[Long Cut]

Hey, Tomcats and Hornets do just fine with only two motors. The Boeing prototype was flown around to all the bases last year, which was one of its selling points...they already had an airplane that could fly, while Lockheed only had drawings.

They were pretty convincing (with figures to prove it) that the loiter time of the 737 was at least comparable to that of an ORION. Plus, the 737 has the capacity for In-Flight Refueling, thus extending the range indefinetely. You have to remember, also, that those two engines are far more reliable than the ORION's four.

BTW, I've had to ride one back with TWO engines in the bag...#'s 4 and 2, and that was in a thunderstorm, so I know how's ye feels, Shipmates.

[ghostrider]

Those were definitely the good old days! Back when I was a kid, I used to watch the C121 Super Constellations (the "3 Tail Jobs") come into Tachikawa from Hickam. I don't think I saw many that didn't have an engine out.

[Dead Dog]

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.