jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 11, 2019 15:09:34 GMT 12
Oh Dear So many Donald Trumps on this forum If the P8 is not used to replace the P3 on it's current missions it is hardly a replacement. Time will tell.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 11, 2019 13:12:28 GMT 12
Oh Dear ISR EP3 ASuW P3C You need to go low level to find yachties especially in bad conditions which I think is where we came in. The P3 beats it hands down under those conditions. So the question is now NZ has bought the P8 what will we need to buy to replace the P3? What I hear is that the P8s will be deployed elsewhere on new missions and will not be available for those the P3 used to do around NZ, mundane tasks like Border patrol and Fisheries work in addition to finding the odd yachtie who has gone astray. US Coastguard version of C130J? We will probably find out when a replacement for the C130 is announced later this year.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 18:30:42 GMT 12
Frankly Three things have to happen before I say P8, bring it on A runway extension at Ohakea and (wishful thinking) Woodbourne to allow it to operate with a full payload and/or max fuel as provided by the Aussies with Edinburgh and Townsville A tanker to get it to the same range as the ancient P3. The stated range performance of the P8 is over optimistic since it assumes continuous flight at or above 30000 feet which will not be possible. The promised drones that can actually do the job with MAD that the P3 can today. Flying from Auckland to Hong Kong gives you a lot of options for diversion after an engine failure. Flying in remote areas of the Pacific or Antarctic may not. Hopeully the P8 CFM56's will not have engine issues similar to the Trents. On a brighter note I hear the C130 replacement is not far away unless it is again delayed.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 17:34:28 GMT 12
Frankly So no CFM56 has EVER failed in flight? You did not answer the question. Would a P8 losing an engine continue with an extended flight over water with an engine out? The beauty of the P3 is that two engines can be shut down and it will continue to fly happily. Try that with a P8 Otherwise as to engine reliability no argument. The Kawasaki would give you the best of both worlds.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 16:47:06 GMT 12
No Madmark As I said before the stalling speed for a LOADED P3 is 125mph or 108 knts The stalling speed for a loaded L188 is 107mph or 94 knts A P3 without it's 8.5 tonne "load" will have a lower stall speed than 108kts and closer to the L188. I did dig out the relevant OEWs, MLWs, Payloads, Fuel and MTOWs and recalculated an estimate for a new P3 stall speed at the lower weight but it will be a waste of time explaining them. One correction The 50 Marines (or to be pedantic troops) option appears in the Janes 1965/6 edition page 255 Column 3 in the "Accommodation" section. "With minor design changes and removal only of sonobuoy storage racks seats can be fitted for approximately 50 fully armed combat troops. Alternatively a VIP seating kit is available." Presumably the option was not taken presumably because any requirement was covered elsewhere. I repeat the definition of an option since people here appear to forget! "A thing that is or may be chosen."
