New MPA?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I started this thread. with a couple of photos of a flying model wot i built, as a light hearted , tongue in cheek spoof. I come back from my hols to to find it hijacked by the serious brigade. Surely there are enough "bring back the Nimrod or something" threads running already.
Time to close this one I think.
Time to close this one I think.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not going to change . . . . I've logged over five and a half thousand hours on P3s (B and C models), and I've seen the inside of these new P8s, and read quite a lot about their performance, and importantly, I've seen and been in the flight deck.
There is absolutely no way this new P8 is going to come anywhere near the established space and flight comfort of the P3, not even taking into account the very 'squeezy' flight deck for the long, very long missions this airplane will be asked to do.
Long missions of course, only if they don't try and fly it at any sort of low/lowish altitude, the result of which will surely be very much shorter missions, or an appointment with the AAR tanker.
And don't even start me off on the decision to operate these airplanes from remote airfields without a flight engineer.
The best option was always the launch of a modernized version of the P3!
There is absolutely no way this new P8 is going to come anywhere near the established space and flight comfort of the P3, not even taking into account the very 'squeezy' flight deck for the long, very long missions this airplane will be asked to do.
Long missions of course, only if they don't try and fly it at any sort of low/lowish altitude, the result of which will surely be very much shorter missions, or an appointment with the AAR tanker.
And don't even start me off on the decision to operate these airplanes from remote airfields without a flight engineer.
The best option was always the launch of a modernized version of the P3!
Oxenos,
Actually, you started this thread with the title 'New MPA?', so for the likes of bs posting links to the P8, what else would you expect??
Maybe you should have started a thread on 'flying model wot i built, as a light hearted , tongue in cheek spoof', if you wanted to keep your thread away from serious comment.
I started this thread.....
Maybe you should have started a thread on 'flying model wot i built, as a light hearted , tongue in cheek spoof', if you wanted to keep your thread away from serious comment.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not going to change . . . . I've logged over five and a half thousand hours on P3s (B and C models), and I've seen the inside of these new P8s, and read quite a lot about their performance, and importantly, I've seen and been in the flight deck.
There is absolutely no way this new P8 is going to come anywhere near the established space and flight comfort of the P3, not even taking into account the very 'squeezy' flight deck for the long, very long missions this airplane will be asked to do.
Long missions of course, only if they don't try and fly it at any sort of low/lowish altitude, the result of which will surely be very much shorter missions, or an appointment with the AAR tanker.
And don't even start me off on the decision to operate these airplanes from remote airfields without a flight engineer.
There is absolutely no way this new P8 is going to come anywhere near the established space and flight comfort of the P3, not even taking into account the very 'squeezy' flight deck for the long, very long missions this airplane will be asked to do.
Long missions of course, only if they don't try and fly it at any sort of low/lowish altitude, the result of which will surely be very much shorter missions, or an appointment with the AAR tanker.
And don't even start me off on the decision to operate these airplanes from remote airfields without a flight engineer.
The flight deck is just somewhere the drivers do their job, all the MPA type work goes on down the back. When the pilots are in their seats, you do not need a huge amount of wasted space all around you. For the mission crew sat at their seats operating, there is no need for a lot of wasted space. I agree that it would be nice to have, but there is a cost saving.
The airframe and engines are so much more reliable than a P3 that there is no problem operating from remote airfields, and a modern airframe is designed to be operated by two pilots. A spare crew member/3rd pilot, can occupy the jump seat for the low level stuff. The aircraft is more than capable of long missions, unless you want to do 8 hours of MAD searching, and having AAR capability is an added bonus.
Just my thoughts
Y_G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
watching the news tonight we are apparently eye-balling the C295. this from a Kiwi review of this second world makeshift...
Sounds ideal...problem solved
It is the lowest priced and lowest possible specification. The aircraft is slow flying at a maximum 250 knots and can take off in 800 metres. For the bulk of short-range domestic missions it would be adequate but for longer range missions it would be too small and too slow.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take an Airbus A350 and fit an unpressurised canoe.
Fit a maximum sensor suite and all the latest comms.
Load it with a wide range of ordinance, especially anti shipping missiles of various sizes/ranges.
Engineer in the maximum number of roles including special forces insertion.
That would give immense strategic force projection. Base one in Akrotiri and it would change the balance of power in the region.
Fit a maximum sensor suite and all the latest comms.
Load it with a wide range of ordinance, especially anti shipping missiles of various sizes/ranges.
Engineer in the maximum number of roles including special forces insertion.
That would give immense strategic force projection. Base one in Akrotiri and it would change the balance of power in the region.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There is absolutely no way this new P8 is going to come anywhere near the established space and flight comfort of the P3
Having just done a couple of 11 hour flights, the onsta at low level, not very comfortable, but I agree - very roomy.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What BS !!! (I don't mean bs, I mean BS, the post) 11 hours and you have to ask!
Only way the P8 will do anywhere near 11 hours is loitering at FL370.
Hey Surplus, I guess it's all relative, try being strapped into a Viking for half that time and see how you come out.
EW73
Only way the P8 will do anywhere near 11 hours is loitering at FL370.
Hey Surplus, I guess it's all relative, try being strapped into a Viking for half that time and see how you come out.
EW73
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hey Surplus, I guess it's all relative, try being strapped into a Viking for half that time and see how you come out.
Never been in a Viking, I'm sure that all of the horror stories are justified though.
Yes, I did mean a P3, I was merely pointing out that a P3 at low level, above a high sea state can hardly be classified as comfortable.
My post made no mention of what the ride or endurance of a P8 is like.
JSF Fan, thanks for clarifying my post.
Last edited by Surplus; 22nd Aug 2013 at 22:18. Reason: To add a reason for editing
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no probs
I can't think of a valid reason why the P-8 can't stay up till the engines need more oil and my guess is it's a lot more than 11 hrs if needed
some seem to be missing that it is new tech that is allowing the p-8 to work high and the area this controls
I can't think of a valid reason why the P-8 can't stay up till the engines need more oil and my guess is it's a lot more than 11 hrs if needed
some seem to be missing that it is new tech that is allowing the p-8 to work high and the area this controls
Last edited by JSFfan; 25th Aug 2013 at 00:02.