|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 15, 2015 20:54:50 GMT 12
The TA-600 is reportedly the largest amphibious aircraft currently being built.[3] CAIGA, which has started work on the prototype TA-600, has announced that the aircraft will have a maximum takeoff weight of 53.5 t (53,500 kg; 118,000 lb) and a maximum range of over 5,000 km (3,100 mi).[3] The aircraft will have a wingspan of 40 metres (130 ft) and will be powered by four turboprop engines.[4] the first flight was initially forecast for 2015[5] but was postponed until 2016. The forward fuselage was completed in 2015.[6]
AVIC states that the aircraft will be suitable for aerial firefighting dropping 12 tonnes of water, and search and rescue operations for 50 passengers.[6] Sources also note that that the aircraft could also have strategic value in the South China Sea, which has been subject to various territorial disputes.[4][5]
The manufacturer has indicated that they expect export sales of the aircraft and that island countries, including New Zealand and Malaysia have expressed interest.[7]
|
|
|
|
Post by TS on Aug 15, 2015 22:27:41 GMT 12
Believe it when you see it...... Just like the C17. ( Tui add......... )
|
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Aug 15, 2015 22:54:37 GMT 12
I was interested to read on some UK forums that Kawasaki brought one of their P1's out to RIAT this year to demo to an interested party... rumoured to be the RAF. Without doubt they have made a poor decision in quitting the Nimrod MR4... an island nation such as the UK should not be without an ASW platform & I'm sure the P-7 Poseidon is also getting some serious consideration. Until now I knew little about the P1 - IMPO it's a beaut looking jet, kinda like a mating session with a P-3 & an A340 has gone on   |
|
|
|
Post by harrysone on Aug 15, 2015 23:41:18 GMT 12
looks like a mini DC-8!
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Aug 16, 2015 11:27:56 GMT 12
The Kawasaki is a surprisingly large aircraft,i wonder how the costs stack up against the P8?. As for getting Chinese flying boats, why not!. We could sell Whenuapai to feed the Auckland housing bubble(or just swap houses for planes!) and base the planes in the Waitemata, finally a useful purpose for the waterfront. sent from my tongueincheek...  |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 17, 2015 16:08:23 GMT 12
IMHO the only serious choices are the P-8. Or yet another upgrade of the P-3 (if that is actually possible). I'd stay away from the P-1 , it's an orphan and I can't see the UK buying it for that reason. (it does look nice though)
But realistically the P-8 is the only logical choice.....
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 17, 2015 17:53:47 GMT 12
Yes I would say range is a big thing when they look at contenders, plus off the shelf etc so P8 would be the one for long range work.
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on Aug 17, 2015 22:28:58 GMT 12
Flying Boats, a major head ache as far as maintenance is concerned, salt water and aeroplanes don't go together, and the bigger the aeroplane the worse it gets, a Beaver float plane you can hose down each day, how long will it take to hose down a TA-600. Some say it would be handy to be able to land at sea during a patrol, how often would that happen? isc
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 17, 2015 23:14:52 GMT 12
An amphibian could surely quite easily be washed down in the Orion bird bath at Whenuapai. But I agree a flying boat is still maintenance heavy, and guess what, that'd mean more people - that is just not going to ever happen.
The Orions will probably carry on for 30 plus years and then be replaced by drones.
|
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Aug 18, 2015 19:45:26 GMT 12
I've just started to read this book called "Nimrod's Genesis" RAF Maritime Patrol Projects and Weapons since 1945 by Chris Gibson. A very interesting book so far and it has a chapter about Flying boats which I haven't got to yet so it will be interesting to see what RAF conclusions between Land base A/C and Flying boats were.
Anyway my pick for the P3 replacement is a New built P3 but I can't see that happen too soon as Lockheed have got themselves all tired up in knots with that piece of junk JSF. So 2nd choice is the P1 with a few c295's and UAV's thrown in.
I managed to have get a look in on a P8 during ExTS15 and my worry that is design for medium level ops not stuffing around at low level eg 250ft off the deck and its price tag. while is was talk to the scope dopes (ASOPs) the yanks have been very impressed or should I say surprised in what the Kiwis have done to the P3s.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2015 21:25:26 GMT 12
The yanks have got something they say that does away with the MAD that detects subs from medium height, or from what I read somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on Aug 18, 2015 21:33:51 GMT 12
The Kiwis were surprising the Yanks (and every one else)since the days of the Sunderlands, and just got better with the P3. You can have all the electronics, but the most important search instrument is still the Mk 1 eye ball. isc
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2015 21:54:17 GMT 12
So if we had an A380 with all the people at the windows looking, we would be able to find anything
|
|
|
|
Post by atea on Aug 27, 2015 19:43:56 GMT 12
So if we had an A380 with all the people at the windows looking, we would be able to find anything Yea throw in a few sensors and we should be in business. But the cost may possibly be more the the P8 so maybe that will rule it out. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwirob on Aug 28, 2015 7:33:55 GMT 12
Yes I would say range is a big thing when they look at contenders, plus off the shelf etc so P8 would be the one for long range work. The P1 has longer range than the P8, I also think a plane designed from the outset as an MPA has to be a better at being an MPA than a converted passenger jet, which doesn't like flying low and slow, something an MPA has to do. |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Aug 28, 2015 7:42:20 GMT 12
Yes I would say range is a big thing when they look at contenders, plus off the shelf etc so P8 would be the one for long range work. The P1 has longer range than the P8, I also think a plane designed from the outset as an MPA has to be a better at being an MPA than a converted passenger jet, which doesn't like flying low and slow, something an MPA has to do. The P-3 evolved from the passenger carrying Electra and has been a huge success. |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Aug 28, 2015 9:27:58 GMT 12
But a modern jet airliner is optimised for a much narrower set of conditions than a 1960's (50's?) turboprop design. This is why they have done things like redesign weapons for mid-altitude drops.
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on Aug 29, 2015 22:31:24 GMT 12
the early Electras had some fatigue problems, and lost popularity with the fare paying public, but after sorting that out (I think it was vibration caused by engine revs), it has proved to be a long lasting patrol aircraft as the P-3. isc
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Aug 30, 2015 10:42:49 GMT 12
I believe it was strengthening the engine mounting frames that resolved the vibration problem and yes the airframe lived on for many years, albeit in the guise of the P-3 series.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 28, 2016 16:22:18 GMT 12
been over a year since any chat in here. Anyone got any new thoughts after this time on selections etc
|
|
