If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message news:KttBb.7541
The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications, including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing carry-through. So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that Thom. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite: combat vulnerability improvements? Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with user. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
JD wrote: I was checking out the new Naval Proceedings (I'm a new subscriber) and saw an advertisement for the 737 as a maritime patrol aircraft complete with hard points and weapons. It looks pretty cool, but I was surprised. Does anyone have it in their present inventory or is it merely a proposal to replace the aging P-3? It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21. The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications, including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing carry-through. So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that Thom. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite: combat vulnerability improvements? Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with user. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications, including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing carry-through. So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that Thom. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite: combat vulnerability improvements? Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with user. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
s.p.i. wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message news:KttBb.7541 It's one of two candiates for the Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft. The other, from Lock-Mart, is yet another P-3 rebuild called Orion-21. The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications, including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing carry-through. One quibble Thomas. The Boeing offering is the 737-700 IGW. http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystems...3/story09.html Old news. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php "Boeing is refining its MMA proposal for a design based on the Boeing 737 airliner, but has upgraded its entry from the 737-700 design--which would have the wings of the 737-800--to a 737-800 aircraft fitted with 737-900 wings." -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Right SPI, thanks. Low level characteristics is a big part for MAD
prosecutions, SAR, SSC, etc..Not to mention response time of the CFM's vs. Props and of course the corrosion concerns. On 11 Dec 2003 01:01:11 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote: "Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net... The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications, including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing carry-through. So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that Thom. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Also what about stores separation from the wings? Of course my favorite: combat vulnerability improvements? Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with user. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
user ) writes:
Where were the CP-140 Aurora's you guys fly made? They were the last P-3 airframes I believe of of Lockheeds production |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Global Security has a good illustration of the 737 MMA at:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...mma-boeing.jpg or if this wraps try: http://tinyurl.com/yveo |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Dave et al,
THe allocation of missions to the MMA is different than the old P-3. MMA is viewed as part of a set of aircraft including the Broad Area Maritime Surveillanvce UAV and an EP-3 replacement. WHat is called persitent ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) is allocated to the BAMS UAV. The MMA concentrates on attack missions (ASW, ASUW) and antisubmarine warfare. Boeing has been trying to sell the 737 in some guise as an ASW platform since the 80's. Much of the P-3 mission was flown relatively low and slow and many thought it could not get down in the weeds like a P-3. That has abated somewhat and now flying a 737 for the Navy as MMA looks like an airline pilot career path. Both BAMS and MMA are likely to be competed and selected this year Bob |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Darrell A. Larose" wrote:
| user ) writes: | Where were the CP-140 Aurora's you guys fly made? | | They were the last P-3 airframes I believe of of Lockheeds production The South Koreans bought P-3's off a production line in Marietta, Georgia in the 1990's. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
s.p.i. wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net... The 737 MMA is based on the 737-800 but has a bunch of modifications, including a -900's wings, heavier gear, and a weapon bay forward of the wing carry-through. So I see that Boeing has old info on their website...Sorry about that Thom. What follows is mostly playing Devil's advocate. I'm of very mixed minds on MMA and don't entirely care for either of the remaining options. In a perfect world, we'd be looking at a four-engine purpose-built MMA. Maybe something liek the Jpanese P-X (this link is strictly speculative; it looks like a P-3 fuselage with swpt wings and jets.) http://www.strange-mecha.com/jsdf/jmsdf/JMSDF02.htm#P-X http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_28.php Its gonna take some engineering to come up with that bomb bay. Well, it does miss the wing structures, so it's not that hard. Fortunately, the weights carried are fairly small, so the 737 MMA doens't have to worry too much about CG shifts. Also what about stores separation from the wings? I'm not sure why this woudl be any harder than for any other plane. Of course you have to do the clearance trials, but don;t see anything inherent;y problematic about the 737 that a good strong ejector won't fix. It's not like the MMA has to worry about weapon release in extreme attitudes like a fighter might. Of course my favorite: combat vulnerability improvements? A concern, of course. But how much survivability does the P-3 itself have? It's stilll fundamentally an airliner airframe (a 1950s one at that). Basic things like fuel tank self-sealing and inerting seem obvious, but is any MPA going to survive well against a determined attack? Sure it will have an altitude and transit/sprint speed advantage, but how will it behave down low? What will ice drag to fuel consumption below FL100? Low level characteristics seems to be a major issue with user. Boeing seems to recognize this. They've been barnstorming one of their unmodified 737s, letting VP squadron-level folks fly with them and really wringing out the airframe. One of the things I believe they are demonstrating is an engine-out climb from low altitude. If it can in fact climb on one engine at operational weights, that's a pretty good sign. While there is no doubt a lot of PR spin in the descriptions of these flights, they certainly give the impression that the plane is agile enough and has sufficient power reserves to function down low if it needs to. Not as good as the P-3, and they admit that, but the tradeoff for speed and max alt is not a simple one. http://www.stockworld.de/msg/576863.html http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...8/daily29.html and one that predates the most recent round of demos (back when Nimrod was still an option). http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...boeing13.shtml -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |