Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar
Back to Squawk list
  • 49

Navy Boeing P-8 Poseidon Makes First Flight

Enviado há
 
The first production version of Boeing's first P-8A Poseidon took off and completed its first successful flight. The plane flew June 21 from Renton Field, where it is assembled, to Boeing Field in Seattle, where mission systems will be installed. It is the first of six low-rate initial production aircraft for the Navy, part of a $1.6 billion contract awarded in January. (defense.aol.com) Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


chris13
Chris Bryant 0
And every P-3 pilot I've talked to at NAS Jacksonville absolutely thinks that the P-8 is the biggest waste of money they've ever seen. The P-3 is an excellent aircraft that just needed a few upgrades to continue being so, and the turboprop's make their loiter time much longer than the P-8's turbofans will. They might be able to get to the target area faster, but they won't be able to stay and prosecute the target.
99NY
99NY 0
True enough, but every airframe has a lifespan.
Kawaiipoint2
Kawaiipoint2 0
Not saying the P-3 is a bad aircraft (its not) But of course the pilots who fly them would think that. They want to keep their jobs and not see such a plane like the P-3 exit service. I think the P-8 is a great project. It is giving Boeing business because they are struggling right now. 125 aircraft is a good source of revenue for them. Like the Orion, such a fantastic bird to see; these combat oriented commercial aircraft will be a fantastic sight and a great addition to the safety and advancement in the US Armed Forces' arsenal.
Darrens
Darren Shields 0
I have to agree with you Chris. While having younger airframe is nice, jets are not the right choice to everything. I don't know what other airframe there is that could handle the mission unless you're going to go for a P-130 anti-sub Herc.
99NY
99NY 0
I think this article is missing some details - this photo shows the P-8 in Jacksonville NAS back in April; http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=99928

Does the author mean the first US Navy operational flight of the P-8 took place?
chalet
chalet 0
I think that a good parameter to judge efficiency would be the number of gallons per sq. mile is burnt by either aircraft. And everybody with a scant knoledge of this sort of thing will tell you that the P-3 wins by a large margin. Ditto for man-hours per sq.mil per hour of operation are required for maintanance. In this case I think that the newer P-8 wins. So this whole thing is wide open for analysis.
alistairm
alistairm 0
How about: DHC-8-300 MSA and DHC-8 MPA-D8. They are used in Canada for maritime air patrol. The USAF uses the E 9A down in Florida to ensure that the overwater missile ranges in the Gulf of Mexico are clear of civilian boat traffic. Or, look at the C 295 by EADS/CASA. Just saying....
chalet
chalet 0
@ alistairm The US Navy would never use aircraft with a performance that is so inferior to the P-3 in speed and hence area covered per hour of loitering in spite that the DHC-8 and C-205 are very realiable aircraft. Come to think of it the P-3 has been around for 50 years sharp and like Johnnie Walker still going strong.
alistairm
alistairm 0
How about a Kawasaki P1 - kind of a P3 with jets.
chalet
chalet 0
Naaa, the Navy would never buy it; the hypothetical PC-130 could be it but then again, they cancelled the Orion and ordered the P-8 instead and that is the end of the story.
alistairm
alistairm 0
They are all suggestions. They can all do the same job as the P3, most not as good in terms of range and loiter time. Well aware that the five sided crap house would never purchase a Japanese aircraft.
STEELJAW
STEELJAW 0
You all have good points. The P-3 is an excellent maritime patrol aircraft that can loiter on station and patrol/attack for a long period of time. I know,I have worked with them in the Gulf of Mexico(Drug Ops) and the Atlantic Ocean(Anti-Sub Ops). The P-3 is truly, Orion the Hunter. However, the airframe is very old and the electronics are due an upgrade. I'm wondering if the P-8 will have the indurance, tenacity and agility as the P-3? I've seen the P-3 patrolling on 2 props under 100ft and she flew like an Albatross. It would be nice if you can use them both in a dynamic duo role. Seen the P-8 out first to acquire the target faster and then near the end of P-8s on station fuel time, handoff prosecution to a P-3 that just arrive on station. It would be nice if some of that money could be use to upgrade a few of the P-3s. Hey, get an AWACS overhead to coordinate every thing an you have Poseidon's shields. Allso, I doubt if the DHC-8 could match the P-3s performace.
Window
Window 0
Less loitering means more time on deck to spend that per diem.
RandiRN
Randi Schwarz 0
I don't know allot about the endurance of a P-3 vs the new P-8. However with aerial refueling the aircraft can stay aloft for extended periods of time. What I have read is everyone discussing the duration of the mission, but no one has mentioned the stores that can be carried. Is the P-8 able to carry more munitions, more varied types of munitions then the P-3? I will agree that turboprops can often be the better alternative then pure jets. However if the airframes are getting to point where they are too costly to keep airworthy, then a replacement had to be found. My thought is that I am very happy that the Navy ordered a Boeing aircraft then some type of Airbus. Please note yes the RN=Registered Nurse, but prior to that BS Aeronautical Engineering Class of '75. I have some feel for what I am expressing. What amazes me is the lack of winglets on the P-8 in the video. Everything I have read states the winglets increase range, cut down on drag and turbulence at the wingtip. Who missed the boat here?
chalet
chalet 0
Randi what about the cost of loitering in terms of fuel (and dollars) per hour-sq. mile or whatever parameters the Navy used. A turboprop is far more efficient than a pure jet when operating at low altitudes and higher temps, so the P3 (without considering that it is by now a tired but proud horse) is more cost-efficient, and now that the budget cuts are looming on the horizon, perhaps the Orion would have been a much better choice but who knew it when they preferred the P-8.

jbermo
jbermo 0
A commercial version of those aft "bomb bay doors" would make a novel and unique way to quickly upload/offload baggage (cartridge style)in the civilian world. Airline luggage service has not changed in 60/70 years since the DC-6 days . . The last area for modern improvement, why load/offload bags one at a time through a skinny little baggage door?

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!