combatreform.org/AIRBORNEMUSEUM/nlmb.htm

1. MC-27L Seaplanes: doing what no one in DoD
wants to do---but has to be done
The sad truth is that no one in DoD wants to do seaplanes and we are
now in a quandary of either land-based planes with rubber-tired
wheels that need constant refueling to stay aloft and runways to land
on if we don’t parachute drop, or smaller sea-based aircraft carrier
planes (runway on a ship) that have to be close to the mission area,
or dangle fuselages under fuel hungry rotors of helicopters that can’t
fly fast or reach far. All because we don’t want to land on the water.
Why don’t we stop worrying about getting our trousers wet and use
the water landing to our advantage? If done cleverly, the
aerodynamic penalties are small and the mission flexibilities
dramatic. NLMB U-27s and Little Birds can land on water easily by
floats using non-developmental items. The NLMB will initially be able
to air-deploy all 3D elements by C-27J onto land by parachute or
STOL airland. It’s a given that USAF C-130/C-17s can pitch in to
expedite 3D maneuver. However, the C-27J with air-to-air refueling
and tail-hook/folding wings could also land/take-off from USN and
the RO-RO Commando aircraft carriers, perhaps a “MC-27K”
designation. However, a MC-27L that could land on water would open
myriad options, and should be a follow-on force multiplier.

2. MC-27L Seaplanes by floats...
The simplest way to get MC-27Ls to land on water is by floats just like
the U-27s/Little Birds do. However, a much larger plane, the MC-27L
float plane would incur a large weight/drag penalty reducing top
speed from 300 mph to 250 mph and a range reduction from 2,000
miles with full pay load to 1,500 miles; with in-flight refueling not a
problem except the USAF and AFSOC already have a tanker shortage.
Benefits are minimal modification of the MC-27L fuselage/engines, so
time & money would be saved and most importantly the rear ramp
could still open with the MC-27L in the water so M113A4 Amphigavins
could splash into the water and swim the final 4,000 meters or less to
shore in a ready-to-fight and maneuver inland mode. Pictured below is
an artist’s rendition of a MC-130J Hercules floatplane kit that we
wonder why has not been acted on yet by USSOCOM that would be
similar to what the MC-27L floatplane would
look like.
+

3. MC-27L Seaplanes by skis...
The least aerodynamic loss way to get MC-27Ls to land on water is by
skis just like the Stroukoff YC-123E Pantobase system did. Loss of just 10
mph of airspeed is the penalty: 290 mph instead of 300 mph. Upon
landing in the water, the MC-27L with skis slows to a halt and then sinks
into water so its fuselage would have to be made watertight and wingtip
floats added. Rear ramp as its currently hinged at cargo floor could not
open to splash in M113A4 Amphigavins, reducing insertions to just
personnel and cargo through side jump doors; small boat teams with
deflated Zodiac boats (limp ducks) could be inserted/extracted at most.
The C-27L’s engines might have to be inverted to keep water spray out.
10 mph
speed loss

4. MC-27L Seaplanes by skis…nose off-load Amphigavins into
the water and beach?
In the can-do ethos of the 1950s, the navy still had seaplanes and an inspired vision for
them. The Tradewind 4-engine seaplane transport actually created a 300+ mph-deploy-
anywhere-in-the-world capability so marines could assault beaches without having to sit for
6 months at a time in WWII-style amphibious ships vulnerable to coastal defense
attacks from aircraft, missiles, submarines. The closed-minded USMC was not interested to
their everlasting shame and thus today they are desperate for V-22 tilt-rotor half-helicopter-
airplanes to get strategic air reach that are mechanically too complex to work, and cannot
land on water! The USMC could have had 300 mph global reach by seaplanes
since the 1950s. Not enough budgetary $ pork for them. We bring up the Tradewind because
it solved the off-loading of vehicles while-in-the-water problem by a nose that folded
upwards; vehicles then drove down ramps. With some more fuselage modifications and a
boat hull shape to sit high enough in the water, the MC-27L could land in water and open its
nose for M113A4 Amphigavins to splash into the water or onto the beach.
403 mph top speed
Fastest Prop seaplane ever!
+

5. MC-27L Seaplanes + skis = Land on Land, too
Stroukoff called his ski landing system
“pan-to-base” or ability to land any
where; note regular rubber-tire
wheeled landing gear poke through
the skis for rolling landings and
take-offs. The U.S. Army used to have
this ethos when led by the Howze
Board in ‘62; it adopted the amazing
OV-1 Mohawk turboprop STOL
observation/surveillance/attack
plane which had snow skis. Would
OV-1s be better in the surveil/attack
mission than U-27s? Darn right they
would be. But OV-1s were forcibly
retired in ‘96 and are not in production.
OV-1s can’t drop troops like the
slower OV-10 can, but the OV-10
is similarly retired/dead no-longer-in
production. The U-27 is the best way
to regain these lost capabilities.

6. MC-27L Seaplanes + skis = Land on Snow, too
Here an U.S. Army OV-1 Mohawk turboprop STOL
observation/surveillance/attack plane lands on snow using skis during
Cold War operations in Germany. Similarly equipped MC-27Ls would
also be able to land on snow/ice.

