Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing wins U.S. Navy airplane deal
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/14/news/fortune500/boeing_contract.reut/ ^ | June 14, 2004 | cnn money

Posted on 06/14/2004 2:07:09 PM PDT by avg_freeper

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy on Monday awarded Chicago-based Boeing Co. a multibillion dollar deal to design a replacement for the Navy's fleet of submarine-hunting P-3 aircraft, congressional sources said.

(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: asw; boeing; defensecontractors; lockheed; miltech; mma; navy; orion; p3; subhunters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 next last
To: ExSoldier
So I jump ship in Hong Kong and I make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over there in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking.

So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one -- big hitter, the Lama -- long, into a ten-thousand foot crevice, right at the base of this glacier. And do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga.

So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consiousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

81 posted on 06/15/2004 9:41:28 AM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

Thanks. And I'm sure it will be very "network-centric." ;-)


82 posted on 06/15/2004 12:03:51 PM PDT by unspun (Love ya, W. Try vetoing sometime. | I'm not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Actually, every pilot who took the prototype for a ride when it visited the RAG last year loved it and could only ask, "WHEN?". Us Aircrew are likewise excited about it. Don't get us wrong, we love the old ORION, but she's due for retirement before someone gets hurt. Sorry, but when you climb aboard and all you can smell on the bird is pi$$, vomit, hydro fluid, and kerosene, in that order, it's time to look at a new model.

No. When you climb aboard and all you can smell on the bird is pi$$, vomit, hydro fluid, and kerosene, in that order, it's time to look for a new commanding officer. For several years I flew on the SP-2H, which was then 30 years old, and our aircraft were kept clean.

83 posted on 06/15/2004 12:20:20 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Right
see my #68

Sure I bitched like everybody else when I had to do all that work. But I'll tell you what! When I left the Squadron after 4 years. those aircraft still looked brand spanking new! Inside and out.




84 posted on 06/15/2004 1:37:39 PM PDT by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
What did the P-3 aircrew think of the demo rides?

Everyone rags on the '37's endurance, but they forget that the P-3 is running mid 1960s-80s turboprops vs. a state of the art HB turbo fan. PLUS a max L/D of 18 vs about 10 for a P-3? (semi educated guess). L/D buys a bunch of gas, and a '37 with extended wings might hit a loiter L/D of 20.

Aerodynamic sizing isn't all that different for low and slow as it is for high and fast. Both are high(ish) AOA low q. Basically high AR rules both. TSFC will be goofed up, since it wont be cruising at 80% and at the tropopause...but wtf, throttle back and buy more gas.

What made the Mitsubishi "Zero" such a great weapon was it's engine's ability to lean out to 11 gph and about 220hp for a slow cruise in a very light airplane. Big engine doesn't necessarily mean short endurance/range.
85 posted on 06/15/2004 3:32:20 PM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ChEng
"flys well on two engines (economy) .."

Not really, that just means you have to drag two dead weight engines with you. It only makes sense when you turn an unsuccessful airliner (Lockheed Electra) into a maritime patrol craft.

86 posted on 06/15/2004 3:38:28 PM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
The Aircrewmen loved it. It was far more roomy and comfortable, even at low level, than the ORION, and quieter to boot.

When you're talking about so many hours onboard, comfort and quiet become major factors in mission completion. Loud props, for example, cause fatigue; as does excessive vibrations. At a certain point, it makes doing the job a good bit more difficult than it has to be...remember, we might fly for 6-8 hours just to get to the mission location. Once there, of course, excessive noise will distract and confuse operators.

The aircraft is equipped with five bunks so crews can get sleep if necessary, two heads with actual FLUSH toilets (something we've never had...the most junior guy on board on a P-3 gets the duty of "emptying the bucket" If it spills, that's a horrible day.)

The aft galley has a microwave and a fridge, plus a coffee maker. P-3's have the fridge and coffee maker, but none I've ever seen work anymore. Some of the old ovens do, but that's rare.

Of course, most importantly, we're looking forward to trying out the mission systems. I myself am salivating over the Acoustic suite, and the RADAR will improve by a great stride as well. Plus, the cameras and IR and ESM gear will take all the leaps forward that have been put off while they waited for the ORION to finally retire.

Today, this was much the discussion around the squadrons. Some of the older salts are of course skeptical (especially the FE's...we haven't told them that their jobs are now obsolete on the 37...we're merciful that way. Unfortunately, some have notice dthat there's no FE chair in the cockpit. They've started to ask questions). Most of the younger guys are optimistic that it'll be a vast improvement.

87 posted on 06/15/2004 7:22:21 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Watch Out! You're actually talking SCIENCE and ENGINEERING on a thread where people have preferred to post knee-jerk opinions as fact!

Don't mention things like L/D and thrust-to-weight, or the fact that modern TF engines are every bit as effective and MORE efficient than any T-56 ever made. People don't want to hear that stuff...it blows their worldview.

Seriously, aircraft performance, engine performance, and aerodynamics and structures have taken at least an order of magnitude of leaps since the Electra first rolled out. Frankly, I'm surprised at all the negatives, especially from those who are involved with aviation.

88 posted on 06/15/2004 7:27:42 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

>>> Frankly, I'm surprised at all the negatives, especially from those who are involved with aviation. <<<<<

Maybe it's because our eyes aren't glassed over from all the squiggle lines, flashing lights and can read thought all the Bravo Sierra they were feeding you on there demo of there vaporcraft.

Think your safer.

Now your flying along at 200 ft in weather you'd rrrr..rrr.rather na...na..not be around. You hit one of those nasty microdownbursts. The pilot " slams " those 4 ( or 2) power levers forward. Well because you need power NOW!

The P-3 engines go:
Yes sir! here ya go! Need some more? You in back go Whoo that was a big one!

The MMA 737 TF engines go:
Ah just a sec...(splash).... You in back go Aw... S**T...

The people who fly into Hurricanes. Can chose any aircraft type they want. They use P-3's

That just one thing. There are many others.
And remember Computers just dumb you down!


89 posted on 06/16/2004 12:34:01 AM PDT by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper

So, does this hurt or help Nethercutt?


90 posted on 06/16/2004 12:45:34 AM PDT by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Fatigue, in the different sort is another issue with the P-3. When they were built, Structural Fatigue wasn't as well understood as it is now with modern variants of '37. In fact, I would guess much of what is known about AC structures in fatigue was learned on the 737 (not to mention 747).

These airframes, un like the P-3, were built to be in service for a couple 100K hours. I would guess this will have an effect on mission readyness.Did the demonstrator actually have mission hardware onboard?
91 posted on 06/16/2004 8:11:52 AM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Rockpile

Turbo props do have a lag. I don't have exact number, but it seems a TF run about 6-7 seconds to full throttle, recips props are under 3 seconds, and a turbo prop should fall in between there. However, the question shouldn't be how fast it is to 100% to how fast it can go from slow and level power setting, to a slow and rapid climb. Turbofan airliners tend to have pretty high thrust to weight ratios at low altitude since the engines have to be oversized to operate at high altitude. That is to say, 30% of available thrust on a 737 is probably more than the P-3 could produce in it's glory days.

Should also mention that 737s have big spoilers. Cary spoilers and a bit of extra thrust, then just drop the spoilers when you need to climb. Instant gratification.

BTW, there probably are good reasons the A-10 didn't use turboprops.


92 posted on 06/16/2004 8:22:50 AM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Nope, the hardware's locations and placement was laid out, but the actual gear is still being built. The cockpit had the HUD and commo setup, though, and the Navigator's station was still there, albiet a whole lot more sophisticated.

The reps were more than happy to get input from anyone they could, and talk about the gear we'd be getting. Also, the locations of the stores dispensers were laid out, as were the locations of observer seats, galley, etc.

Only thing they still weren't sure of was the bomb bay. Apparently, they still had some structural things to noodle out before they could build one into a 737 airframe.

They want to make a clean leap of technology with the RADAR, sensors, and Acoustic gear, instead of just tinkering with the old stuff like before. I fully agree with that.

We've learned a lot about military birds in the past half-century. Previously, they were thought to only last a few years before replacement; after all, that's what happened with the B-17's, 29's, and others, right? Problem was, money got tighter and tighter, and we began stretching that life out to decades, to the point where it just couldn't be stretched further. Now, since we know that's the way it is now, I'm sure that we're building them to that standard, vs. the old.

An interesting question...if we had simply replaced the P-3 and other old birds when originally intended, after about a decade or so, and continued to advance at that pace, instead of patching them together for 40 years with spit and bailin' wire and then spending major $$$ for brand-new aircraft, would it have cost MORE or LESS than the way we actually did it?

93 posted on 06/16/2004 8:35:04 AM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
"BTW, there probably are good reasons the A-10 didn't use turboprops."

Or the S-3, for that matter, which used the same engines as the A-10.

It's important to remember that, on a turbo like a P-3, the "instant response" so bandied about comes NOT from the engine being able to spool up fast, but from the fact that the thrust produced is caused by the prop BLADE ANGLE. The engines themselves only have two settings...high and low RPM. The power levers control prop pitch. Changing that pitch changes thrust.

94 posted on 06/16/2004 8:47:37 AM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut; Rockpile; quietolong
Good question on which would cost more. One thing is to look at what the airliners do, they pay attention to cost. They keep these things for about two decades, then sell them to a low budget airline. Airplanes are becoming like capital ships, they can, and probably should last a lifetime.

Rockpile, I just did a quick bit of net research for curiosity.

A Lockheed Electra weighed in at 117K lbs. A 737-800 (close to the MMA) has a GTOW of 172K lbs (http://www.b737.org.uk/history.htm#737-900).

The static thrust of the 737 engines are up to 24K lbs per side, 48K lbs total. A T-56 is somewhere around 4000 shp. Figure about 80% of that gets through the prop and installation..and with 4 of them a p-3 probably puts out about 13,000 thrust hp. Converting hp to thrust is a bit weird, but if you assume 300 mph at sealevel at full tilt (and that is a guess)..a P-3 would need about 16000 thrust.

So, T/W ratios are .33 for the 737 and about .14 for the P-3/Electra. NOW, the important thing here is rate of climb which is proportional to both T/W and L/D..so you can multiply those two to come up with a direct comparison (without actually calculating ft/min ROC)

A P-3 would be lucky to pull an L/D of 15, and a 737 should easily peg 18. So our generic climb parameter ends up being 5.94 for the 737, and 2.06 for the P-3. Basically the 737 only needs .33% thrust to match the P-3 ROC.

From this, it wouldn't be surprising that the 737 would outperform the P-3 in a micro burst situation. It is good question, and needs to be verified

And I could be wrong, however, it seems this purchase may not have been aerospace welfare.

95 posted on 06/16/2004 9:02:48 AM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Crap, I completely forgot about that

Blade changes probably aren't instant either, I'd guess 2 seconds from fine to course.

96 posted on 06/16/2004 9:06:25 AM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog

Got Hay to make today so I don't have time to respond to everything now. And may be burnt tonight.

But here ( from memory and it's been 20 + years ) are the numbers on a P-3 engine

The turbine makes 10,000 hp
6000 are used to turn the compressor on the ground
40 in the gear box
so 4600 hp gets into the prop in flight
And there's 500 lb. of thrust at full power.
JFOI

And the lag time is so short power is there Right Now! Not so with a pure jet. You have a life time of delay. ( same with a turbo charged recip. if you let RPM's fall) And this has made more than one jet buy the farm.


97 posted on 06/16/2004 10:03:42 AM PDT by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: quietolong; Pukin Dog
500lbs thrust? That can't be Sl static? I believe a 0-360 with a fixed pitch prop puts about that out at 140 mph.

5000lbs thrust would be about right.

Pukin dog, would you deploy spoilers and keep the engines spooled up on a 777 if you were to be low and slow? Seems like that would take care of the spool up argument.

Also, isn't flight idle on most HB turbofans about 20% thrust?

98 posted on 06/16/2004 11:35:08 AM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

Does 16K thp sound about right for sl static? That would assume %85 prop eff.


99 posted on 06/16/2004 11:36:43 AM PDT by Dead Dog (Expose the Media to Light, Expose the Media to Market Forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog

Jet type thrust from the tailpipe. Not the thrust from the prop.


100 posted on 06/16/2004 12:06:12 PM PDT by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson