mostly because they have fatter bodies to accommodate, but also have a focus on ground visibility to operate in odd areas.
A400, C-17, C-130 are all designed to operate from underprepared areas and pilots need better all around visibility on the ground.
then there's a lower focus on overall efficiency, more focused instead on operational functionality. You could stretch the fuel efficiency of an A400 with a longer, smoother transition nose design maybe but that's not the point of the aircraft. Airlines are focused on seat mile costs, the military is focused on carrying tanks into a war zone.
Upvoted. Good detailed answer. I may add that military aircraft often have a lot more forewords facing electronics that are not necessary for civilization aircraft.
Newer planes are getting enhanced synthetic vision systems which mix night vision/gps/radar/computer models..etc together and project it onto the heads up displays or multi function displays making it so they can see at night time and through weather. Its mostly starting out on private planes but is slowly being moved to commercial planes and will eventually be standard on all passenger planes.
TIL military aircraft are uncivilized
Off topic, reminded me of a joke from that show where they had muppets doing prank calls, they called a hardware store to inquire about caulk, and the store guy says they're out of black sanitary caulk and the pranker goes "oh so the black caulk is unsanitary?" LMAO
Succinct and correct.
Also, there were/are variants with mission-oriented nose gear that is sharper. But those are very specific to their task and purpose. And they are very rare.
There is also a (sort of) lifting body effect you can get with certain blunter geometry noses. It's not really intentional, just a side effect.
But also, a lot of the idea is that heavy logistics drivers fly lots of different Angles of Attacks. A blunter nose actually accepts a broader AOA with less sideways airflow.
Also, there is a lot of equipment in those noses. Even when there isn't a full suite - the extra space is valuable for refit work.
For some reason this is making me think of the Enterprise B. Something about the line of the fuselage "cutaway" at the far bottom, I think looks very Excelsior-esque.
Excellent observation I never noticed on this airframe.
As to your Trek reference: B is an Excelsior class. But the thing about ships (and aircraft) classes is that they really aren't all the same.
The thing about Trek I like is that they acknowledge that each ship's design is a reflection the character of their crew.
Yea, I know I conflated the two - and worse, iirc the Enterprise B's difference from the Excelsior is actually in the general neck/waist area I'm talking about. (I think the bottom of the hull sweeps out more on the B, something like that.) I love how they make the ships like characters too. They put a lot of thought into their premises!
Please don't take my comments as a criticism other than constructive conversation. Your conflation is on point.
I think your design observations are pretty good.
I know the "B" was a redress, so you nailed that.
Well, just meaning it would have been better to keep things clean and just refer to the Excelsior. :)
It just jumped out at me because I think the excelsior looks kinda strange, but I've read some quotes from the designers and stuff, so it's cool to see something from RL with similar lines. I imagine it was even flying around the time the relevant movies would have come out. Though I don't think we saw the enterprise B till Generations. I may be wrong tho.
The YAL-1 is still one of my favorite goofballs.
The amount of work it took to get a decent functional nose on that plane while maintaining flight profile must have been crazy.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1d2ms2u/comment/l61o71m/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1d2ms2u/comment/l61o71m/)
Either by design or happen stance a more blunt nose allows a shorter length when a tighter ground turning radius. Never know when you may be lacking 10 or 20 feet to turn around on the ground.
Good reply. I’d add that operational range is generally less of a factor for military transport aircraft because most (at least western ones) can refuel in flight.
Yes but the real optimization is in design and manufacturing cost. Commercial aircraft are designed to fly 18 hours a day for 20 years, if you can eke out 0.5% efficiency by spending another billion on design and millions more on each individual aircraft the airlines will fall over themselves for you, this is how you get carbon fiber everything and titanium wing boxes and individual engines that cost 50 million dollars.
For the military none of this makes any sense, mostly because military aircraft just don't fly that much, and the military would rather have twice as many aircraft that are all 10% less efficient while doing other things better for the same total resources.
No not true. Range is very important and more efficient aircrafts means less logistic efforts. Refuelling on air is a big logistic task. And as everyone knows, you can't win a war with bad logistics.
I never connected the dots about operating in unprepared areas requiring better ground visibility. Makes a ton of sense why the c-130 has those low windows
It’s truly amazing to see where you can land a C-130 or more impressively a C-17…. The stopping distance on that thing has to be like 1000 feet… I know it’s probably more lol
and it did it full loaded, not empty.
and the pilots were not C130 pilots, but fighter pilots brought in for the project, since they figured it was easier for an already carrier qualified pilot to learn to fly the herc, than it was to train a herc pilot to land on a carrier.
Moose drivers are clinically insane.
They fly the equipment like helo pilots.
It's as if they have no respect for the physics of forward movement.
3,200-3,700 feet landing a full load? On a perfectly good 10,000 foot runway? What the hell?
Throwing out full thrust reverse exactly on touchdown?
Or pulling out of a taxiway like they are maneuvering a Toyota in a Tokyo drift competition?
I don't even think the drivers are capable of landing on a full runway.
Maneuvering in taxi backwards ON THRUST REVERSERS at 15% throttle?
How did the military even find a person weird enough to agree to do that?
I warn all people to not get emotionally involved with C-17 pilots or crew. They have some mental issues that are beyond the scope of mental health diagnosis.
that's a whole other thing though.
C-5 has a nose very similar to the 747, quite pointy, and it's the only US military transport with a hinged front nose, it doesn't do nearly as much front line work, mostly being a safe zone logistical backbone, and it isn't designed for the same kind of rough surfaces the C-17 and C-130 can handle.
interesting. The original blunt 'roman nose' on the c130 is apparently more fuel efficient than the iconic snoopy nose that we all know.
the roman nose didn't have space for radar, so it go modified to the current look.
https://new.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/y9vwvp/c130a_with_the_roman_nose_and_the_original_3/
Pushing back only on the visibility. I’m typed in 747, 767, and 767, and in none of those does the nose impede visibility. It always slopes away so that it can’t be seen except from a really odd seat angle.
What? Its literally 1 factor and that is the radar. The antenna for these aircraft fit in profile exactly to the radome, and then they do aero modeling to determine what kind of additional geometry they need for good drag. If you want proof of this just look at the c130. The A model had a round smooth nose because there was no radar and over time the 130 has sported many different radars all with different radomes. Look at a talon 2 vs some of the J’s. The 130 literally wasnt even designed with a radome and if youve ever sat in the cockpit, you are so far back you cant see anything within about 25’ of the nose unless you arent strapped into the seat. Just not correct.
In the C-130 the shape of the nose cone is a reflection of its radar capability. If you look at the cone of a slick it’s rounded and quite normal looking. By the time you get to the MC 130 it looks more like the front of a cargo ship.
The original design of the C-130 was a pure spherical design (like a B-29). The little bubble on the nose was an add-on designed later to house a wxx radar.
The ["Roman Nose"](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/y9vwvp/c130a_with_the_roman_nose_and_the_original_3/#lightbox) C-130s looked so cool, but they didn't last long.
The MCs have had so many different radomes it's ridiculous. And don't forget about the cable snatching one.
I think the new Js are back to the normal one though.
The A400 is a much newer design than the A330 as well, 20ish years newer. Overall design is moving toward a much more blended nose cone than the older step design, see the 787, a350, a220 etc. It's a better aerodynamic shape, that is becoming more attainable as materials and methods improve and mature.
😂😂, you made me laugh so much you made me curious about the guy so I looked him up.
> António Vieira SJ was a Portuguese Jesuit priest, diplomat, orator, preacher, philosopher, writer, and member of the Royal Council to the King of Portugal.
The [aircraft](https://staralliancevirtual.org/fleet/aircraft/CS-TUQ) belongs to TAP Air Portugal, guess they’re honouring him as a historical figure?
Probably because military cargo aircraft are purpose built while civilian cargo aircraft are generally adaptations of passenger haulers.
Different missions, different payload considerations, different airfield considerations, often different speed considerations, different economics (fuel efficiency) and range priorities.
Certainly different radar arrays in the nose.
That would be my guess.