7. MC-27L Seaplanes: Air Cushion Landing Systems (ACLSs)
While we waste $ BILLIONS and lives on the “Holy Grail” of a V/TOL transport aircraft that
flies as fast and as far as one that takes-off and lands with runways, we would be wise to
consider once on the ground THE LANDING GEAR drives where we can and cannot land,
V/TOL, STOVL or ESTOL. High ground pressure rubber tires are just as bad on
land for aircraft as they are for ground vehicles. Because non-V/TOL aircraft need fast runs
to create lift over their wings, wheels have been used; but if the aircraft can land on water
wheels are not needed. To not be so dependant on a smooth rolling surface we need to
spread the aircraft’s load over a larger area using tracks and ESTOL lift devices so
the aircraft doesn’t come in so “hot” or break contact with the ground altogether with an air
cushion like the LCAC. It just so happens that Air Cushion Landing Systems (ACLSs) work
and are in use on the Russian Dingo amphibian. Bell in the 60s/70s perfected ACLSs on a
Buffalo STOL aircraft and has since sat on the technology in favor of the more costly
V-22 V/TOL “Holy Grail”. ACLS on MC-27Ls would enable sealandings and a revolutionary
opening of possible ground landing spots that NLMB Attack Pathfinders could through
experience exploit.
Buffalo STOL w/ACLS
Russian Dingo
amphibian

8. MC-27L eXtreme Short Take-Off and Landing (ESTOL):
Tracked Landing Gear: aircraft that can land anywhere

9. "The ideal troop-carrier combat
transport would appear to be a large
transport of the twin-boom type for
which personnel, artillery, and vehicles
could be dropped. It should have a
range of two thousand miles and should
be equipped with self-sealing tanks,
pilot armor, and a retractable track-
laying undercarriage. This last feature
would permit its landing and take-off in
pastures and cultivated areas. It would
thus be able to enter the airhead early in
an operation, landing and taking off
from areas normally suitable only for
gliders".
---Airborne Warfare by General James
M. Gavin, 1947

10. Early tracked landing gear aircraft successful in the 1950s!
A Retired USAF C-130 pilot
writes about the C-82 with
tractor gear experiment
shown here:
"Mike...the C-82 with
tractor gear. Only one
was produced, but the
P-40 Warhawk fighter idea was to reduce the
pressure exerted from
C-82 Packet
60 psi to 20 psi and
EB-50 Heavy Bomber give it the capability to
land anywhere."
XB-36 Peacemaker Ultra-
Heavy Bomber

11. With its initial single-wheel main landing
gear, the 265,000 pound gross weight XB-
36 could land at only 3 airfields in the entire
United States!
“The track on the main landing gear is
designed for a maximum average of 57
pounds pressure per square inch on the
landing strip, as compared to a pressure
of 156 pounds per square inch exerted
by the conventional wheel-type gear on a
B-36 at the same gross weight.”
Tracked XB-36 on
grassy field! Washington, D.C. April 12, 1950.
www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombe
rs/b3-69.htm
BOTTOM LINE: tracks can reduce
ground pressure over wheels by
2/3ds!

12. Current rubber-tired aircraft cannot
just land anywhere---USAF Combat
Control Team members must survey
assault landing zones with Digital
Cone Pentrometers to assess soil
hardness to support high
pressures/weights of USAF aircraft =
conservative Joint USSOCOM
planners opt for hard runway seizure;
targets that are likely to be heavily
defended by the enemy!

13. Joint warfighter requirements for land-anywhere
capabilities drives R&D towards unsound hybrid
fixed-wing/rotary wing compromise design types
that are overly complex, fragile and unsafe...
lacking other alternatives...
“Hanger Queen”
Bad
helicopter
with too
small rotors
Bad fixed-wing with too large props “Death Trap”

14. HOW DO WE LIFT LIGHT TRACKED AFVs UP TO 13
TONS? V-22 CANNOT MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR
NLMB
V-22 tilt-rotor mechanically unreliable
and too complex to fly/maintain-- V-22 too small to even carry a
crashes too often in training, not 4x4 HMMWV truck inside!
robust to be flown aggressively, not Cannot Air-Mech AFVs at high
survivable in combat; cannot speeds/ranges
autorotate!
4 crashes already!
30 men dead!
V-22 cannot use SEL concept to carry small AFVs
tight against fuselage because rotors in forward Even Howitzers are
position would strike ground, cannot make running too big for V-22!
take-offs to create more lift, inefficient airlifter

15. The Answer: upgrade NLMB MC-27Ls with TRACKED
LANDING GEAR SYSTEMS to create land-anywhere extreme
short-take-off and landing (E/STOL) capabilities so Joint
USSOCOM Planners can make virtually any large area into an
assault landing zone!

16. The technology: unlike primitive tracked
technologies of the 1950s, reinforced aramid
fibers (kevlar) and high-strength steel
reinforcements can make “band-tracked”
landing gear easy to maintain and safe.
Unlike the Concorde whose fragile, air-filled
tires shredded on take off after running over
a sharp object, causing a fiery crash that
killed 114 innocent people, a tracked landing
gear can run-over all kinds of dangerous
objects and bumps without fatal damage
YES! NO!

17. MC-27L E/STOL versus V-22 V/TOL: which works best?
$26 Million each
“J” 300 mph
internal loads
$80 Million
each: 100 mph
sling-loads
Wheeled Osprey when its flyable
and not crashing, barely lifts a 3-ton
rubber-tired HMMWV SUV truck:
little combat power!
Tracked Spartan can internally carry then airdrop/airland light 45
troops or tanks up to 13 tons, 1500 foot Assault LZs: mucho
combat power!

18. NLMB applies lessons from the WWII “Air Commandos”
and “Chindits” to execute 3D/2D air/ground maneuver
warfare
Build entire Force around simple, rugged, reliable STOL aircraft that can
operate alongside ground forces
Have Engineers make
minimal landing strips
All Teeth, No Tail! Maneuver Forces and Air Forces
co-located…with air-transportable “Mech” light tracked
airborne amphibious armored fighting vehicles

19. WWII Snatch-able Gliders = MC-27 (Self-Recover Glider)
+ C-47 transports
WWII P-51 piston-engine Fighter-Bombers = U-27 turboprops
WWII YR-4 Hoverflies = A/MH-6 Little Bird turbine helos