Surveillance Aircraft, JET vs PROP

[Yeah]

Hi,
I'm wondering now about good or bad sites of these two kinds of aircraft.
Generally jet vs prop (turboprop) in maritime surveillance patrol.
any ideas?

[cornish-stormrider]

well you will need to find someone with hexperience of both.

The thunder of 4x spey is better than any other sounds

[Old Hairy]

Unless its four Pratt and Witney Twin Wasps:{

[Royalistflyer]

Shak any day

[Royalistflyer]

The problem is: What kind of Maritime surveillance - fishery or surface naval - or anti-submarine - or customs - people smuggling - or shipping police?

Different horses for different courses.

[Yeah]

Royalistflyer, I know that but I'm wondering generally. In my project I have to choose also planes for fishery monitoring, drug smuggling..etc. and planes for antisubmarine and signit. also sat comunications... so I'm wondering generally..

I got some ideas:

positive for jet:
- faster, so shorter time to fly on place of patrol
- ...

negative for jet:
-long runways needed
- less economy
- ...

etc..

[Shackman]

The thunder of 4x spey is better than any other sounds

Unless its four Pratt and Witney Twin Wasps

But best of all is (alas now was) 4 Griffons.

Seriously though, Royalist is right - factor in range requirements, tasking, weapons, comms, search times etc and each will give you different answers. The Shack was a marvellous aircraft for almost any maritime role - for its time. But space was cramped, noise (particularly sitting alongside the propellors) you learnt to live with but did hearing no good at all and overall crew comfort/working environment - with hindsight - quite poor. The Nimrod gave a massive improvement in almost all aspects, and the P3 gave a similar boost over the Neptune.

Propellor driven ac will be relatively cheap but probably shorter range, jets have better range and can probably carry a lot more kit and weapons but would be expensive overkill for the more mundane tasks.Rotary or even airships could be factored in for some over water tasking, so don't automatically assume it has to be a fixed wing platform.

You pays your money and takes your choice!

[Yeah]

Range.. ok, but in surveillance most important is endurance don't u think so?
max range in my project will be obout 900NM

we think about rotary wing (especially for SAR) and UAV too...

could you explain "shack" ? I supose which acft it is, but I'm nos sure.:)

[Shackman]

:):) Shackleton :):)

[getsometimein]

Positive for jet: Faster

Not always true, bears are faster than Nimrods for one....

[Shack37]

But best of all is (alas now was) 4 Griffons.



If only somebody had thought of adding a couple of "burners" to go with the "turners" it would have been perfect:)

[Future Hunter]

I've had this debate with guys who've flown both - but there's good reasons why props and jets are used, each having strengths and weaknesses.

Jets:
-Allow higher transit altitudes and better fuel consumption/transit time, better endurance at high levels
-Quieter to hydrophones and other equipment subs use
-Modern jets can have better performance so longer runways aren't required - there's developments of a new Boeing airliner into some kind of american equivalnet of the 'Rod

Props:
-Instant power 'bite' if you need to get away from the sea at LL, and can be more easily controlled with prop disk effect, no airbrakes required.
-Endurance at low level is better than a jet
-Relatively efficient compared to the turbojet Spey (part of the reason Newrod is getting turbofans!)


Hope this helps

[Rossian]

.....they did! The MK3 Phase III had vipers mounted below Nos1&4. They needed something to get the bl%^dy thing off the ground. IIRC they had to have Crash1 beside them on the piano keys as the Vipers were started. Jet engines running on 115/145 Avgas!!!

Whilst on MK2s at Bky our Sgt co-pilot asked tower for clearance to start our Vipers. It was a dark and rainy night and it took a couple of ticks for tower to catch on; "But you're a MK2!??!"
"Yes but I need my vindscreen vipers", collapse in giggles as capt cuffs him on the side of the bonedome.


No!. I agree the old ones are NOT always the best ones.

The Ancient Mariner

[denachtenmai]

Rossian.
Ref your last post, Bky and post number 204 spooky or what!
Regards, Den.

[Vage Rot]

Unless you are planning ASW then a turboprop would give you better endurance and flexibility. For ASW, as stated earlier, a jet puts a lot less identifyable noise into the water and is harder for a submarine to counter detect.

[Yeller_Gait]

Given that money is, unfortunately, a prime driver in any procurement process, I would suggest that a turbo-prop is the way ahead. Significantly lower fuel consumption, and having seen the number of support required for jet and prop MPA, prop again wins. When looking at the P3/Nimrod, there is not a lot of difference in top speed and the P3 wins on endurance, and probably range. What sensors you put in the aircraft is another matter altogether.

It is easier to compare similar generation aircraft as in the Nimrod MR2 and P3, however more difficult if you try and compare a P3 against a P8 or Nimord MRA4. You would expect the newer generation aircraft to be much cheaper to operate, and hence better value for money. An educated guess is that the fuel consumption of the P8/737 is comprable to a P3, which is significantly less than the Nimrod MR2. How this compares to a Nimrod MRA4 I cannot say, suffice to say that the MRA4 will burn more fuel.

Y_G

[Yeah]

Thank you for replays. I got some fresh ideas.
How about fluence of props for some sensors? For example, maybe props make some radar cuttlers and jet did not ?



p.s. sorry for my english :ouch:

[Yeller_Gait]

The main effect of props is that it makes the aircraft easily identifiable to a submarine in anti-submarine warfare, however that is not to say that a jet engine aircraft will not be detected.

As far as an MPA being counter-detected by radar, props or jets will not make much difference to its signature.

There are numerous benefits regarding aircraft performance, ie instant power, or the ability to reverse etc, and prop driven aircraft are more suited to smaller, rougher, airfields, as found around the South Pacific, NZ, etc ;)

Y_G

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I think that Yeller hit the nail on the head regarding the on board kit. It doesn't really matter what propels you if your kit isn't good enough to do the job.

The MRA4 will burn more fuel than the MR2; that's because it will carry shedsload more! How much more/less quickly it will burn it, I'm not sure.

Duncs:ok:

[rigpiggy]

stick some pratt 150's on the P3, lower noise, more hp, less fuel burn, more range.

[Neptunus Rex]

I had the singular good fortune to fly the Shack, Neptune, Nimrod and Orion, with at least 1,000 hours on each. I loved them all; great aircraft and crews to go into battle with!
I think that the low altitude noise signature is irrelevant. In modern ASW the MPA will spend the Search/Detect phase at high, fuel-efficient altitudes. The submarine can only detect the MPA noise signature if he is shallow and the MPA is at low level.
So it boils down to jet versus turbo-prop.
My strongly held belief is that any MPA must have four engines. My experience would ask for a new design of airframe, with a flexible wing to ride the bumps; a weapons bay as big as the Nimrod; four new-generation turbo-props, which have 'loadsa' thrust and efficient curved blades, plus in-flight refuelling.
Perhaps a design incorporating the best of the Nimrod, Orion and, yes, not forgetting the Bear Delta. That would give us a full Pint, replenishable too!

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/beerbig.gif

[Charlie Luncher]

Depends what you want to survey and how cashed up you are. Prop aircraft have certain agricultural feel and can take a fair bit of rough, but they also give it back, try picking your nose on the edge of a typhoon you will have your eye out:ooh::8.
Old yella has forgotten his RCS equation and the number of spinning discs will make it easier to be seen on a AI RADAR, this is why we don’t let him use the RADAR any more he just watches now:sad:.
There are some little jets out there that would satisfy your round trip of Taiwan or up and down the Malacca Straits and could be fitted out well:8.
Charlie sends

[GreenKnight121]

Relatively efficient compared to the turbojet Spey (part of the reason Newrod is getting turbofans!)

The Spey IS a turbofan... a "second-generation" "low-bypass" one, true... but it is a turbofan.

Compare the SFC* of the Spey with the Avon & Olympus turbojets, the Conway "first-generation" "low-bypass" turbofan, and the Rolls-Royce Deutschland (RRD) BR710 "high-bypass" turbofan.

*lb fuel/lb thrust/hour
Avon RA29/1 (Comet 4/4B/4C): 10,500 lb.static thrust; .775 max take-off; .95 cruise
Olympus mk101 (Vulcan B.1): 11,000 lb.s.t.; .75 m.t.o.; .80? cruise
Conway RCo.12 (DC-8/B707): 17,500 lb.s.t.; .712 m.t.o.; .90 cruise
Spey mk250 (Nimrod MR1): 11,995 lb.s.t.; .63 m.t.o.; .79 cruise
BR710 (Nimrod MRA4): 14,900 lb.s.t.; .39 m.t.o.; .65 cruise