Navy P-8A

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Navy P-8A

Ok, going back to P8, still not so sure how well this model will perform considering it's a heavier plane and it's jet, so it may get to the battlefield sooner but loitering time probably is shortchanged. I still think it has a lot to do with politics since Boeing pushed hard on their 737 MMA project and the Australians ordered 6 737 wedgetails, guess the next gen surveillance/reconnaisance planes. But in those roles, a jet plane makes sense. A sub-hunter/maritime patrol? Dunno......

Wonder if airships can ever make a comeback in those areas? An airship can loiter for a very long time hehe.

unfortunately they also make for tempting targets too. I think an Estes model rocket could take a blimp out.

[joshuatree]

Re: Navy P-8A

Ok, going back to P8, still not so sure how well this model will perform considering it's a heavier plane and it's jet, so it may get to the battlefield sooner but loitering time probably is shortchanged. I still think it has a lot to do with politics since Boeing pushed hard on their 737 MMA project and the Australians ordered 6 737 wedgetails, guess the next gen surveillance/reconnaisance planes. But in those roles, a jet plane makes sense. A sub-hunter/maritime patrol? Dunno......

Wonder if airships can ever make a comeback in those areas? An airship can loiter for a very long time hehe.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Navy P-8A

True, when you are offered the chance to break the sound barrier, it's a risk worth taking.

I heard whatever F-111s we have sitting out in the desert have pretty much been cannibalized for spare parts by the RAAF.

The F-111 aircraft was a remarkable plane and until the twin seater F-15 Strike Eagle came out there was no other plane than the FB-111A that could run a mission like an Aardvark. The F-111 came out from A thru H with the H model having the most sophisticated avionics until the F-15 took it's place.

Those A models that weren't sold to the Aussies were converted to the EF-111A Raven which was the stealth prototype using the ALQ-99 ECM radar jamming pod. The Ravens were used during the Gulf War to blind Iraqi radar sites and allowed the USAF to destroy Iraqi forward surveillance capability.

The F-111's were also used in the raid on Libya as it was the only plane that could hit supersonic and fly under the radar net.

The B1 Bomber was supposed to replace the F-111 but President Carter slashed the B1 funds and the plane was downgraded to subsonic speeds making that plane a useless hunk of tactical and strategic junk.

But hey this is all about the Navy P8 right?

[joshuatree]

Re: Navy P-8A

Actually the plane I rode and the RAAF's were one in the same. I worked on the Avionics package of the F-111A (carrier model) back in the late 70's early 80's. We had three AGS (Aircraft Generation Squadron) squadrons in our 367th Tactical Fighter Wing.

There was the Red, Blue and Yellow squadrons. When the Aussies came knocking on our door to buy some Aardvarks we sold them most of our Yellow Squadron's birds as they were mostly hanger queens (down for maintenance).

I had the opportunity to ride a yellow squadron bird and at first was quite hesitant on taking the offer as this plane suffered more crashes during peacetime than during the entire Vietnam war and the yellow birds were the least reliable so you could sense my apprehension. Plus we had on average one crash per year at our base, all of them yellow squadron.

But it was the ride of a lifetime and not too many people can boast that so I wen chance em!

True, when you are offered the chance to break the sound barrier, it's a risk worth taking.

I heard whatever F-111s we have sitting out in the desert have pretty much been cannibalized for spare parts by the RAAF.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Navy P-8A

F-111? Wasn't that a while ago? Or do you mean riding in one of the RAAF's F-111s? I think they are the last major air force to still have them on active status though they are desperately looking for their replacements in the F35 project.

Actually the plane I rode and the RAAF's were one in the same. I worked on the Avionics package of the F-111A (carrier model) back in the late 70's early 80's. We had three AGS (Aircraft Generation Squadron) squadrons in our 367th Tactical Fighter Wing.

There was the Red, Blue and Yellow squadrons. When the Aussies came knocking on our door to buy some Aardvarks we sold them most of our Yellow Squadron's birds as they were mostly hanger queens (down for maintenance).

I had the opportunity to ride a yellow squadron bird and at first was quite hesitant on taking the offer as this plane suffered more crashes during peacetime than during the entire Vietnam war and the yellow birds were the least reliable so you could sense my apprehension. Plus we had on average one crash per year at our base, all of them yellow squadron.

But it was the ride of a lifetime and not too many people can boast that so I wen chance em!

[joshuatree]

Re: Navy P-8A

I was the tech of the month at my airbase so I got the chance to ride the F-111 and we did break mach on the deck. Amazing experience when you pass the speed of sound, suddenly the roar of the engines quiet down and all you hear is the sound of the radio's and your breathing.

Then there was the barrel roll and the 3-g climb then the inverted dive and lunch

I think we popped a few rivets on the fuselage coming outta that dive.

F-111? Wasn't that a while ago? Or do you mean riding in one of the RAAF's F-111s? I think they are the last major air force to still have them on active status though they are desperately looking for their replacements in the F35 project.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Navy P-8A

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.

I was the tech of the month at my airbase so I got the chance to ride the F-111 and we did break mach on the deck. Amazing experience when you pass the speed of sound, suddenly the roar of the engines quiet down and all you hear is the sound of the radio's and your breathing.

Then there was the barrel roll and the 3-g climb then the inverted dive and lunch

I think we popped a few rivets on the fuselage coming outta that dive.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Navy P-8A

Poseidon. Wasn't that one of the original disaster movies?

[Miulang]

Re: Navy P-8A

Its official name is now the P-8A Poseidon. Its predecessors were the Neptune and the Orion. Apparently the Navy likes Greek mythology.

Miulang

[buzz1941]

Re: Navy P-8A

A touch and go landing would be the sort of thing a cargo plane would use to deliver cargo in a combat situation.

I think you mean a LAPEs drop -- Low Altitude Parachute Extraction. Basically, a parachute yanks a cargo pallet out the back of a plane like a C-130.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Navy P-8A

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.

I'd think so too. I noticed in the specs that the P8 can get on station faster but it can't stay on-station as long. That seem rather telling.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Navy P-8A

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!)

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Navy P-8A

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".

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.

[buzz1941]

Re: Navy P-8A

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.

[joshuatree]

Re: Navy P-8A

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.