AnglianAV8RLow level ops airframe fatigue ?
Please pardon my intrusion, but I wondered if somebody might enlighten me. I will nail my colours to the mast and state that I prefer the Kawasaki P1, on the basis that "if it looks right...." Turning to the P8, I see that it is a derivative of the venerable 737, a civil airliner intended to cruise in a genteel fashion at altitude. Unlike the old Nimrod that was built to Brunel standards and had a relatively simple wing, the 737 appears to be a very different beast. So, how is the 737 wing structure with its various slats etc likely to cope with being flung about at low level over the wet stuff whilst dispensing sonobuoys ? I fear that this sort of operational flying will take its toll and mid life wing rebuilds/replacement will be the order of the day
Anglican, I belieive the "high-level wing" debate has come around several times. Both the Nimrod and the P-3 were derived from "civil airliners" and are aguably considered the "best" ASW/MPA airframes to date. Every wing (and aircraft) is a design compromise. A "low level" wing is great for slow speed ASW tasks like MAD sweeps, bouy drops, landing, etc. It is not so great for long range transit- so less time on station perhaps.
As for the 737 struture, it is pretty robust and is designed for high cycles, and is flug around the globe in thousands of movements per day. You are correct that it is not an optimum "low-level" wing, but has been deemed good enough. If my landing as a a pax at Chicago Midway last weekend is any indication it is quite capable of firm landings and heavy braking/reverse thrust