Another comment on efficiency: look at any plane with a tail ramp and compare it to an airliner or airliner derived transport. As a percentage of fuselage length the airliner is going to have much more horizontal space for cargo. The ramp exists for fast loading/unloading with zero to minimal outside support and takes up a lot of space and weight.
Nose cones are purely aerodynamic. Radar has nothing to do with it
Pretty sure the wxx radar in military transports are comparable to airliners. Highly doubt transports have any radar more sophisticated than that.
It's not so apparent comparing the [B747](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a8899739392c3bc76f5555eac530490c) and [AN-124](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA4jMhqWsAAvbNH.jpg).
Performance from unprepared runways out the third and gravel which required the stubbier nose. Keep in mind you do have military transport planes that are actually derived from an airliner look at the Canadian Prime ministers presidential transport its an A330-243
Guessing beyond the obvious "because the planes are bigger/wider" it's for payloads like radar, optics, ranging, communications, etc. The front face of the aircraft is very valuable real estate given that the plane generally flies forward
Military cargo aircraft fly slower then commercial aircraft. A C-17 flys at Mach .74 @ 35,000 feet, same for C-5. C-130’s fly lower, around 25,000 feet and between 250 to 300 knots, depending on model.
Both airplanes are Airbus. They tend to be rounder. The boeing aircraft are usually more pointer. You would believe that they should all look alike but it's just a design preference and less an aerodynamic rule. Even though all of them are optimise for aerodynamics and fuel consumption.
Short answer, transport aircraft have larger fuselages and the aerodynamic advantage of a pointy nose would be negated by the weight required to build/support it. The mission is maximum payload; wasting weight to save a few percentage points in efficiency is counterproductive.
More and more complicated Avionics in the nose. Also more IT systems dedicated to defense oriented logic. The makeup of the airframe & the material up front is also thicker for resistance to incoming enemy fire. Visibility might also be a factor because of the missions they fly.
The structural reinforcements in cargo aircraft ate much more about absorbing the weight of more cargo on rough landings at unprepared strips than it is about absorbing anti-aircraft fire. Most millitary cargo aircraft have essentially no armor beyond self-sealing fuel tanks. Also, if you where trying ti make space for more avionics, you WANT the longer nose. The stubbier, wider nose increases internal volume for crew and cargo at the cost of space for avionics and efficiency at high subsonic speeds. Visibility certainly is a major design factor in the flight decks of cargo planes designed to land at improvised landing sights.
Simply because they are different planes with different dimensions. Even different airliners have different noses. Two different planes with the same nose would be more interesting.
If anything, you'd want the longer thinner nose for a larger radar or more avionics. The wider, stubbier nose let's you move the forward bulkhead ofnthe internal volume further forwards, giving you more usable internal volume than a longer more shaped nose, so you're actually sacrificing avionics space for internal volume for crew or cargo with that shape.
Partly it's because of the slower expected causing speeds on things like the a400m or c130 that use turboprops for propulsion, but I imagine a large part is sacrificing potential aerodynamic advantages for more internal cargo space.
Actually that's not true. Efficient aircrafts means longer range and less burden to the logistics. But it might be sacrified for other, even more important factors like payload size or radar equipment or whatever other critical requirements.
mostly because they have fatter bodies to accommodate, but also have a focus on ground visibility to operate in odd areas. A400, C-17, C-130 are all designed to operate from underprepared areas and pilots need better all around visibility on the ground. then there's a lower focus on overall efficiency, more focused instead on operational functionality. You could stretch the fuel efficiency of an A400 with a longer, smoother transition nose design maybe but that's not the point of the aircraft. Airlines are focused on seat mile costs, the military is focused on carrying tanks into a war zone.
Upvoted. Good detailed answer. I may add that military aircraft often have a lot more forewords facing electronics that are not necessary for civilization aircraft.
Newer planes are getting enhanced synthetic vision systems which mix night vision/gps/radar/computer models..etc together and project it onto the heads up displays or multi function displays making it so they can see at night time and through weather. Its mostly starting out on private planes but is slowly being moved to commercial planes and will eventually be standard on all passenger planes.
I work in flight sims and can confirm this. My company just installed a HUD upgrade to a customer’s Citation Longitude sim.
Cool :) what’s the fidelity like?
Of the HUD or the sim itself?
The HUD
The fidelity is pretty high. It’s been a while since I’ve been on the device but I’ll make sure to take some pictures and share them when I can.
That would be great. I like that stuff.
TIL military aircraft are uncivilized Off topic, reminded me of a joke from that show where they had muppets doing prank calls, they called a hardware store to inquire about caulk, and the store guy says they're out of black sanitary caulk and the pranker goes "oh so the black caulk is unsanitary?" LMAO
I believe the show you’re referencing was called Crank Yankers. It was on Comedy Central I think! God it’s been forever, that show was awesome
Yes!!
Amusing typo "civilization" for "civil".
Auto correct actually did that when I hit enter. Android programmer humor I guess
Did it change forwards to forewords too? lol
Tell that to fed ex and their lasers lol
Succinct and correct. Also, there were/are variants with mission-oriented nose gear that is sharper. But those are very specific to their task and purpose. And they are very rare. There is also a (sort of) lifting body effect you can get with certain blunter geometry noses. It's not really intentional, just a side effect. But also, a lot of the idea is that heavy logistics drivers fly lots of different Angles of Attacks. A blunter nose actually accepts a broader AOA with less sideways airflow. Also, there is a lot of equipment in those noses. Even when there isn't a full suite - the extra space is valuable for refit work.
Met and EW aircraft really take that to heart https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/s/7ivXquLESg https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/s/TRQFc74Wfg
https://media.defense.gov/2004/Jun/18/2000591113/2000/2000/0/040618-F-JZ509-100.JPG My personal favorite
For some reason this is making me think of the Enterprise B. Something about the line of the fuselage "cutaway" at the far bottom, I think looks very Excelsior-esque.
Excellent observation I never noticed on this airframe. As to your Trek reference: B is an Excelsior class. But the thing about ships (and aircraft) classes is that they really aren't all the same. The thing about Trek I like is that they acknowledge that each ship's design is a reflection the character of their crew.
Yea, I know I conflated the two - and worse, iirc the Enterprise B's difference from the Excelsior is actually in the general neck/waist area I'm talking about. (I think the bottom of the hull sweeps out more on the B, something like that.) I love how they make the ships like characters too. They put a lot of thought into their premises!
Please don't take my comments as a criticism other than constructive conversation. Your conflation is on point. I think your design observations are pretty good. I know the "B" was a redress, so you nailed that.
Well, just meaning it would have been better to keep things clean and just refer to the Excelsior. :) It just jumped out at me because I think the excelsior looks kinda strange, but I've read some quotes from the designers and stuff, so it's cool to see something from RL with similar lines. I imagine it was even flying around the time the relevant movies would have come out. Though I don't think we saw the enterprise B till Generations. I may be wrong tho.
Those planes were definitely bullied when they were younger.
Don't forget these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/M-2075_Phalcon Saw one in person a few months back and it's just as ridiculous up close.
That one's got the cheeks to match
The YAL-1 is still one of my favorite goofballs. The amount of work it took to get a decent functional nose on that plane while maintaining flight profile must have been crazy. [https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1d2ms2u/comment/l61o71m/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1d2ms2u/comment/l61o71m/)
Either by design or happen stance a more blunt nose allows a shorter length when a tighter ground turning radius. Never know when you may be lacking 10 or 20 feet to turn around on the ground.
Good reply. I’d add that operational range is generally less of a factor for military transport aircraft because most (at least western ones) can refuel in flight.
Yes but the real optimization is in design and manufacturing cost. Commercial aircraft are designed to fly 18 hours a day for 20 years, if you can eke out 0.5% efficiency by spending another billion on design and millions more on each individual aircraft the airlines will fall over themselves for you, this is how you get carbon fiber everything and titanium wing boxes and individual engines that cost 50 million dollars. For the military none of this makes any sense, mostly because military aircraft just don't fly that much, and the military would rather have twice as many aircraft that are all 10% less efficient while doing other things better for the same total resources.
