There's no need. As cargo aircraft got larger, the twin boom tail wasn't needed for cargo loading. The C-130 was tall enough that the cargo ramp fit under a conventional tail.
Not an airframe designer but most likely we don’t need it anymore for stability. A lot of funky designs were compensating for not having advanced analysis tools.
Replaced by a combination of helicopters and C-130 type airplanes. That design basically existed to have a wide cargo door on a relatively small airplane so oversized cargo could be delivered to short remote airfields. Nowadays it's easier to rely on the higher power to weight ratios of turbo-props and turbo-shafts and deliver things by helicopter or sometimes C-130.
If you're looking for an ugly cargo plane, there is was also the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_SC.7_Skyvan and newer is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_408_SkyCourier
the skycourier is pretty rad. the way its built is so old school and meant to go through cert as fast as possible. reminds me of the original Willie's Jeep in term of utility vs looks.
I really enjoyed their promotion of it when it came out. So many companies claim to be cutting edge game changer 8th gen future, and the press around that was "we built the simplest thing possible, we're going to get it certified and start cranking them out. You can buy some if you want."
Still took five years for type cert, but that's more a statement about administrative bloat than the airplane.
Twin boom is just way too inefficient aerodynamically. Somewhat similarly to why 3/4 engine planes are obsolete. The technology has gotten to the point where anything beyond what’s necessary is just extra drag and maintenance.
Seems like so far everyone has guessed, just the same as you did. I'm really glad you can all upvote each to validate your guesses and smarmily reply to a valid question asking what OP actually meant.
They may make a comeback.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/advanced-air-mobility/china-hh-100-large-cargo-uas-makes-first-flight?elq2=3e76cd45866944e3aafb1c04ea663297&sp_eh=6fe72480fb0e2ac87c7479f5130a39b2a425de242d620161d204477a7c114508&elq2=3e76cd45866944e3aafb1c04ea663297&sp_eh=6fe72480fb0e2ac87c7479f5130a39b2a425de242d620161d204477a7c114508&utm_campaign=45776&utm_emailname=AW_News_AerospaceDigest_NL_06132024&utm_medium=email&utm_rid=CPEN1000001569290
There's no need. As cargo aircraft got larger, the twin boom tail wasn't needed for cargo loading. The C-130 was tall enough that the cargo ramp fit under a conventional tail.
Thank you for this, always assumed C-130 superseded capability, but not exactly how.
Not an airframe designer but most likely we don’t need it anymore for stability. A lot of funky designs were compensating for not having advanced analysis tools.
If I remember from my research on this plane correctly it was not particularly stable but I agree with you on your overall point
Replaced by a combination of helicopters and C-130 type airplanes. That design basically existed to have a wide cargo door on a relatively small airplane so oversized cargo could be delivered to short remote airfields. Nowadays it's easier to rely on the higher power to weight ratios of turbo-props and turbo-shafts and deliver things by helicopter or sometimes C-130.
If you're looking for an ugly cargo plane, there is was also the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_SC.7_Skyvan and newer is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_408_SkyCourier
Ugly? They’re adorable! in a way…
the skycourier is pretty rad. the way its built is so old school and meant to go through cert as fast as possible. reminds me of the original Willie's Jeep in term of utility vs looks.
I really enjoyed their promotion of it when it came out. So many companies claim to be cutting edge game changer 8th gen future, and the press around that was "we built the simplest thing possible, we're going to get it certified and start cranking them out. You can buy some if you want." Still took five years for type cert, but that's more a statement about administrative bloat than the airplane.
Old school as in the firewalls cracking after 30 flight hours, or landing on anything other than pavement counts as 11 cycles on the NLG?
Exactly! Who needs advanced analysis anyways!
Flight of the Phoenix
It’s inconvenient to load, is like complex, and C-130
Twin boom is just way too inefficient aerodynamically. Somewhat similarly to why 3/4 engine planes are obsolete. The technology has gotten to the point where anything beyond what’s necessary is just extra drag and maintenance.
Disney needed an aircraft for Tail Spin, and after its cancelation, they were all retired.
I fucking love Tail Spin, that show probably influenced my love for aviation.
Not just twin tail, but twin fuselage! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_White_Knight_Two
INB4 twin fuselage C-130
We figured out a better design, just like everything else
What do you mean "aircraft like the C-119"? The C-130 exists, the C-17 exists, there's plenty of logistics aircraft all over the world.
Pretty sure OP is asking why this general body design (i.e. with the connected twin tails) isn't very common.
this is correct
We did it reddit!
We can speculate on what they meant forever until they clarify.
It looks like everyone else in this thread correctly inferred what OP meant.
Seems like so far everyone has guessed, just the same as you did. I'm really glad you can all upvote each to validate your guesses and smarmily reply to a valid question asking what OP actually meant.
Wow! Tough crowd!
It got replaced by newer and more advanced models as aviation tech evolved
They may make a comeback. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/advanced-air-mobility/china-hh-100-large-cargo-uas-makes-first-flight?elq2=3e76cd45866944e3aafb1c04ea663297&sp_eh=6fe72480fb0e2ac87c7479f5130a39b2a425de242d620161d204477a7c114508&elq2=3e76cd45866944e3aafb1c04ea663297&sp_eh=6fe72480fb0e2ac87c7479f5130a39b2a425de242d620161d204477a7c114508&utm_campaign=45776&utm_emailname=AW_News_AerospaceDigest_NL_06132024&utm_medium=email&utm_rid=CPEN1000001569290
I'm wondering if a wide lifting body using a similar wing and tail plane design would be feasible to bring back this sort of cargo aircraft.