
Indeed! Welcome! Thanks for the information.
 
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:
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
How much does a tail ramp add the empty weight of an air plane?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom