Wedgetail
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are four things here: The -700, the -800, the Wedgetail and the P-8. The Wedgetail is a highly modified -700 and P-8 is from a structural viewpoint a new airplane. Unless there was a reason (more operator stations?) to use an -800 airframe, the nonrecurring costs of developing a Wedgetail version would obliterate any savings. And using the P-8 airframe for an AEW would be utter lunacy.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve just had another look and my memory was clearly failing me. Apologies, it is indeed a -700 IGW aircraft.
Commonality with P8:
Group A aircraft systems 74%
Mission systems 34%
Ground support and basing requirements 97%
Commonality with P8:
Group A aircraft systems 74%
Mission systems 34%
Ground support and basing requirements 97%
"using the P-8 airframe for an AEW would be utter lunacy."
George K Lee,
Why?
George K Lee,
Why?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Why”(P8 airframe). OK proone, The 737 makes such outstanding economic sense because there’s lots (almost 10,000) of them. SW Airways have 700, Ryanair over 400. We might be ordering six, maybe eight if we’re lucky. And you’re proposing a unique bespoke version that doesn’t yet exist, has to be specified, designed and flight tested. No doubt they’d do it but the cost would be enormous
ShotOne,
I'm not proposing anything.
I merely asked why the P-8 would be lunacy.
There will be hundreds of them in service.
There are thousands of 737's in service.
I'm not proposing anything.
I merely asked why the P-8 would be lunacy.
There will be hundreds of them in service.
There are thousands of 737's in service.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“..hundreds of them in service” Really? We’re on 14 now. Boeing are hardly going to underwriting development costs of a variant to compete with their existing model. That’s a huge cost to be amortised over a handful of airframes. And we wonder why we don’t get much bang for our buck!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bespoke option isn’t there for the E7. Off the shelf or bust. My gut feeling is it being ordered sooner rather than later in order to avoid 2nd and 3rd order effects of losing an airborne C2 capability.
“..hundreds of them in service” Really? We’re on 14 now. Boeing are hardly going to underwriting development costs of a variant to compete with their existing model. That’s a huge cost to be amortised over a handful of airframes. And we wonder why we don’t get much bang for our buck!
Take your point about the fallacy of creating a P-8-based AEW variant - why would you when the E-7 already exists?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, “real”P8's don’t come into it. The suggestion under discussion (#14) was building a special RAF E7 but in a P8 airframe in a laudable but bonkers attempt at commonality
Last edited by ShotOne; 3rd Dec 2017 at 21:57.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shot one,
I’ve already corrected my post. Do stop skim reading.... it makes your subsequent posts irrelevant.
Regardless of variant, there is a lot of similarity between P8 and E7. In a nutshell, the E-3D is f@@ked. The US variant doesn’t fair much better, neither does the F. Time for a change.
I’ve already corrected my post. Do stop skim reading.... it makes your subsequent posts irrelevant.
Regardless of variant, there is a lot of similarity between P8 and E7. In a nutshell, the E-3D is f@@ked. The US variant doesn’t fair much better, neither does the F. Time for a change.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can’t understand the attitude demonstrated above to the -700 vs -800 differences, the civil airlines regard them as the same aircraft, it’s just a longer walk to the rear galley on the -800.
Talk of different wings is true but the differences are of no significance in day to day operations and would only be a ( very small ) issue during heavy maintenance/repair.
Talk of different wings is true but the differences are of no significance in day to day operations and would only be a ( very small ) issue during heavy maintenance/repair.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can’t understand the attitude demonstrated above to the -700 vs -800 differences, the civil airlines regard them as the same aircraft, it’s just a longer walk to the rear galley on the -800.
Talk of different wings is true but the differences are of no significance in day to day operations and would only be a ( very small ) issue during heavy maintenance/repair.
Talk of different wings is true but the differences are of no significance in day to day operations and would only be a ( very small ) issue during heavy maintenance/repair.
I have no engineering knowledge about this, but the dorsal radar appears to have necessitated substantial ventral rear fuselage "strakes", so adopting a longer fuselage of the 800 would presumably at least require re flight testing if not redesign and testing of aerodynamic changes to tail area.
On the other hand possibly longer fuselage will mean less aerodynamic surfaces are needed at rear of aircraft.
Whatever way, a change to 800 fuselage it would seem to need a fair bit of money and time spent on testing.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 4th Dec 2017 at 07:21. Reason: Typo and further thought.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure pursuit, yes you did but others were contesting the issue. And yes, I agree with your conclusion on E3. A glance at this thread “...the enemy of good enough..”does at least provide a window into why we get so little for the huge sums we spend on kit. A dose of “good enough” might be what’s needed!
