Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Navy P-8A

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Navy P-8A

    Wednesday's (1/3/07) Advertiser had an article about the US Navy planning on replacing the P-3C Orion turboprop planes with the P-8A jets some where between the years 2011 to 2019.

    They are thinking of basing these jets at either Kaneohe Bay Marine Corp Air Station or at Hickam Air Force Base.

    People in Kaneohe might complain about the noise from the jets taking off and landing but since the P-8A are the miltary versions of the Boeing 737 they shouldn't have a problem being based at Hickam Air Force Base.

  • #2
    Re: Navy P-8A

    Originally posted by helen View Post
    Wednesday's (1/3/07) Advertiser had an article about the US Navy planning on replacing the P-3C Orion turboprop planes with the P-8A jets some where between the years 2011 to 2019.

    They are thinking of basing these jets at either Kaneohe Bay Marine Corp Air Station or at Hickam Air Force Base.

    People in Kaneohe might complain about the noise from the jets taking off and landing but since the P-8A are the miltary versions of the Boeing 737 they shouldn't have a problem being based at Hickam Air Force Base.
    I for one think this is pretty terrific; I'm a military jet junky and have flown in just about everything but a fighter and even got to work on the Stealth and the Shuttle while at Edwards AFB in the Mojave--as a computer operator on the ground grunt! My chances of flying in a fighter are probably nil since I'm a mom now!

    But I am CERTAIN that Buzz1941 will have something to say about the P-8As.
    Aloha from Lavagal

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Navy P-8A

      Originally posted by helen View Post
      Wednesday's (1/3/07) Advertiser had an article about the US Navy planning on replacing the P-3C Orion turboprop planes with the P-8A jets some where between the years 2011 to 2019.

      They are thinking of basing these jets at either Kaneohe Bay Marine Corp Air Station or at Hickam Air Force Base.

      People in Kaneohe might complain about the noise from the jets taking off and landing but since the P-8A are the miltary versions of the Boeing 737 they shouldn't have a problem being based at Hickam Air Force Base.
      Actually, the noise might not be an issue at all. The P-8A is based on the 737-800, one of the latest iterations of the 737 so it's engine noise probably will be a lot less than the old P3-Cs.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Navy P-8A

        Although it's a turboprop, the P-3 is essentially a WWII-era design. It's based on the Electra, and has been used by the Navy since 1961. In other words, it's had long legs.
        The P-8 is pretty much based on the Boeing 737. Hawaii is also one of the sites selected for contiinuous UAV coverage, starting in a few years. Robots on patrol!
        With ASW aircraft, the deal is long patrols and the ability to get low and slow if need be, and a minimal electronic clutter. The P-3 was good at that stuff. I hope the current generation of jet engines can handle it without stalling.
        That said, I flew some missions with the VP boys a while back. One day, the first P-3 we got into threw a prop blade on the ramp. The second had a cockpit fire while taxiiing. The third flew fine.
        The Aussies are watching. They need to replace their P-3s too.
        Burl Burlingame
        "Art is never finished, only abandoned." -- Leonardo Da Vinci
        honoluluagonizer.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Navy P-8A

          Originally posted by buzz1941 View Post
          I hope the current generation of jet engines can handle it without stalling.
          I understand on the P-3s they frequently shut down engines to spend more time on station. With the P-8: ETOPS, 2 engines. Not a lot of room for things to go wrong.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Navy P-8A

            According to this article from Wikipedia, it's usually one engine that is shutdown to extend the range.

            I think for the P-8 they could just thottle back on the engines.

            I don't know about now but back in the 1970's a P-3 Orion would practice touch and go landings at Lihue Airport, which if you think about it why would a non-cargo plane do such a routine?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Navy P-8A

              Originally posted by helen View Post
              According to this article from Wikipedia, it's usually one engine that is shutdown to extend the range.

              I think for the P-8 they could just thottle back on the engines.

              I don't know about now but back in the 1970's a P-3 Orion would practice touch and go landings at Lihue Airport, which if you think about it why would a non-cargo plane do such a routine?
              The article does say sometimes two were shut down, so I'm technically right.

              Yes, they probably would throttle back. A little too much risk shutting down when you only have two. But then there's the concern that the engines won't stall when running slow.

              As for touch-n-gos, that's all about pilot training. I don't understand what being non-cargo have anything to do with it?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Navy P-8A

                Originally posted by GeckoGeek View Post
                But then there's the concern that the engines won't stall when running slow.
                You mean the plane don't stall when the engines don't produce enough thrust to make the plane go fast enough to generate enough lift to overcome the drag on it.


                As for touch-n-gos, that's all about pilot training. I don't understand what being non-cargo have anything to do with it?
                A touch and go landing would be the sort of thing a cargo plane would use to deliver cargo in a combat situation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Navy P-8A

                  Originally posted by helen View Post
                  I don't know about now but back in the 1970's a P-3 Orion would practice touch and go landings at Lihue Airport, which if you think about it why would a non-cargo plane do such a routine?
                  Maybe you remember that one did it without deploying the gear. Prang-g-g-g-g!!!!
                  Burl Burlingame
                  "Art is never finished, only abandoned." -- Leonardo Da Vinci
                  honoluluagonizer.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Navy P-8A

                    Originally posted by GeckoGeek View Post
                    I understand on the P-3s they frequently shut down engines to spend more time on station. With the P-8: ETOPS, 2 engines. Not a lot of room for things to go wrong.
                    With ETOPS certification, basically you are stating the 2 jet engines have a reliability rate that is good enough to sub a 3 or more engine plane. And also, it means even if 1 engine does fail, the plane can still fly with the remaining engine for X minutes, I think the current limit is 180 min but they are looking to push it even more. I'm sure the military did an evaluation of risk on 2 engine plane vs cost savings of a 2 engine plane.

                    I read the P-8 has 6 extra tanks in the fuselage to extend range so that probably compensates the P-3's ability to cruise with 2 engines shut off.

                    Ultimately, I still think a turboprop is better suited to loitering over open areas for extended periods but these days, no American aircraft manufacturer builds large turboprops and I don't think the military wanted to procure anti-sub planes from foreign manufacturers. Otherwise, I know the civilian ATR-72 has a military version but it's a French/Spanish company.

                    On second thought, the C130H does come to mind but I think that one is too big for anti-sub role.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Navy P-8A

                      Originally posted by buzz1941 View Post
                      Maybe you remember that one did it without deploying the gear. Prang-g-g-g-g!!!!
                      I think it happen after I left Kauai, maybe in 1976 or 1977. I do remember reading about it.

                      Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
                      Ultimately, I still think a turboprop is better suited to loitering over open areas for extended periods

                      On second thought, the C130H does come to mind but I think that one is too big for anti-sub role.
                      Are they still building C130?

                      On one hand using turboprops make sense since they can fly slower and lower, while a jet can cover an area much faster.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Navy P-8A

                        Originally posted by helen View Post
                        Are they still building C130?

                        On one hand using turboprops make sense since they can fly slower and lower, while a jet can cover an area much faster.
                        Yep, the Canadian military just put in an order last Nov for 17 more. The only version still in production is the C130J but it has been modernized, even has those new composite scimitar propellors.

                        I would think slower and better loitering time makes more sense for a sub hunter since a turboprop will still outrun any ship or sub. But these days, it's all about economics and given that our military spending with this war in the mideast has been through the roof, I don't think Congress would have approved funding to design a P-3 prop replacement from scratch. So converting a proven civilian plane like the 737 for sub hunting made more sense.

                        My mistake, the ATR is an Italian and French company, not Spanish.
                        Last edited by joshuatree; January 4, 2007, 11:16 AM. Reason: ATR correction

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Navy P-8A

                          Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
                          I still think a turboprop is better suited to loitering over open areas for extended periods but these days
                          I think it has a lot to do with maintenance training. The Navy would rather focus on one type of engine.
                          Burl Burlingame
                          "Art is never finished, only abandoned." -- Leonardo Da Vinci
                          honoluluagonizer.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Navy P-8A

                            Originally posted by helen View Post
                            You mean the plane don't stall when the engines don't produce enough thrust to make the plane go fast enough to generate enough lift to overcome the drag on it.
                            You're talking about aerodynamic stall. The concern here is that if you throttle back the engines (because you need to go slow) the engine might die on you. Or maybe stated another way, they engines will throttle back ok, but they might not want to throttle back up. When you've only got two engines and flying low and slow and it's a really long swim back to home, things can get a little "exciting".


                            Originally posted by helen View Post
                            A touch and go landing would be the sort of thing a cargo plane would use to deliver cargo in a combat situation.
                            I know what you're talking about, but I don't think that's called a touch and go. Some of the most difficult and dangerous part of flying is the take-off and landing. A touch an go is both. They land, and then throttle up and take off again. All pilots do it (well, except for glider pilots ). Even general aviation does it in the little piper cubs. First weekend of the month, you can watch the military do touch and go at KMCAS. I've also watched them do it a Hilo airport.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Navy P-8A

                              Originally posted by buzz1941 View Post
                              Maybe you remember that one did it without deploying the gear. Prang-g-g-g-g!!!!
                              No, but I remember the one that crossed Kauai about 10' too low. (splat!)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X