A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

737 MMA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 27th 04, 03:36 AM
joelpac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 737 MMA

Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the
P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but
from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very fuel
INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or so
and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a
much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?

Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping
maw of the military-industrial copmplex?

  #2  
Old June 27th 04, 04:45 AM
T3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"joelpac" wrote in message
...
Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform

as the
P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot,

but
from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very

fuel
INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000'

or so
and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys

from a
much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?

Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the

gaping
maw of the military-industrial copmplex?

I don't know why you couldn't drop them from 5000ft, I would imagine a
drogue shoot of some kind would slow the impact enough, using the MAD might
prove to be a problem as would dropping a million dollar torp a mile or
maybe just bigger shoot for it also.
As far as cruising they could feather an engine at 5k also, save alot of
fuel. Maybe it is a better deal than what we have now, I don't know. But I
do know that Boeing has fallen on hard times as late, between fuel prices
and Airbuse abuse,
not to mention the F-22 and the tanker deal. Could be a kind of bail-out.
But to know that for sure you'd have to have some knowledge of the Elint
package that would come with it and I haven't seen anything about that. It's
also doubtful we ever will hear about that part of the deal, at least for
quite a while anyway...



T3


  #3  
Old June 27th 04, 10:22 AM
Nemo l'Ancien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

and Airbuse abuse,

=20

Les pauvres petits...D=E8s que la concurrence appar=E2it, ils deviennent =
des=20
pleureurs....
  #4  
Old June 27th 04, 12:20 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The British Nimrod seems to work OK.



On 26 Jun 2004 19:36:06 -0700, joelpac
wrote:

Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the
P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but
from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very fuel
INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or so
and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a
much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?

Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping
maw of the military-industrial copmplex?


  #5  
Old June 27th 04, 02:48 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

joel- Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to
perform as the
P-3s replacement? BRBR

Better kitchen, prettier 'stews', bigger microwave and vault for the perdium
$$.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #6  
Old June 28th 04, 12:49 AM
JD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I suspect it's a political decision together with a improvement in
antisubmarine technology (space detection for instance). For sure
political after the F-22 / KC-135 replacement program imbroglio. Strategic
maybe in the sense of more rapid deployment with reasonable fuel efficiency
(after all, it's a twin vs the P3's four engines), good patrol speed with
slight flap deployment. Load carrying ability should be superb, so arm it
to the friggin teeth and add more fuel, zip to the suspect area at jet
speeds and saturate with sonobouys, etc. Pretty cool bird in my opinion.

JD


  #7  
Old June 28th 04, 09:42 AM
steven Vincent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If the Nimrod is used as a comparison losses in fuel economy at low
speed / loiter are to be balanced by the reduced transit times and
economy of fuel usage in transit.

Of course the Nimrod has 4 engines and does indeed shut 2 down when
loitering in an area.



JD wrote:
I suspect it's a political decision together with a improvement in
antisubmarine technology (space detection for instance). For sure
political after the F-22 / KC-135 replacement program imbroglio. Strategic
maybe in the sense of more rapid deployment with reasonable fuel efficiency
(after all, it's a twin vs the P3's four engines), good patrol speed with
slight flap deployment. Load carrying ability should be superb, so arm it
to the friggin teeth and add more fuel, zip to the suspect area at jet
speeds and saturate with sonobouys, etc. Pretty cool bird in my opinion.

JD



  #9  
Old June 29th 04, 01:49 AM
Mike Kanze
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Plus in-flight movies!

If they're anything like those we had on the ship they'll suck - or they'll
be the same movie for five hops in a row. g

--
Mike Kanze

"[Michael] Moore is Jane Fonda in baggy clothes."

- H. M. Stumpf, 6/23/04 letter to SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE


"Jim McCartan" wrote in message
om...
(Pechs1) wrote in message

...
joel- Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to
perform as the
P-3s replacement? BRBR

Better kitchen, prettier 'stews', bigger microwave and vault for the

perdium
$$.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye

Phlyer

Plus in-flight movies!



  #10  
Old June 29th 04, 04:07 AM
John Alger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 26 Jun 2004 19:36:06 -0700, joelpac
wrote:

Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the
P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but
from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very fuel
INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or so
and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a
much higher altitude and at a much higher speed?

Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping
maw of the military-industrial copmplex?


Most of the sonobouys we jettisoned during my P-3 days (all reserve
time: VP-94) were sent out at altitudes above 10,000' - and a majority
of those above 20K. We spent very little of our time below 10K unless
we were down rigging ships (close fly-bys for ID) or doing some drug
interdiction work. For anyone who never noticed, the weather often
sucks at low altitudes. Higher is definately better, and you can track
'em just fine up high. Got plenty of time in my logbook tracking
Yankees, Victors and at least 1 Echo, not to mention the occasional
LA.

I think the MMA will do just fine. Gets out and back quicker, can stay
on station longer, carries more goodies, better crew comfort (plenty
important on 8-14 hour missions) and has in-flight refueling - all
plusses.

J W Alger USNR(ret) 1310/1325
TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q, P-3B
Independent Representative
Excel Communications, Inc.

Do you have a "Plan B"?
From Robt. Kiyosaki's "Guide to Investing" :
Rich Dad said, "The biggest mistake people make is that they work too hard for their money." He went on to say, "Most people do not get ahead financially because when they need more money, they take a part-time job. If they really want to get ahead, they need to keep their day job and start a part-time business." p240
Now seeking representatives in USA, Canada, the UK - and soon GERMANY!
http://www.globalsuccess2000.com/mach1
http://www.globalsuccess2000.net/mach1
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.