|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2008 19:19:36 GMT 12
Up untill kestrel, 06 was the only frame that could dump fuel and was also able to carry slightly more of it. The reason for this being........................ no ex or current 5 Sqn members to give correct answer.
comon Dave....
|
|
|
|
Post by tibor on Aug 18, 2008 19:32:35 GMT 12
Up untill kestrel, 06 was the only frame that could dump fuel and was also able to carry slightly more of it. The reason for this being........................ no ex or current 5 Sqn members to give correct answer. comon Dave.... All our frames carry the same max fuel load (62k is about the most you can squeeze in) and this is both pre- and post-Kestrel. Pre-Kestrel, NZ4201-4205 were lightweight frames, while NZ4206 was a heavyweight frame and had strengthened structure, allowing a higher zero fuel weight and allowable payload. It also allowed a slightly higher max ceiling. Post-Kestrel, all frames are heavyweight and have a dump facility. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2008 19:39:18 GMT 12
I was sure 06 was able to carry a few more k
so ar you saying that 01-05 were able before kestrel to be filled up with the same amount of fuel as 06
|
|
|
|
Post by tibor on Aug 18, 2008 19:49:10 GMT 12
I was sure 06 was able to carry a few more k so ar you saying that 01-05 were able before kestrel to be filled up with the same amount of fuel as 06 Yes, the integral tanks on heavyweight and lightweight frames are physically the same size, so the max fuel capacity is the same (usually given as 62500lbs, but it has to be pretty cold to get that much in). The heavyweight frames are structurally stronger, so have a greater ZFW, so can land with more fuel on board. As NZ4206 could fly a little higher than the others, it was able to take advantage of stronger winds aloft giving it slightly more endurance on transits. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2008 19:51:56 GMT 12
so if they were to do another world record attempt before Kestrel, then 06 would have been the bird to do it then, minus 5 ton of rations
|
|
|
|
Post by tibor on Aug 18, 2008 20:00:02 GMT 12
so if they were to do another world record attempt before Kestrel, then 06 would have been the bird to do it then, minus 5 ton of rations Not necessarily - they shut down 2 engines for the world record attempt and started at 7000' and gradually climbed in 1000' intervals as the fuel weight decreased, landing with 4000lbs of gas left. So any frame could be used as it would be more a function of engine/airframe combination performance, rather than max allowable ceiling. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2008 20:07:50 GMT 12
There was an article around somewhere on it in a magazine, pretty sure I read it , quite a few years back.
other things would be air temp, wind, using a denser fuel and in the early morning when it is cooler.
do you think if they got around the table and discussed it again, they could do 24 hours
|
|
|
|
Post by tibor on Aug 18, 2008 20:15:53 GMT 12
other things would be air temp, wind, using a denser fuel and in the early morning when it is cooler. do you think if they got around the table and discussed it again, they could do 24 hours They probably could - Sniff would probably be better placed to answer this though? The original effort was done with full crew and load and I don't think it was planned with regard to following beneficial weather. The biggest factor would be wind speed and direction, not sure that a denser fuel would have any effect. Realistically I don't think we'd ever try it again though and it's certainly not a flight I'd want to be on, unless it ended up somewhere particularly exotic to make it worthwhile... I can imagine the honey-pot would be a little second hand at the end! |
|
|
|
Post by sniff on Aug 18, 2008 20:21:42 GMT 12
The airframe/wing attachment post-Kestrel is so much better and therefore less drag. So anything is possible. The first record had it's shortfalls, so with careful planning - Weather reporting/prediction, navigation, optimised engine use - all of which have improved immensly since 1972, I would say more is possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2008 20:23:12 GMT 12
All our frames carry the same max fuel load (62k is about the most you can squeeze in) and this is both pre- and post-Kestrel. Pre-Kestrel, NZ4201-4205 were lightweight frames, while NZ4206 was a heavyweight frame and had strengthened structure, allowing a higher zero fuel weight and allowable payload. It also allowed a slightly higher max ceiling. Post-Kestrel, all frames are heavyweight and have a dump facility. partly true but not quite all... 01-05 are still lightweight frames even post Kestrel. They can physically fit the same amount of fuel in them but due to 06 having a higher max T/O weight, in practice it can carry more fuel on a sortie. Kestrel did add the fuel dump to the other 5 however. 01-05 also are still limited in cabin differential so can't pressurise to the same extent however there are other things that tend to limit max altitude so it isn't too much of a player in reality. Mike ahhh more fuel on a sortie, thats where I must have got mis led. a weird question here for you both, if there was an inflight emergency at height , how much minutes of emergency oxygen would each person have, and if not enough to get down, would people give up their supply for the front end to get down to terra firmer so to maybe get expert help to save the others. sounds like I am talking about the Kirsk. |
|
|
|
Post by tibor on Aug 18, 2008 20:24:07 GMT 12
artly true but not quite all... 01-05 are still lightweight frames even post Kestrel. They can physically fit the same amount of fuel in them but due to 06 having a higher max T/O weight, in practice it can carry more fuel on a sortie. Kestrel did add the fuel dump to the other 5 however. 01-05 also are still limited in cabin differential so can't pressurise to the same extent however there are other things that tend to limit max altitude so it isn't too much of a player in reality. Mike Oops - thanks for clarifying this Mike! |
|
|
|
Post by sniff on Aug 18, 2008 20:38:35 GMT 12
artly true but not quite all... 01-05 are still lightweight frames even post Kestrel. They can physically fit the same amount of fuel in them but due to 06 having a higher max T/O weight, in practice it can carry more fuel on a sortie. Kestrel did add the fuel dump to the other 5 however. 01-05 also are still limited in cabin differential so can't pressurise to the same extent however there are other things that tend to limit max altitude so it isn't too much of a player in reality. Mike Oops - thanks for clarifying this Mike! Both of you take a D Cat until you get it right! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sniff on Aug 18, 2008 20:48:57 GMT 12
Back to the original question, buying an RAAF P-3B was the last opportunity to get an airframe as close to our five that was available.The P-3C was a quantum change in electronics and airframe, and would not have been a good mix to do the Rigel upgrade. The "electronics" included a completely different sonobuoy/aircraft interface, and the sonobouy delivery system was totally different, being an externally delivered system (outside the pressure bulkheads) as opposed to the B-model which has an internal sonobouy delivery system albeit unpressurised. But that had it's advantages when fighting for frequencies with "Sydney taxis" But that is another story! P-3C Sonobuoy delivery system  |
|
|
|
Post by sniff on Aug 18, 2008 20:58:22 GMT 12
3 RAAF Onion losses: A9-296 155296 P-3B 5406 n/a Crashed during acceptance flight at Moffet Field NAS, USA. Undercarriage collapsed. Replaced by 154605, which became A9-605.  |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2008 21:31:06 GMT 12
who's burning the steaks
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 18, 2008 21:35:53 GMT 12
external sonobuoys, 54 launch tubes  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 18, 2008 22:31:28 GMT 12
Crikey, let's hope we never see any of our Orions like the two photos posted of RAAF ones.  |
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Aug 19, 2008 11:52:15 GMT 12
Nice euphemism there; "the undercarriage collapsed!". As I recall it collapsed only due to a very hard landing from a very great height!
|
|
|
|
Post by tibor on Aug 19, 2008 13:30:39 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by sniff on Aug 19, 2008 19:01:32 GMT 12
While still serving with the RAAF as A9-291, the aircraft had an nasty incident off the west coast of Australia. A flock of pelicans flying line astern struck the radome. The first bird punctured the radome and destroyed the radar. The next two penetrated the forward pressure bulkhead, destroying the instrument panel, covered the flight deck crew in blood, guts and feathers and spraying bits of pelican down as far as the sono package. Photos from the Flt Eng on board at the time:  Yup, quite a story behind that. The pilot (short, bald guy wearing the Mae West) was an RAF exchange pilot. They did well to recover the airframe - note No 1 secured. Meanwhile, in the UK (but slightly before this incident), RAAF exchange officer has a humungous birdstrike on takeoff in a Nimrod at Kinloss. The outcome was not so great! Aircraft was crash-landed ahead after huge power loss. Only casualty was the RAAF pilot; killed on impact with a tree - rest of the crew recovered. |
|
?
