|
|
Post by conman on May 1, 2017 15:59:19 GMT 12
May have to go with Dave's Ski Ramp or maybe a Steam catapult assist which would be quite exciting
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 1, 2017 17:00:51 GMT 12
Everyone is going on regards the length of runway it requires to SAFELY take off at FULL WEIGHT.
My thoughts are now what about the landing distance at minimal weight and a very crew trying to get a retired P3K2 into whats left of defence force property at Wigram as a museum item.
|
|
Dinga
Warrant Officer
Posts: 34
|
Post by Dinga on May 1, 2017 17:39:45 GMT 12
Well that's me shot down in flames thankyou Mr Errol C.Sounds like we have a real crisis on our hands according to you.I would lay odds five squadron could keep those P3s flying if they had to which is their job.So what if I said something that's already been covered,no harm in refreshing peoples memorys mate.It would seem there is no suitable replacement for an orion except another Orion.If the p8 is not up to search and rescue then its a waste of space. When I was in the RNZAF, SAR was not a core role for the defence force, it was an extra. The defence force is (AFAIK) is there to defend the natiosn interest, in worst case scenarios this may mean killing people, hence why the P-8 is a good choice... It's sad that most people seem to think that's all the MPA fleet is for is SAR Well I certainly never thought the bulk of 5 sqn work was sar.The P8 is not yet a proven aircraft for this type of operation . I do not believe the MOD will purchase specific type for fisheries/sar operations.How does it preform under 1000ft at lower speed and higher power setting to patrol for a few hours which it will be required to do.Would it not burn a lot more fuel in this configuration than the P3.I realise we need a capable aircraft to defend our shores but we also need to protect our waters from foreign fishing vessels fishing illegally and others ie drug runners and illegal imigrants. |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on May 1, 2017 17:46:20 GMT 12
Everyone is going on regards the length of runway it requires to SAFELY take off at FULL WEIGHT. My thoughts are now what about the landing distance at minimal weight and a very crew trying to get a retired P3K2 into whats left of defence force property at Wigram as a museum item. It won't happen for a P-3 (landing at what is left of Wigram) but it would be possible (just) for a fully striped out C-130. But whether the powers that be would approve a landing is a different matter. More likely both types will land at Harewood, be dismantled and trucked to Wigram. That is assuming we are allowed to keep one of each for our Museum and they don't try and flog them all off! |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 1, 2017 18:02:03 GMT 12
Would have to be outside exhibitions unless another new bigger building is built.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 1, 2017 19:49:03 GMT 12
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74 
|
Post by jeffref on May 1, 2017 19:54:18 GMT 12
Everyone is going on regards the length of runway it requires to SAFELY take off at FULL WEIGHT. My thoughts are now what about the landing distance at minimal weight and a very crew trying to get a retired P3K2 into whats left of defence force property at Wigram as a museum item. It won't happen for a P-3 (landing at what is left of Wigram) but it would be possible (just) for a fully striped out C-130. But whether the powers that be would approve a landing is a different matter. More likely both types will land at Harewood, be dismantled and trucked to Wigram. That is assuming we are allowed to keep one of each for our Museum and they don't try and flog them all off! Landing distance for both C130 and P3C from 50 feet both about 830 M according to my trusty Janes 1988 edition. Older (lighter) P3's used about 600 M from 50 feet. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 1, 2017 21:49:41 GMT 12
Hopefully not. The 03 approach lights are on the extended centreline and extend all the way back to the small road to the south west. I wonder if the NZDF owns the land, or just has rights over it? |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 1, 2017 22:16:33 GMT 12
The lights used to extend past the small road (Mamari Rd). When the old lights on wooden poles were replaced in the early 80's, they didn't like my dad's suggestion that he be compensated for the trouble of a concrete pad with fibreglass pole on his property. So they built the pad (complete with bolts for the pole) on the road reserve. Then they looked up, and decided that placing electrical equipment quite that close to the power lines wasn't a smart idea.
So the last lights were over the road from us. I had to mow around that pad for years!
I don't know what the arrangement was with the farm over the road (I had permission to wander over it on the way to school). The market garden wasn't there then, neither was the big house to the north.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 1, 2017 23:48:22 GMT 12
Looking at the Auckland GIS data, it appears that NZDF owns the plinth areas and has a cabling easement, but the remainder is privately owned.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 2, 2017 11:26:10 GMT 12
I thought the reason that Whenuapai was never extended any further was because it was built on a Kauri swamp and it would cost too much to excavate and fill? When it was being regularly used by large (for the day) airliners it used to take a pounding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 2, 2017 14:08:43 GMT 12
It won't happen for a P-3 (landing at what is left of Wigram) but it would be possible (just) for a fully striped out C-130. They can make four landing attempts before they have to resort to the road option with the fifth aircraft remaining I guess.  That is assuming we are allowed to keep one of each for our Museum and they don't try and flog them all off! I was told when I was at the museum in October that they have been informed the museum will get a C-130. No mention of an Orion, but frankly there's not much use for them once we retire them unless another operator wants to part them out for spares, and even then such old, tired airframes will not be that desirable I wouldn't think. |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on May 2, 2017 18:30:31 GMT 12
Everyone is going on regards the length of runway it requires to SAFELY take off at FULL WEIGHT. My thoughts are now what about the landing distance at minimal weight and a very crew trying to get a retired P3K2 into whats left of defence force property at Wigram as a museum item. At the Canadian Aviation & Space Museum at former RCAF Rockliffe they have a DC-9 airliner. The tour explains how it was flown to M-C international airport on the other side of Ottawa, was stripped of all seating and non essential equipment, given just enough fuel for a single pass into Rockliffe and return to Macdonald-Carier airport if the landing was unsuccessful and two pilots. The road and cycleway at the end of the runway was closed as the landing was made. While we were there the first RCAF C-130 was also flown into the museum on retirement. |
|
|
|
Post by isc on May 3, 2017 0:18:50 GMT 12
When I was at Woodbourne in 2014 they were wondering how the heck do we get a non airworthy B-727 to Wigram, I suppose it's still there. isc
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 10:07:04 GMT 12
There was one there minus tail and all sorts of other bits on Easter Monday, not sure if the second one's there too.
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on May 3, 2017 10:26:03 GMT 12
No, Zac, the other one was sold as a "flyer". The tail was removed from Woodbourne's one to allow it to fit in the hangar. I guess one way would be via coastal shipping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 3, 2017 15:08:55 GMT 12
When I was in the RNZAF, SAR was not a core role for the defence force, it was an extra. The defence force is (AFAIK) is there to defend the natiosn interest, in worst case scenarios this may mean killing people, hence why the P-8 is a good choice... It's sad that most people seem to think that's all the MPA fleet is for is SAR Well I certainly never thought the bulk of 5 sqn work was sar.The P8 is not yet a proven aircraft for this type of operation . I do not believe the MOD will purchase specific type for fisheries/sar operations.How does it preform under 1000ft at lower speed and higher power setting to patrol for a few hours which it will be required to do.Would it not burn a lot more fuel in this configuration than the P3.I realise we need a capable aircraft to defend our shores but we also need to protect our waters from foreign fishing vessels fishing illegally and others ie drug runners and illegal imigrants. You don't think this hasn't been thought off by the USN, Boeing, and all the another airforces which are trading in P-3's for P-8s? You also seem to be assuming the P-8 will operate like a P-3, that seems to the issue everyone has P-8 but I think it shows a lack of understanding on how the P-8 will be used. Nearly all the literature I've read says it will operate at higher levels and use it's excellent sensors to detect targets . They are even developing torpedos that cancan be dropped from medium altitudes. But if all you want the MPA force to do stop foreign fishing vessels fishing illegally and others i.e. drug runners and illegal immigrants then you're right you don't need a P-8. Thankfully, it seems the Government wants to try and maintain a credible MPA that can deal with first world threats (i.e submarines and foreign warships) not to mention have ISAR capability for overland operations, hence they are buying the best tool for the job, and as a bonus it can also do those secondary roles like SAR, fishery's protection etc. |
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on May 3, 2017 16:31:06 GMT 12
There is a small problem in that neither Whenuapai nor Ohakea can operate the P8 at MTOW. You would need to extend Whenuapai by 800 metres and Ohakea by 400 metres to do this. Put simply you would need to leave fuel and/or payload behind if you operate off these runways. In the case of Whenuapai you would also need to strengthen the runway and taxiways. The Australians are spending 350 million plus doing this for their new base at Edinburgh (Adelaide) which has a runway longer than Ohakea (2560 M) to start with.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiredley on May 3, 2017 17:05:55 GMT 12
My thoughts are that the 2 bases should get runways extended anyway as part of general improvements. For instance Ohakea is the base closest to the Army assets so if we are doing major deployments of the Army it would be an advantage if the runway and taxiways were sufficient for max weight operations of a C17 or similar weight class aircraft.Same for Whenuapai, as I have been told even at present there are some restrictions on the B757.
I kind of liked the P1 option but realise the P8 is more sense in regard to ownership. I think if we go the P8 option and looking at how much detail there is in Boeings FMS request it looks like perhaps its the front runner, we should be also have a second tier aircraft such as the C295MPA for inshore SAR and Fisheries tasks. If we were also operating the C295 in the transport role it would ease the burden of operating 2 types. It would probably make sense to operate the 2nd tier aircraft off the same Sqn as the transport version. Bring back 1 Sqn for this role.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldgunny on May 3, 2017 18:54:44 GMT 12
If the deal with the Singaporeans goes ahead to base F15s at Ohakea, then a runway upgrade and lengthening will be included in the Millions the Singaporeans will spend on infrastructure.
|
|
