Another Ancient Military Plane Grounded

Jay Honeck wrote:
ahhh the day that a P3 shows up at Blakesburg....
They frown on bonanzas... I can't imagine what the impression of a
turboprop would be.

Hey, who would have ever thought that we'd see a B-25 Mitchell bomber
at Blakesburg?

Strange things happen, over time...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
ya got to drop your pumpkins somehow. I can't think of a better way.

Mike

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:55:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

More metal fatigue. Our military might as well be a chapter of the
Antique Aircraft Association in Blakesburg, Iowa...
************************************************* ************************************************** ******
Washington, USA - "Structural fatigue"
(WAPA) - The US Navy decided to ground 39 of its 161 P-3C Orion
reconnaissance planes, because according to data resulting from
examinations they show signs of "Structural fatigue on the lower
section of the wing". The aircraft will now undergo maintenance
interventions, which are expected to take from 18 to 24 months.

The P-3C Orion is a maritime patrol aircraft, produced in its first
model in the late 1950s by the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which
played an important role in the Cold War and are presently employed
among other in reconnaissance operations in the Iraq conflict. These
four-engine turboprops are expected to be gradually replaced by
Boeing's P-8A Poseidons, but the Navy counts to continue using the
P-3s until 2019. Therefore careful and periodical maintenance
activities will be needed.

Another model of aircraft of the US armed forces to have recently
showed signs of fatigue has been the F-15 jet fighter (see AVIONEWS).
(Avionews)
************************************************* ************************************************** ******
How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
airplanes?

Although it's a bit long in the tooth I think the P-3 is very well
suited for it's mission for distance, duration, and wide range of
altitude and speed of operation. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/p3s.htm
Roger (K8RI)

Honeck is once again showing his ignorance when it comes to aircraft.

The P3 is used for maritime patrol which means it spends a lot of time low and maneuvering over water. This is a corrosive environment and also induces airframe stress. The majority of the P3's in service today were delivered in the mid-70's making the average age 30 years. These aircraft are also maintained to the highest standards.

Honeck is once again showing his ignorance when it comes to aircraft.

???

My comments are related to the fact that these planes are old and past
due for replacement.

The P3 is used for maritime patrol which means it spends a lot of time
low and maneuvering over water. This is a corrosive environment and also
induces airframe stress. The majority of the P3's in service today were
delivered in the mid-70's making the average age 30 years. These
aircraft are also maintained to the highest standards

Exactly correct -- thank you for restating my point. I'm glad we
agree.

Or are you saying that grounding the fleet was unnecessary?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

rotor& "wing" wrote in
message ...

Honeck is once again showing his ignorance when it comes to aircraft.

I don't see how that statement follows.

Exactly what is wrong with wanting to see new planes put into service,
possibly even newer and better designs?

Even seeing new P-3's built and commisioned would be an improvement over
continually putting time and money into airframes that have lived a long and
hard life.

I know that will not be happening, (putting old designs back into
production) but a new plane for the mission would be a "good thing" even if
a new design had to be commisioned.

If we do not continue to modernize and upgrade our Air Force, a time will
come where we do not have what we need, and then it might be hard to
impossible to play catch-up.

Think China.

One day, we will be in a military confrontation with them, and then, I hope
that we are not still flying 60 year old, carefully maintained P-3's.

I can guarantee that they will not be flying 60 year old airplanes against
us.
--
Jim in NC

On 2007-12-18, Jay Honeck wrote:
How long can our guys be expected to hold the line with these ancient
airplanes?

Well, our guys still fly the Nimrod, which is a converted Comet. Yes,
the world's first commercial jet airliner is still flying in the form of the
Nimrod (although not the version of the Comet that had a tendency to
'dynamically disassemble' in-flight due to fatigue cracking around
square windows).

We occasionally get visits from Nimrods. With the engines concealed
in the wings, it looks very sleek without too much stuff hanging off it.
A number of them were also significantly refurbished in the 90s (new,
larger wings and new larger engines) essentially to new conditions.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:13:24 -0800 (PST), M wrote:

On Dec 18, 1:14 pm, WolfRat wrote:


A far as "bang for the buck" the B-52 is the best airplane
the Air Force ever purchased

A friend of mine who's an aerospace engineer (used to work for
McDonald Douglas) told me that the older design often has stronger
structure than newer ones. He said in the old days the engineers had
very few tools and models for stress analysis of complex structure,
and they often overdesigned and resulted in planes that're much
stronger than the certification calls for. These days with advanced
computer model, if the certification calls for say max 3.8G and the
design goal is 15% above the certification limit, the engineers can
come up with a structure that'll break very close 4.4G, nothing more
and nothing less. The benefit of this is lighter weight and better
fuel efficiency, but it also means
the structure is not as overbuilt as older planes.

**********************************************
M

Your correct. In earlier days they used a slide rule to design and
built the birds very strong so they wouldn't fail in test phase and
when released to Squadrons.

Now with design computers they build new birds as light as possible to
meet design specs. They then fly bird in test phase and anything that
breaks they beef up. Result is the best performing bird they can
design.

This is just a laymans description but all should understand it
whether they are a Aeronautical Engineer or not )

Big John

Not only that, but the FAA has issued a NPRM requiring a special issue of
medical certificate for pilots of the Lockheed Constellation because ...


* down




*




*




*




*




*




*



*




*




*


not many pilots these days can take three pieces of tail in a row.

"M" wrote in message
...

A friend of mine who's an aerospace engineer (used to work for
McDonald Douglas) told me that the older design often has stronger
structure than newer ones.


Well, he could have worked for Donald Douglas, and he could have worked for
McDonnell Douglas, but I think it unlikely he worked for McDonald Douglas.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
"M" wrote in message
...

A friend of mine who's an aerospace engineer (used to work for
McDonald Douglas) told me that the older design often has stronger
structure than newer ones.


Well, he could have worked for Donald Douglas, and he could have worked for
McDonnell Douglas, but I think it unlikely he worked for McDonald Douglas.

Maybe that's where they make McPlanes?


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
After 30 years, it should be pretty bloody obvious to everyone (but apparently
the memo has missed a few people) that all but the very best C programmers are
nothing but a danger to themselves and others. -- Mark Hughes