Warbird Information Exchange

" I see you with your 'Boeing gloves' on"

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Never - The only thing a 737 does well is carry passengers, although having worked on both P-3 and 737s, I'd take the 37' as a maintainer.

Those 10 hour 200' patrols are gone forever, or until someone who used to be an FE becomes the CNAF!

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

The 'Boeing gloves' line is used in the factory by anyone who sees another employee standing around with their hands in their pockets-
And if I were a submarine captain I'd really hate to see Poseidon in my periscope because I'd know it was going to be a really short day for me and the crew-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Gotcha...

Providing it had the legs to stay on station and find the sub to begin with!

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

Are you friends with rreiss and iclo? You seem to spend a lot of time dissing something thats still in flight test. Is it because it's replacing a 45 year old, worn out design that can't be re-modded any more? Maybe this is a job better suited for an Airbus A-330 with a boom on it?
And how did the P-8 get into a joke reply about people standing around polishing their own 'equipment'?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

and finding the sub isn't an airframe issue,(and the aircraft is air capable) it's the electronics suites job to find the sewerpipe full of flies, so you could purchase G-5's and if the e stuff was from a substandard supplier would you blame he airframe or Radio Shack? So far it seems to be doing OK in tests.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Agree about the worn out airframes, I worked on them up until 2002. As far as "dissing" something that's still in flight test, its current results speak for themselves, but then again neither a 330 or a 737 has propellers...


You tell me, but I'm willing to loan you some "brasso."


The Navy omitted the requirement for MAD equipment to increase the range, and even at that point it still has 40% the range of the current P-3. As far as the "airframe," is concerned, the P-8 cannot loiter and stay on station as long as the P-3 by configuration, and that's the key in performing ASW with large patrol aircraft, no G-5 or jet-powered airliners can compete. The fact that MAD equipment was removed to compensate for performance shows a major deficiency in the aircraft and renders it incapable of tracking nuclear powered subs which are still operated by Russia and China. The airframe IS as essential to the mission as the avionics, regardless if they come from Radio Shack or Best Buys. The P-8 is a consolation prize to Boeing IMO for the loss of the JSF and the tanker program.

The P-8 WILL be a capable ASW platform (providing its just "sniffing" diesels)but its going to need a fleet of UAVs, sonar equipped subs and MAD & dipping helicopters to perform the job, especially if China starts sending more nuke powered boats out in lieu of Diesels. Life will be easier for the maintainer although CRM will suffer with the removal of the FE.

Cold facts by some of us who actually chased subs...

(places hands in pockets and grins)

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

'air capable' means it can be refueled in flight from a tanker in the middle of the durned fool ayer! so I'm guessing a bit if I said that argument won't hold water. The on station time then would only be limited to how much food and potable water the crew can put on board since the airframe is air capable, and how well everyone in the crew gets along 'no kicking or biting'- and as far as what is or isn't called out as equipment, those decisions are made by folks who live in a different time plateau, If the Navy told Boeing to 'install 348 6 inch plastic pinwheels on each aircraft' guess what Boeing would be obligated to install. jaeverthink maybe they know things we never will? The Chinese don't need to attack us, we'll all be sucked into the WALLY WORLD vortex and diappear in a shower of bad credit reports. If you want the old timey nostalgic Navy patrols, buy yourself a PBY.

The passenger-800 it is derived from easily operates from Seattle to Honolulu several times a day as well as Seattle to Boston, Seattle to Puerta Valarta and Cancun amazingly all non-stop thanks to ALASKA AIR LINES, and hauls about 15 folks less than a 707 did 50 years ago, if you want to haul 195 folks, see the sales department and ask about the -900. Thats one reason Boeing killed off the ungainly sized 757 as well as the MD-80 series, too many competing 4 door gray sedans for the market share.

Meanwhile, take your hands out of your pockets

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

That's the problem - when it's out in the middle of the ocean who and what is going to refuel it - a squadron of tankers off a supporting carrier???? Lockheed had the design for an "air capable" P-3 and the Navy didn't want it because they knew that they couldn't support it and it wasn't necessary. Are you going to position a tanker (hopefully not an Airbus) to a "waiting point" until the aircraft finishes its patrol or needs fuel??? How much waste of resources would that be? You didn't have that problem with the P-3. 10 hours on station, a replacement goes full power to station and then shuts down the two outboard engines. BTW, the Iranians bought the only P-3s that are "air capable."
Up to 12 hours...
Actually in the initial bid package, the contractor will put together the initial suite, the Navy "may" supplement what the contractor recommends. Having removed the MAD equipment basically castrated part of the P-8's effectivness. As far as "they know things we never will?" - having worked for both Lockheed and Boeing and have served in the US Navy, sometimes they don't (having witnessed such) - sometimes military intelligence is an "oxymoron."
Sorry friend, but as long as there are subs, there will always be a need for ASW patrol aircraft. After both world wars ASW had to be re-learned all over again and it was usually after we were shocked into fielding a response (and I'm talking the good ole cold war days)
How much fuel? - and if needed could it do a route at 200' AGL at 180 knots?

Aw shucks.........

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

If you have the time, I just happen to know where there is a boxcar full of ground pepper that needs to have the fly poop removed-interested in the job?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Only if you inspect my work after I'm done - It's aways good to have someone who is an authority on the subject matter look after your work!

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

Just a heads up for the P-3 fan club. There is a nice little two page article in the current Air and Space Mag (Jan 2010) about a VP-69 flight including an intercept with a Surfaced Chinese Sub from back in 1999.

_________________

Aviation Illustration Website
http://shepartstudio.com/illustration/

One of our P-3As in 69 had a flak hit it the tail during the Mayaguez Incident

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!