MasterBates
Well-Known Member
300'.... Homos.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Carrier/Maritime selection
- Thread starter leaf001
- Start date
I think its just 30's policy w/ students.
OldNavy
Registered User
"he puts the lotion on the skin"
-good movie
He's current playing the police LT (Capt?) on Monk
Think you can forget all about flying at low altitude in the P-8/737 variant. Don't believe the CONOPS for that upgrade aircraft considers that. Never say never I guess, but beileve tha "Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Multi-Mission Aircraft" (e.g., BAMS MMA) pays a too-huge fuel penalty for excursions to low altitude.
Just my two cents,
V/R, Spike
Just my two cents,
V/R, Spike
From my design experience on the P-8A/MMA (prior to OCS), I recall mining mission simulations at 500', but that could just be a design point, rather than an actual mission. Could be less, I suppose.
The wingtip of the aircraft was redesigned (from the 737-800/900 wing) to reduce flutter due to increased icing at the lower altitudes.
The wingtip of the aircraft was redesigned (from the 737-800/900 wing) to reduce flutter due to increased icing at the lower altitudes.
All the folks I know who got freebie rides in the 737 P-8 Propaganda Tour went low.
Until somebody figures out how to lay a buoy field with any degree of accuracy from high altitude (which doesn't cost a bazzillion per buoy), you have to drop down.
Until somebody figures out how to lay a buoy field with any degree of accuracy from high altitude (which doesn't cost a bazzillion per buoy), you have to drop down.
I always fly my 737 on flight simulator at 200', so it must be true.
But you don't understand.......FS X is as 'real as it gets.'
You probably know more than I do here...but let me ask the question...
It's my understanding that the issue isn't aerodynamic so much as efficiency of the turbofans vice turboprops at such low altitude....again...correct me if I'm wrong.
Note: I am not up to speed on the latest and greatest P8 gouge, but...
I disagree. You will see low altitude conops in the P8, there are too many mission sets that require low altitude for VID and precision laying of sonobuoys (as Zab mentioned). The BAMS/Globalhawk or whatever adjunct UAV sensor that the MMA gets to use and coordinate with will only provide the persistant ISR solution. Somone is still going to have to drop low boy and put in a pattern. Whether that P8 will stay at low altitude, or climb back up, will depend on the fuel penalties to get back to altitude versus onstation time lost.
So many factors to go into in any given P3 ASW scenario (are we on indepent ops, attached to the CSG, turnover with another asset, search, track, etc..), but suffice it to say, the strengths of the 737 (higher speed, shorter turnaround) offset any fuel inefficiency when compared to the P3. The only scenario that the 737 wouldn't be able to match a P3 for coverage would be taking off and immediately going onstation (no transit time). Other factors that aren't out there, of course is what the total GW of the new MMA is going to be once the tube weenies get their wish list by appropriations (has that happened?).... Right now the P3 provides the TASWC with the only SSC/ASW/SAR asset that has the legs to get to the tasking location quickly (when there are no other units nearby). The P8 is only going to provide a more robust asset, and also unfortunately put the MPRA community in a bind when the inevitable rush of tasking requests come in as the first P8 squadron makes it to theater.
Oh well, seriously doubt I will every fly it, but I was one of those that saw Boeing's "win the hearts and minds tour" of the touring 737... it was quite impressive, and they did a good job of handling a room full of P3 pilots that through a bunch of hard questions at them (legs being one of them)...
My experience with the design of the aircraft was from a structural integrity standpoint (design of doors, fairings, etc). My aeroelastic counterparts found that icing, due to prolonged low level flight, on the winglet vice the raked wingtip caused adverse flutter characteristics.
As far as engine efficiencies I can't really speak to that. It's been years since my engines course in college (and we only talked about turbojet/turbofans).
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/longshot-a-swooping-haawc-for-torpedos/index.php#more
Side note to the altitude discussion.
Side note to the altitude discussion.