Date: 17 May 98 00:43:10 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Muir) Organization: remove "nospam" to reply References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1998.682@ohare.Chicago.COM>, email@example.com (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: >So what aircraft could take the place of a P-3? The C-130, itself not >a new design, is the only current 4-engine turboprop that comes to >mind. Lockheed had proposed a P-7, but this was canceled in '89, >apparently. >From what I read at the time, the P-7 died due to excessive weight increases. Lockheed apparently underestimated the extent of the structural modifications required to stretch the P-3 airframe (and probably comply with new crash worthiness requirements). As the design progressed and the weight went above the contracted target the program got axed. You see, the military uses weight as a primary judge for program health. If you can stay at your target you are probably managing the program well. If the weight shoots up, ala P-7 & A-12 (Navy), you don't have a clue how to run a program and they pull the contract. We had to pay extremely close attention to weight on RAH-66, Comanche.