Navigation Today

[PropAddict]

I'm sure the engiens are very reliable, but what's it going to mean when they have to shut one down during a mission and limp home on one?
I'm guessing fuel consumption would be a problem?

Yeah, but we'll mitigate with proper fuel planning for that contingency. Barring that, with IFR capability we can always ask for a tanker. And we're not talking Hornet-level fuel consumption here; a P-8 crew will probably have a few hours before sucking the tanks dry while single engine. But that time, someone should be able to get us gas or we should be overhead an acceptable divert.

But, as Pags alluded to: the engines in P-8 are absurdly reliable compared to the T56's. IIRC, failure rates are on the order of 1:250,000 flight hours or some such. I'm optimistically hoping (but certainly not planning) to log 5,000 hours in my Navy career. That's a lot of careers with no engine failures!

How dare you use logic on this website... Next thing you'll know folks will start stating facts... It's all gonna end with us have to footnote our posts....

I'm told that if you end your post with "Believe it." that is 5000 times better than any footnote.

Believe it.

 

[Pags]

How dare you use logic on this website... Next thing you'll know folks will start stating facts... It's all gonna end with us have to footnote our posts....

If you like I can make six part paragraph posts with repeatable quantitative data for RMA. Effective and suitable postings for all my friends!

 

[MasterBates]

But, as Pags alluded to: the engines in P-8 are absurdly reliable compared to the T56's. IIRC, failure rates are on the order of 1:250,000 flight hours or some such. I'm optimistically hoping (but certainly not planning) to log 5,000 hours in my Navy career. That's a lot of careers with no engine failures!



I'm told that if you end your post with "Believe it." that is 5000 times better than any footnote.

This, vs the T-56 which I had 12 failures, 5 of them at the boat with no divert in 850 hours.

Only four of them were failure to airstart on FCFs.


Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How many times have you been on a 737 and have a motor fail? I don't have any data in front of me, but if modern turbofans were as unreliable as the P-3 motors then there'd be more modern four engine airliners.

I'm not sure it's the fault of the engines, per se, but possibly the environment and manner of operation. I don't think they built P-3 engines with the intent to fail. (By the way, I'm not trying to be contentious, just pondering here...)

 

[scoolbubba]

This, vs the T-56 which I had 12 failures, 5 of them at the boat with no divert in 850 hours.

Only four of them were failure to airstart on FCFs.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

To be fair to the motor, how much of that was prop related?

I'm a fan of the T-56...I've definitely had one keep on trucking even after snacking on some tasty el salvadoran pteradactyls/buzzards, another one eat a whole prop cuff and just keep on going. All the flameouts/3 engine landings I've had have been ultimately prop related. I'm convinced they could do the B&Bs on it with a handful of bolts and screws and it would clean the compressor and turbine blades better than water.

 

[MasterBates]

Save the FCF fail to restart ones (4) all have been engine. Mostly oil leaks.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

 

[scoolbubba]

Save the FCF fail to restart ones (4) all have been engine. Mostly oil leaks.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

Stop looking at oil quantity gauges...you'll never notice it's gone.

 

[MasterBates]

There is no quantity gauge in the E-2. And these were "no pressure left, gearbox starting to seize" sort of things.

 

[Pags]

I'm not sure it's the fault of the engines, per se, but possibly the environment and manner of operation. I don't think they built P-3 engines with the intent to fail. (By the way, I'm not trying to be contentious, just pondering here...)

I'm by no means a P-3 expert, but the T56 is still a 50+ year old motor. While the principles of a turboprop remain the same there have been som huge increases in reliability over the past five decades. The H60's motor is a whole lot more reliable then the motor on the H-46 and H-53.

 

[MasterBates]

Ironically, when I was QAO and did research on it, the newer versions with significant "improvements" over the previous E-2 (and current COD) engine had the most issues.

Talking T-56-427 (current E-2C) vice the -425 (COD).



Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

 

[jollygreen07]

Good luck with those ARs by the way. We have trouble keeping two operational squadrons worth of pilots current ARD and ARN. I shudder to think how few and far-between they will be now that you assholes need tankers.

 

[Brett327]

Ironically, when I was QAO and did research on it, the newer versions with significant "improvements" over the previous E-2 (and current COD) engine had the most issues.

Talking T-56-427 (current E-2C) vice the -425 (COD).



Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

Thanks for the data point. Apples and oranges.

Brett

 

[Pags]

I'm not sure it's the fault of the engines, per se, but possibly the environment and manner of operation. I don't think they built P-3 engines with the intent to fail. (By the way, I'm not trying to be contentious, just pondering here...)

Also, to add on, not a week goes by that I don't get at least one VP Hazrep that mentions a 3 engine landing due to some motor related issue. Some seem to be chips and some seem to prop issues, but to an outside observer it seems that the whole power unit has some reliability issues. Having seen our ADs fight with the T56s I'd also say there are some maintainability issues. This kind of folds in to another P-3 vs P-8 discussion from a few weeks back where we discussed the need for FEs and IFTs. Older motors seem to be built around the "you can tweak and fix everything at the O level" mentality while newer motors are built around the idea of "if it's broken, R/R it with a motor fresh from the can and let the I level guys fix it." In an ideal world this would result in much less troubleshooting for a squadron. Flying out of Bahrain I saw about three or four evergreen guys change a motor on a 747 with a forklift in a day. That jet went from being broke to being up and ready in less than 48hrs.

 

[Brett327]

Also, to add on, not a week goes by that I don't get at least one VP Hazrep that mentions a 3 engine landing due to some motor related issue. Some seem to be chips and some seem to prop issues, but to an outside observer it seems that the whole power unit has some reliability issues. Having seen our ADs fight with the T56s I'd also say there are some maintainability issues. This kind of folds in to another P-3 vs P-8 discussion from a few weeks back where we discussed the need for FEs and IFTs. Older motors seem to be built around the "you can tweak and fix everything at the O level" mentality while newer motors are built around the idea of "if it's broken, R/R it with a motor fresh from the can and let the I level guys fix it." In an ideal world this would result in much less troubleshooting for a squadron. Flying out of Bahrain I saw about three or four evergreen guys change a motor on a 747 with a forklift in a day. That jet went from being broke to being up and ready in less than 48hrs.

That's always the balance at the O level. With the legacy engines like the T-56 or J-52, the line between O and I level is fairly cut and dried and there's enough corporate knowledge to be able to quickly attack any repair in place malfunctions. Once you start pulling engines for more basic malfunctions which could be fixed in place, you start running into other issues like FCFs and wear & tear on engine mounts and hoisting points. Our community changed our FCF policy about 8 years ago to facilitate engine R/R when the J-52 was having problems. An engine R/R used to merit a B profile, but now if you replace the old engine with a known good one (off another aircraft, what have you), then all it requires is a high power turn. Dual engine R/R still requires the FCF, regardless. This has made getting engines to I level much less burdensome to squadron operations and AFAIK, hasn't had any adverse effects on engine performance or reliability.

Brett

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Squawking...", oops "ScreamingEagle", sorry...just can't muster up too much sympathy for you & your 'overworked' VP crews. Hell, you carry 3 pilots, don't you share the piloting? You have hot meals/coffee, lavatory, FE to keep you outta trouble, 4 big fans to keep you cool, generous TAD $$$, nice accomodations on deployment...etc. etc.

Try 6-8 mos. on a big haze grey barge (often extended 2 or more mos. for a delayed relief), 12-14 hr. days for a month/s at a time, no 2/3P or crew to share the inflight tasks, etc...now that's wearing!

And...you see Air refueling as just something to just make your mission drag out longer, we consider it our "ace in the hole" for extending range/endurance, & a potential life/aircraft saver in emergency situations.

You should treasure your flight time, it's going to become harder to come by in the near future!
BzB

I wasn't actually asking for sympathy, and I did treasure the flight hours I accumulated during my career. We could have an extended discussion about conditions on VP deployments and flights vs. what carrier life and flight ops are like, but I'm not sure how productive that would be. As for the haze grey experience, I did a tour on a carrier that had its deployment extended three weeks with a sortie into the IO, then had its deployment extended another six weeks because of a delayed relief. (Full disclosure: I was assigned to what used to be called CIC, so working conditions were better than for many members of the crew.) I will agree accomodations during a VP deployment are usually better than the stateroom I shared on the carrier.

I may not have stated my point about air refueling and the P-8 clearly. There were a number of times I flew operational missions when we had to extend onsta because the relief didn't get off on time; we didn't do that just to make the flight drag out, but to turn over hot contact on a sub during a continuous prosecution. I'm not current on the VP mission, so I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me requirements of the mission as I remember it could dictate the need for air refueling in a plane with, as I understand it, less basic endurance than the P-3. So your point about air refueling being the ace in the hole is well taken.