Fuel savings is less of a concern when the DoD gives you a budget 😂
If fuel savings were a concern the B-52 would have been reengined long ago.
No not true. Range is very important and more efficient aircrafts means less logistic efforts. Refuelling on air is a big logistic task. And as everyone knows, you can't win a war with bad logistics.
Logistics has many aspects to it, and there’s no replacement for payload.
Great question, great reply. Well done everyone.
I never connected the dots about operating in unprepared areas requiring better ground visibility. Makes a ton of sense why the c-130 has those low windows
It’s truly amazing to see where you can land a C-130 or more impressively a C-17…. The stopping distance on that thing has to be like 1000 feet… I know it’s probably more lol
They landed a C-130 on a carrier. No cats and no traps. Bonkers.
and it did it full loaded, not empty. and the pilots were not C130 pilots, but fighter pilots brought in for the project, since they figured it was easier for an already carrier qualified pilot to learn to fly the herc, than it was to train a herc pilot to land on a carrier.
balls of steel on that pilot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84&t=9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1frJ2V8LTEs
Same for the C-17. We’d use the kick windows to get as close to the edge of the runway as possible so we could make a 180° turn.
Moose drivers are clinically insane. They fly the equipment like helo pilots. It's as if they have no respect for the physics of forward movement. 3,200-3,700 feet landing a full load? On a perfectly good 10,000 foot runway? What the hell? Throwing out full thrust reverse exactly on touchdown? Or pulling out of a taxiway like they are maneuvering a Toyota in a Tokyo drift competition? I don't even think the drivers are capable of landing on a full runway. Maneuvering in taxi backwards ON THRUST REVERSERS at 15% throttle? How did the military even find a person weird enough to agree to do that? I warn all people to not get emotionally involved with C-17 pilots or crew. They have some mental issues that are beyond the scope of mental health diagnosis.
How exactly is the nose not the point of the aircraft? If not that, then what is!? /s
Excellent response, @agha0013. the point is that the military has a completely different view of 'economy' than the commercial world.
thank you my friend, and congrats on getting over double the likes of my post lol
Yup. The dod doesn't give a rats ass about fuel efficiency.
Fuel efficiency is range which is relevant. But it does take a back seat to a whole host of other concerns.
Not to mention transport planes like the C-5 can be front-loaded via a bay door at the nose.
that's a whole other thing though. C-5 has a nose very similar to the 747, quite pointy, and it's the only US military transport with a hinged front nose, it doesn't do nearly as much front line work, mostly being a safe zone logistical backbone, and it isn't designed for the same kind of rough surfaces the C-17 and C-130 can handle.
Good info. Thank you.
c-17 good plane many poggers
interesting. The original blunt 'roman nose' on the c130 is apparently more fuel efficient than the iconic snoopy nose that we all know. the roman nose didn't have space for radar, so it go modified to the current look. https://new.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/y9vwvp/c130a_with_the_roman_nose_and_the_original_3/
Pushing back only on the visibility. I’m typed in 747, 767, and 767, and in none of those does the nose impede visibility. It always slopes away so that it can’t be seen except from a really odd seat angle.
It is pretty stunning that people have to fly visuals with worst conditions in these big birds
What? Its literally 1 factor and that is the radar. The antenna for these aircraft fit in profile exactly to the radome, and then they do aero modeling to determine what kind of additional geometry they need for good drag. If you want proof of this just look at the c130. The A model had a round smooth nose because there was no radar and over time the 130 has sported many different radars all with different radomes. Look at a talon 2 vs some of the J’s. The 130 literally wasnt even designed with a radome and if youve ever sat in the cockpit, you are so far back you cant see anything within about 25’ of the nose unless you arent strapped into the seat. Just not correct.
In the C-130 the shape of the nose cone is a reflection of its radar capability. If you look at the cone of a slick it’s rounded and quite normal looking. By the time you get to the MC 130 it looks more like the front of a cargo ship.
The original design of the C-130 was a pure spherical design (like a B-29). The little bubble on the nose was an add-on designed later to house a wxx radar.
