P-8 replacing the P3C

[J_J]

David,

P-8A Poseidon Similar to a Boeing 737

This is the VP patrol aircraft that is replacing the P3C.

It also has in flight refueling.

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspac.../72467/boeing-poseidon-p-8-cutaway-poster.jpg

 

[MossRoad]

Well, all good things must come to an end. I'm kind of surprised they didn't pick something with more than two engines, though.

A pair and a spare is my motto. :laughing:

 

[Scooby074]

Is the P8 an improvement? A quick glance and I have to wonder. You guys with P3 experience can form a better opinion than me. But heres what i see so far.

no MAD. 4 engines are "safer". Less range. Less low and slow performance.

It's definitely "sexier" if that counts.

 

[J_J]

You have to think it can fly higher, faster, stay up longer with in-flight refueling.

New electronics, more comfort, etc.

India is getting some of these planes also as are some other countries.

 

[Scooby074]

no doubt about higher and faster..

But isnt low and slow with good loiter time more important in a sub hunter / marine surveillance aircraft?

 

[Bob999]

no doubt about higher and faster..

But isnt low and slow with good loiter time more important in a sub hunter / marine surveillance aircraft?

Depends on the onboard and offboard detection/kill capabilities for a sub hunter.

For example with a good homing weapon the lack of MAD may be immaterial--sonobouys or other sensors may provide the necessary localization to pursue a successful attack.

As far as "marine surveillance" much of the technology works better at higher altitude.

 

[Bob999]

4 engines are "safer".

Not always--two extremely high reliability engines can be better than 4 high reliability engines.

 

[RoyJackson]

Hate to see the P-3 go, but it is a very old aircraft design (mid-1960's or older, IIRC).
With newer, more sensitve electronics, the "low and slow" aspect isn't as important as it once was.

And, with these days of budget cutbacks, it does make more sense to use a civilian airframe (modified as required) for this type of mission.

As JJ wrote, it's a 737 airframe:
Boeing P-8 Poseidon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, what is this doing in a Power Trac forum?

 

[J_J]

Hate to see the P-3 go, but it is a very old aircraft design (mid-1960's or older, IIRC).
With newer, more sensitve electronics, the "low and slow" aspect isn't as important as it once was.

And, with these days of budget cutbacks, it does make more sense to use a civilian airframe (modified as required) for this type of mission.

As JJ wrote, it's a 737 airframe:
Boeing P-8 Poseidon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, what is this doing in a Power Trac forum?

It had to do with a conversation I had with MossRoad/David a while ago, and I sometimes use the P-3 in my avatar.

I flew in P-2 and P-3 for about 18 years as an AT, and later as an AW. Saw my first P-3 while I was in Cuba during the 1962 Cuban invasion.

 

[BobRip]

David,

P-8A Poseidon Similar to a Boeing 737

This is the VP patrol aircraft that is replacing the P3C.

It also has in flight refueling.

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspac.../72467/boeing-poseidon-p-8-cutaway-poster.jpg

It that a tractor? :laughing:

 

[woodlandfarms]

Boeing 737 1964 to 1967..... Umm. It's older than me.

 

[J_J]

Boeing 737 1964 to 1967..... Umm. It's older than me.

They are not using old 737's, they are using the concept of the 737.

Boeing 737 MAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

P-8 Poseidon – The P-8 Poseidon is a 737-800ERX ("Extended Range") that, on June 14, 2004, was selected to replace the Lockheed P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft.[33] The P-8 is unique in that it has 767-400ER-style raked wingtips, instead of the blended winglets available on 737NG variants.

 

[MossRoad]

Boeing 737 1964 to 1967..... Umm. It's older than me.

The 737 is still in production today.

As for asking if it's a tractor, well, it might as well be the tractor of the skies. Those things are everywhere.

Back in the 80s they came out with new engines... something about high bypass ratio??? anyhow, they hang low to the ground and suck a lot of air(and rocks). As I recall, they had a barber pole painted on the spinner. We were instructed not to go anywhere on the right side of the plane (where the fuel and luggage compartments were) until we could see that barber pole. That meant the engine was off. At idle it could suck you in from 15 feet in front of it AND from 5 feet behind it! There are several stories out there about it sucking luggage off of the baggage carts driven too close while it was idling. :laughing: