|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 11, 2018 9:45:11 GMT 12
Does it strictly need to be a four number serial? In the past many three number serials were used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 11, 2018 9:47:52 GMT 12
i.e. NZ431 to NZ434
|
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Jul 11, 2018 10:58:08 GMT 12
Hi Dave,
yes needs to be a four figure number, the origin 100-999 serials were pre-WWII and WWII, also Instructional aircraft were allocated 3 figure numbers.
The convention is for all aircraft to carry the four figure number as stated above with the first two defining the type and the last two the individual aircraft
|
|
|
|
Post by planewriting on Jul 11, 2018 11:51:00 GMT 12
Referring TBF2504's comment on serial numbers, I am of two minds. I certainly see the logic of the NZ43xx convention but I am mindful that the Hercules are in the NZ7XXX range as were the subsequent Andovers, 727s and 757s. Given the powers that be made that initial decision, in the 1960s, to branch out into a completely new range, what's there to say the P8s won't be NZ8001 to NZ8004? Food for thought.
Am I correct that the Andover NZ76xx range stemmed from the year (1976?) of acquisition? The point I make is that none of these types' ranges have anything to do with the (transport) role they perform. Sure, the Bristol Freighters were in the "9"s i.e. NZ59xx range but there was nothing to stop the subsequent aircraft having NZ5xxx range serials.
So, NZ8xxx cannot be ruled out yet by us "observers". Watch this space!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 11, 2018 11:55:07 GMT 12
Thanks Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Jul 11, 2018 12:08:37 GMT 12
The sequencing of role numbers that I allocated in the 1980s when myself and Cliff Jenks wrote the policy when in Air Staff was (from 1985)
1000 series primary trainers e.g T6C NZ14XX
2000 series multi crew trainers F27 NZ27XX Kingair 350 NZ23XX
3000 series helicopters NH90 36XX
4000 series maritime P3 NZ42XX
5000 - 6000 series strike A4 NZ62XX
7000 series transport C139 NZ70XX, Andover NZ76XX, B757 NZ75XX (note coincidental that the 727/757 fell into the 7000 range.
The earlier allocations prior to the mid 1980s policy were almost sequential, not allocated specifically to the role until the late 1960s.
|
|
|
|
Post by avenger on Jul 11, 2018 19:46:50 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 ?
|
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jul 11, 2018 20:50:34 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 ? And what about the KC-46?  |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jul 11, 2018 21:24:55 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 ? And what about the KC-46? At least it is smaller than the KC-30A? (188t MTOW vs 233t). B757-200 is 116t, and was partially selected for its relatively good short-field performance. |
|
|
|
Post by raymond on Jul 11, 2018 22:29:06 GMT 12
The P8 also has a special hydrocarbon sniffer that will detect any gas vapours coming from a submarine. The P3 had one of those (Diesel sniffer)I as involved in removing it (around 1977). Apparently when got close to the US it would go off |
|
|
|
Post by raymond on Jul 11, 2018 22:38:52 GMT 12
Wonder which kiwi museums will ask for one of the P3 aircraft when they retire? Interesting to see which Australian museums have acquired a retired RAAF P3 airframe and the different approaches to displaying them. There have benn a few already obtained by museums in OZ. In most cases they have to disassemble the P3 truck it and some are in the process of reassembly. HARS are looking at flying theirs I heard |
|
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 |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 12, 2018 17:51:25 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 Of course, if the Transport replacement option includes tanker functionality, it wouldnt be an issue.... |
|
|
|
Post by kiwirob on Jul 12, 2018 20:31:55 GMT 12
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 Of course, if the Transport replacement option includes tanker functionality, it wouldnt be an issue.... P8’s can only be refuelled with a boom capable aircraft, all the potential transport replacements are hose. |
|
|
|
Post by atea on Jul 12, 2018 20:47:17 GMT 12
Of course, if the Transport replacement option includes tanker functionality, it wouldnt be an issue.... P8’s can only be refuelled with a boom capable aircraft, all the potential transport replacements are hose. The overall Transport Fleet Replacement includes replacement of the 757's doesn't it? There are options on the side of things...…. |
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jul 12, 2018 21:48:41 GMT 12
P8’s can only be refuelled with a boom capable aircraft, all the potential transport replacements are hose. The overall Transport Fleet Replacement includes replacement of the 757's doesn't it? There are options on the side of things...…. Well you never know Airbus may offer the MRTT/A400 combo, but that complicates logistics and more spares inventories across a small fleet.
Sure the allies will welcome this capability its a force multiplier.....But I just don't see the need for NZ to go for either KC-30A or KC-46, sure if you had a fleet that can make use of the capability liked the RAAF. Remember you will most likely only have 2x aircraft in this role is RNZAF going to tie up an asset when P8 deploys on the probability that it may need AAR?
But in NZ context the ability for tactical aircraft to deliver bulk flammable/combustible liquids into either a tactical situation or direct into a replenishment park has more merit KC-130J does it for me or I prefer A400 if they can sort it out, but if the risk of not having it perform as advertised id give it a miss
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jul 13, 2018 16:03:24 GMT 12
I just don't see the need for NZ to go for either KC-30A or KC-46, sure if you had a fleet that can make use of the capability liked the RAAF. Remember you will most likely only have 2x aircraft in this role is RNZAF going to tie up an asset when P8 deploys on the probability that it may need AAR? [/p][/quote] With a reduction in P-8 numbers compared to P-3s, could a tanker not occasionally add to their deployment to keep them out there longer and therefore compensate for any potential drop in surveillance capability? Could this area not evolve in this way? And could this make say 3x KC-46 viable when factoring in their lift capacity? |
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jul 13, 2018 16:45:17 GMT 12
A major factor that rules out KC-46, not proven in service.
As for inflight refueling,that would be a heavy training burden.
|
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jul 13, 2018 18:41:57 GMT 12
A major factor that rules out KC-46, not proven in service. As for inflight refueling,that would be a heavy training burden. Fair enough, but that assumes an Air Force with no growth in capability. Do we assume that? |
|