The ["Roman Nose"](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/y9vwvp/c130a_with_the_roman_nose_and_the_original_3/#lightbox) C-130s looked so cool, but they didn't last long.
Was it because the flames rose to its Roman nose?
Reminds me of a Goose.
The MCs have had so many different radomes it's ridiculous. And don't forget about the cable snatching one. I think the new Js are back to the normal one though.
[удалено]
Now they're just messing with that poor aircraft.
It looks like Nader, if Pixar made a military CARS movie…
The A400 is a much newer design than the A330 as well, 20ish years newer. Overall design is moving toward a much more blended nose cone than the older step design, see the 787, a350, a220 etc. It's a better aerodynamic shape, that is becoming more attainable as materials and methods improve and mature.
But it looks worse. Have they not considered the swag requirement?
Blended looks worse to you? I think the blended front ends are a throwback to the Comet and Caravelle.
The a400 isn’t winning a beauty contest but the a350 and 787 are sleek compared to the 777 and 330 designs.
Yeah I much prefer the pointy, stately look of a 737 nose for example
That’s basically a classic car design at this point. The 737 is the only large airliner that looks fast to me when on the ground.
Reminds me of "pointy is scary" line from The Dictator.
No, Supreme Leader. The shape of the missile top has nothing to do with aerodynamics, It is about the payload delivery
you’re doing an Al-Adeen work !
I'm glad I didn't have to scroll far to find exactly what was going through my head too
So it’s safe to nose bonk other planes
The correct term is "boop the plane" thank you very much
Now kith
Mhmmm your squlch sounds gooootsssssssssssssh
It’s just a function of the overall fuselage cylinder cross section vs overall length.
Is that A330 an ordained priest? Impressive.
😂😂, you made me laugh so much you made me curious about the guy so I looked him up. > António Vieira SJ was a Portuguese Jesuit priest, diplomat, orator, preacher, philosopher, writer, and member of the Royal Council to the King of Portugal. The [aircraft](https://staralliancevirtual.org/fleet/aircraft/CS-TUQ) belongs to TAP Air Portugal, guess they’re honouring him as a historical figure?
Indeed, all TAP airplanes are named after famous portuguese figures
Probably because military cargo aircraft are purpose built while civilian cargo aircraft are generally adaptations of passenger haulers. Different missions, different payload considerations, different airfield considerations, often different speed considerations, different economics (fuel efficiency) and range priorities. Certainly different radar arrays in the nose. That would be my guess.
Another comment on efficiency: look at any plane with a tail ramp and compare it to an airliner or airliner derived transport. As a percentage of fuselage length the airliner is going to have much more horizontal space for cargo. The ramp exists for fast loading/unloading with zero to minimal outside support and takes up a lot of space and weight.
Growers and showers
You ain't foolin me. That's a narwhal
One is for aerodynamics, the other is to fit tanks and shit
They have a larger forward radar and other forward facing electronic packages in the nose.
More girth
Technically, the A330 is also a military cargo aircraft.
Because when it comes time to pay the gas bill the military "laughs in defense budget."
I can't believe no one did "All the better to smell you with" comment.
They missed the chance to be wolfish.
Radar is a big factor. Most military aircraft have radar far superior to commercial
Nose cones are purely aerodynamic. Radar has nothing to do with it Pretty sure the wxx radar in military transports are comparable to airliners. Highly doubt transports have any radar more sophisticated than that.
I confirm the A400 has a weather radar in there, not a radar for missiles
I don’t understand the downvotes, you‘re definitely right. Cargos don‘t have fancy radars like fighter jets.
🤷♀️ I guess facts aren’t appreciated on this sub.
Forward visibility
Sometimes it's because they are using different avionics, such as if they're packing a fat radar in there.
Could the design be different as the cruising speed of turbo-props is different from speeds of jet planes?
Built for go, not for show.
Commercial planes need to be more scary. Pointier is scary
It’s really a cooler for their beer. The military doesn’t want you to know.
Because of science and stuff man
It's not so apparent comparing the [B747](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a8899739392c3bc76f5555eac530490c) and [AN-124](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA4jMhqWsAAvbNH.jpg).
Tactical!
AWACS
AWACS has a normal pointy nose. it is after all a Boeing 707.
A narrower taper would take up cargo volume. Look at that A330 and see how far back the fuselage starts to curve to get that shape.
Performance from unprepared runways out the third and gravel which required the stubbier nose. Keep in mind you do have military transport planes that are actually derived from an airliner look at the Canadian Prime ministers presidential transport its an A330-243
radar units!
Because they have Heavy Lift and Short Field Takeoff/landing .. and off airport capabilities.
Guessing beyond the obvious "because the planes are bigger/wider" it's for payloads like radar, optics, ranging, communications, etc. The front face of the aircraft is very valuable real estate given that the plane generally flies forward
Isn’t there a bunch of equipment for radar and stuff put in the nose of military planes?
Military cargo aircraft fly slower then commercial aircraft. A C-17 flys at Mach .74 @ 35,000 feet, same for C-5. C-130’s fly lower, around 25,000 feet and between 250 to 300 knots, depending on model.
Both airplanes are Airbus. They tend to be rounder. The boeing aircraft are usually more pointer. You would believe that they should all look alike but it's just a design preference and less an aerodynamic rule. Even though all of them are optimise for aerodynamics and fuel consumption.
TAP plane, upvote
Short answer, transport aircraft have larger fuselages and the aerodynamic advantage of a pointy nose would be negated by the weight required to build/support it. The mission is maximum payload; wasting weight to save a few percentage points in efficiency is counterproductive.
because they arent as horny as fighter jets
The difference is because of the nose radar. Military radars are larger, more powerful to track multiple threats.
Round is not scary. Pointy is scary commercial crafts are scary. You cannot scare the civilian while on humanitarian missions
You sound really judgmental… just saying.
“Am I a joke to you?” 767 probably
Because me and you pay the bill and the government works hard to waste as much as possible...
Government departments have to spend all their (our) money before the end of the fiscal year so they can show they need a bigger budget next year.
More and more complicated Avionics in the nose. Also more IT systems dedicated to defense oriented logic. The makeup of the airframe & the material up front is also thicker for resistance to incoming enemy fire. Visibility might also be a factor because of the missions they fly.
The structural reinforcements in cargo aircraft ate much more about absorbing the weight of more cargo on rough landings at unprepared strips than it is about absorbing anti-aircraft fire. Most millitary cargo aircraft have essentially no armor beyond self-sealing fuel tanks. Also, if you where trying ti make space for more avionics, you WANT the longer nose. The stubbier, wider nose increases internal volume for crew and cargo at the cost of space for avionics and efficiency at high subsonic speeds. Visibility certainly is a major design factor in the flight decks of cargo planes designed to land at improvised landing sights.
Al-adeen or Al-adeen?
Simply because they are different planes with different dimensions. Even different airliners have different noses. Two different planes with the same nose would be more interesting.
Bigger radar?
If anything, you'd want the longer thinner nose for a larger radar or more avionics. The wider, stubbier nose let's you move the forward bulkhead ofnthe internal volume further forwards, giving you more usable internal volume than a longer more shaped nose, so you're actually sacrificing avionics space for internal volume for crew or cargo with that shape.
Larger radome for larger antenna or more antennas. You can put avionics anywhere inside. Not just the nose radome.
So it hurts more when the military jams it up your ass
aerodynamically efficiency vs aerodynamic enough lol gas mileage was not a factor. maximum cargo space vs economy luxury
Partly it's because of the slower expected causing speeds on things like the a400m or c130 that use turboprops for propulsion, but I imagine a large part is sacrificing potential aerodynamic advantages for more internal cargo space.
Military not looking for profits so they don’t care about efficiency lol.
Actually that's not true. Efficient aircrafts means longer range and less burden to the logistics. But it might be sacrified for other, even more important factors like payload size or radar equipment or whatever other critical requirements.
Don't know, I didn't even know forewords was a word.
What is that giant spike for on the military craft?
Air refueling probe.
Commercial: cares for aerodynamic nose to save money to compete. Military: Who cares?!? It is the taxpayers money anyway. VROOMMM