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 16:06:26 GMT 12
There doesn't appear to be the significant difference in range as you think. From the US Navy website: www.navy.mil/navydata/fact.aspRange: P-3C Orion - 1,346nm with 3 hours on station. P-8A Poseidon - 1,200nm with 4 Hours on station. And with a cruise speed advantage of over 100knts the P-8A is going to get there a lot quicker. Range of the P3 as built was 5750 nautical mile. It was reduced to 4350 NM after 30 or so years wear and tear. You can expect the P8 to have the same issues. And a significantly higher serviceability rate, so a much better chance of launching in the first place.Check the serviceability rates of the P8 after 30 years. You will have to do that.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 16:02:15 GMT 12
You should probably complain to that well known conspiracy website Aunt Jane 1959-60 and subsequent editions. I believe I did say it was an OPTION? Would you like a definition of option? "A thing that is or may be chosen". Incidentally the stall speed of a Lockheed Electra L188 is 107mph or 94 Knts so a P3 without 8.5 tonnes of bombs/depth charges etc should have similar weights to the aforementioned L188 and would by assumption be closer to that aircraft. That storm did take place and is fully documented and the comments were made by an RNZAF pilot as a direct quote. It is not my fault that the RNZAF has selected a replacement that falls short of the replacee but that's how it goes. Very simply the aircraft has two thirds the range of the P3, needs runways of 2800M or double the length of the P3 (not available at Ohakea, cannot use MAD effectively, nor cannot fly as low and slow as the P3. In contrast everything in the P8 could be transferred to the P3 with no loss of capability. We do have a massive area of responsibility but with 2000 miles less range than the P3 as built the P8 will hardly be able to exploit it especially after it needs rebuilds which will certainly be required in the future.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 15:01:00 GMT 12
Just have to wait and see how the P8s are going in fifty years?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 14:38:52 GMT 12
The issue that put the P1 out contention was politics just as with the P3 update that the USN wanted. Unlike the P8 it can lose an engine and still continue a mission and was also cheaper and could operate off a shorter runway. The SeaHerc would have been even better. I would certainly hope a brand new P8 would not lose an engine this early in a program. As mentioned my figures are from Janes not Wiki. However if you want to call them a conspiracy website go ahead. I actually prefer their yearbooks. Another P3 option was the ability to demount the sonobuoy racks and carry 50 armed marines instead. So similarly as a worst case scenario the P8 could be easily converted back to carry passengers/and or freight something that it is more suited for. I hope you are looking forward to the so far non operational drones that in theory will allow the P8 to do the same jobs as a P3 but I wouldn't hold my breath as far as a NZ purchase goes.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 12:58:36 GMT 12
Yes that is the $1000 question. Unfortunately as has been pointed out it is now too late to worry about. The US Navy wanted and tried twice to get updated P3's but lost out because Boeing had more votes in Congress than Lockheed Martin. I would have preferred 4 engines considering prolonged over water flying. During that Tongan mission one P3 lost an engine on the first sortie but finished it before flying to Fiji for repair. No repair was actually possible so the crew made a second sortie completely on 3 engines. Would a P8 continue under the same circumstances with a single engine under EROPS? Again flexibility lost.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 10, 2019 10:01:40 GMT 12
The figure came from a book I read however according to Janes the stalling speed at MLW is 125mph or about 108 knts. If you are not carrying (returning with) a payload of depth bombs etc (19000 lbs) which is included,this should reduce a fair bit but fuel load at the time (which I do not know) would also need to be adjusted. I assume there is a safety margin in the Janes figure. I do not have the performance curves for the aircraft so that's as close as I can get anyway. Does someone know what the figure for the B737-800B (P8) is? Incidentally I also spotted the original range for the original P3B was 5750 NM, however this has been reduced after rebuilds to 4300 NM. The P8 is apparently starting at less than this and is likely to suffer similar reductions during it's service life. Yet another reduction in capability and flexibility for the RNZAF?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 8, 2019 23:12:47 GMT 12
Yacht race to Tonga, 1996 I believe Flaps down 70 Knot plus winds 20 Metre plus waves Altitude 200 feet Poor visibility which is why low flying was required In one case the P3 had to stay in visual contact with a yacht with no radio and in which the life raft had been ripped and blown away That was just one of about half a dozen yachts which sank and which were located and had over watch by P3s and a C130. Rescues were effected for all but one boat which sank without trace although an empty raft was found Without the RNZAF there would have been none. Their assistance was acknowledged by a US Senator as several boats were from the US However if you are confident the P8 could do this if required?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 8, 2019 20:58:34 GMT 12
I always thought the RNZAF was a military organisation that was flexible? The P3K could operate from Kaitaia and about 30 OTHER AIRPORTS in NZ as needed at MTOW even in the wet. Currently the P8 can operate under those conditions from 2, Auckland and Christchurch Airports neither of which is a designated base. If Ohakea is extended by 400M like Edinburgh and Townsville in Australia then that would be fine or if NZ coughs up for some tankers but how likely is that? For the record the P8 will be fuel/payload limited at Dunedin as well, also Invercargill, Wellington, Woodbourne (a bit tight anyway) Palmerston North, Tauranga and Hamilton. As for the others which the P3 could get in and out of in a breeze, forget them. Seems to me flexibility will be a heavily reduced asset for the RNZAF in future. As long as the P8's are not expected to drop torpedoes or depth charges in the real shooting war things will be fine!
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jan 5, 2019 15:48:42 GMT 12
Another myth was that the P-8A was an inferior search and rescue platform because it “couldn’t go low and slow”. Again, this is incorrect. While the P-8A may look like the commercial 737 from which it is derived, the wings have been strengthened to compensate for the increased buffeting at low level and the skin in 80% thicker than a normal 737 to allow for operation in the more corrosive maritime environment. It also has a flexible wing making for a smoother ride and less crew fatigue as a result.
I guess we will have to wait to see the P8 flying at 100 knots at 200 feet which is what the P3 has done in the past. Keep that nose down and cross your legs as stalling is NOT an option.
The roadshows provided the opportunity to dispel some of the myths around the P-8A. For example, one myth is that the P-8A can’t provide the same coverage as the P-3K2 due to it being a heavier aircraft, which therefore can’t land in all the places that the P-3K2 can. This isn’t actually the case and the team have mapped the patrol coverages of both aircraft and shown that they are effectively the same even though there are two airfields where the P-8A is too heavy to land at.
So when can we can expect a fully loaded P8 to operate out of Kaitaia?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jul 13, 2018 12:01:59 GMT 12
The MRTT will also need an extension at Ohakea anyway. The KC130 requires 2800 M according to Janes.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jul 12, 2018 17:18:07 GMT 12
With the requirement for the P 8s to operate off OH operationally the assumption is the WP runway either doesn't have adequate pavement spec or the runway length short. So my query is whether the B757 has similar performance restrictions off WP ? As a guide only since official P8 data not available Standard day dry runway performance B757-200 with RB211 7500 feet at MTOW B737-900ER at 85.0 T CFM56 9500 feet at MTOW. This is not a P8 but has same engines and is closest in weight Add 200-300 feet for wet/hot WP is 2031 M or 6660 feet so still is weight limited for the 757 but not as badly as the smaller aircraft Ohakea should also be weight limited for the P8 or the Aussies are wasting money extending RAAF Edinburgh and Townsville to about 2840 M or 9320 feet. Darwin their other proposed base is OK at 3350 M
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jul 9, 2018 20:52:06 GMT 12
The Aussies are extending RAAF Edinburgh from 2560 M (longer than Ohakea) to 2830 M. Do they know something Ron doesn't? It gets a lot hotter in Aus so their runway requirements are always more than temperate NZ Not 400 M worth. Check the Boeing website for the closest equivalent the 737-900ER which has a similar MTOW.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jul 7, 2018 21:04:50 GMT 12
The Aussies are extending RAAF Edinburgh from 2560 M (longer than Ohakea) to 2830 M. Do they know something Ron doesn't?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Jun 9, 2018 19:08:33 GMT 12
I wonder if the trials had anything to do with Singapore Airlines withdrawing the 777 in the near future? The 200ER can easily operate to Australia with a full load of passengers even off a wet runway but the figures put out by Astral and those currently on Airbus Airport Characteristics website show the A350 heavily penalised on both a wet and dry runway for landing and on a wet runway for takeoff. This is despite the A350 being a similar size and weight to the 777200ER. The new runway should have been completed in 2/3 years and can cope with current requirements but has now been delayed by court proceedings. Perhaps SIAL want to see if the A350 could operate in the meantime but needed the authority from Airbus to do so assuming the grooved runway proved sufficient?
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 15, 2018 18:32:50 GMT 12
Why would we be going anywhere in a hurry that you would need a LAV? Payload restrictions on flights to the Antarctic could also be an issue with the C130. With an Airbus or Kawasaki you could even chase penguins in your LAV! However as I said it will come down to dollars so whatever is cheapest will win.
|
|