Re: What could replace the P-3?

Date:         26 Apr 98 03:44:34 
From:         "Carrie" <giz45aw@usa.net>
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Neil Gerace <geracen@wantree.com.au> wrote:
...snipped
> I'm assuming such a plane would need four engines for safety during long
> patrols at sea, not merely because the P-3 has four engines. Is this
> right?
>
> Here's a wild idea: how about a four engined 737-600? Who makes
> turbofans in the 10-12,000lb class needed to replace half of a CFM56?

Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me Neil, provided the efficiency of the
turbofans is good (and I assume it would be).  The 4 engines do provide
added security for a long blue water mission.  Normal procedure is to
transit on 4 and loiter the Number 1 engine onstation for fuel
conservation.  This makes 4 engines more attractive than 2.  The Atlantique
can fly on 1 engine, but I wouldn't enjoy it much.  It is better to lose an
engine than the engine.  An airframe built around turbofans is on my
Christmas list, but I don't expect it with today's defense budgets and the
importance placed on ASW today.  I wouldn't bet on seeing an airframe to
replace the USN's P-3's before I retire in 2007, and the RAAF (and other
clients) are likely to let someone else shoulder the R&D.  My personal
choice would be a mix of the Nimrod airframe and the P-3C Update III
avionics fit.

> newserver shared by:
Giz
giz45aw@usa.net
and
C Lee
needleworks@usa.net