Lindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3072 posts, RR: 15 Posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6580 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Hi all,
I noticed the first photo in the a.net db of this aircraft this morning and was stunned to see what almost appears to be a Convair 880 look-alike. I'd never heard of this aircraft until I saw the photo. Does the P-1 appear to have a successful future? Might it win some export orders? Does anyone have more photos?
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 787 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6563 times:
I am not sure if they are allowed to export these aircraft as they were developed at a home grown replacement for the P-3, and the Japanese constitution forbids the sale of military equiptment to foreign countries. This aircraft was also developed in tandem with the C-X, a Kawasaki C-130 replacement.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6548 times:
Designed as a replacement for Japanese P-3 Orion's, (themselves built under license in Japan), this rather unique aircraft is most unusual for a maritime patrol aircraft of recent decades, in that it's not a converted civil or other military airframe.
Japan is also building a twin CF-6 powered military transport, this high winged cargo hauler is to share many components with the XP-1, not that this is immediately obvious externally.
Not the first time that Japan has done something different in the MPA field, in the 50's they had a large force of P-2 Neptunes.
While most other users replaced them with P-3's, Japan built a further uniquely modernized P-2 version, with turboprops replacing the piston engines of the Neptunes.
This version actually remained in production until the late 70's, long after most other regular Neptunes worldwide had been replaced.
Then in the 70's Japan produced a new 4 turboprop large flying boat, in both anti sub and search and rescue versions, long after flying boats in military service had gone from the rest of the world.
The ASW flying boats have left service, but the SAR ones remain and a new, modernized version is in production.
Export prospects for XP-1, and any other military product by Japan, is very seriously limited by it's defensive post WW2 constitution, which prohibits virtually all military exports.
From tanks to jet trainers, it's all not for export sale.
The motivation for this is in part, despite these limitations, is to keep a competent capability for military and aerospace technology, beyond license building mostly US types.
Japan has had very limited success with aerospace exports, in stark contrast to virtually every other industrial field.
But they want to retain the ability, be it by their own space launch vehicles or aircraft.
With the recent launch of the Mitsubishi Regional Jet, the first airliner from japan since the moderate selling YS-11 turboprop of the 1960's, their reasoning here becomes apparent.
They want to stay in the game.
This seemingly eccentric looking XP-1 maritime aircraft is a part of that.
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1275 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6346 times:
A very interesting aircraft.
Unusual to have a four jet engines Patrol aircraft (apart from the Nimrod)
The wing resembles that of an A340 and the engines seem to be those of the Embraer170
It actually looks a bit like a quad E-170.
Which engines are those? CF34?
Can´t wait to see the C-X flying but I´ve read somewhere that it´s behind schedule and with some serious problems to be solved.
It will look like a smaller 2 engined C-17
Fridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1383 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6159 times:
Quoting Steman (Reply 5): Unusual to have a four jet engines Patrol aircraft (apart from the Nimrod)
I wonder if they'll shut down two engines when they reach their patrol area? Don't know if the P-3's did that or not. Can someone who knows please correct me?
Also, what a beautiful looking aircraft!
Thanks
The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6136 times:
I don't know about P-3's, but it is practice for Nimrods to transit at high speed to a patrol area, then shutting down two engines to increase endurance (and offset the higher fuel consumption of a jet compared to a turboprop MPA).
I'd expect the XP-1, once in service, to do the same.
Ozair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 661 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6130 times:
Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 8): I wonder if they'll shut down two engines when they reach their patrol area? Don't know if the P-3's did that or not. Can someone who knows please correct me?
P-3s shut down one engine. Usually one of the outboards.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3766 posts, RR: 20 Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6063 times:
The P-1 doesn't look like a heavy, but these are not small aircraft.
The F-7 engine is rated at 13,500 lb, putting the P-1 in the same weight class as the Nimrod or the P-8 Poseidon or indeed, the Convair 880 (about 85 tonnes - 180,000-200,000 lb).
So an 'RJ' version would actually be a 757-sized airliner!
And the C-X, at 141 tonnes (310,852 lb) MTOW, is in the same class as the A400M!
Well, some systems probably. The P-1 and C-1 are obviously very different aircraft.
All in all, a strange effort by the Japanese I think... why not concentrate on a dedicated airliner first, which you can export, and then derive a patrol aircraft from it?
I read that in Japan, completely unneccessary infrastructural works such as the casting in concrete of riverbeds are often carried out to keep builders and voters happy... I wonder if this project is an example of that.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
BritJap From Japan, joined Aug 2006, 247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5880 times:
Quoting Oroka (Reply 1): the C-X, a Kawasaki C-130 replacement.
Not quite. The C-X is the replacement for the Kawasaki C-1.
Quoting Oroka (Reply 1): the Japanese constitution forbids the sale of military equiptment to foreign countries.
I have mentioned in a previous thread that I made about these two aircraft that this is actually a common misconception. The restriction of arms exports has nothing to do with the constitution of Japan. It is actually the result of a series of policy decisions in the 60's and 70's.
Quoting GDB (Reply 4): Maybe too many engines and too much weight for a RJ, or any other airliner.
Besides, they are building the MRJ.
Not sure really how much I should say about it but, as you state, a quad regional jet would clearly never get anywhere in today's world. I can tell you now that as well as other changes, a KHI regional jet would Not have four engines. Also, it would Not be in direct competition with the MRJ which is produced by MHI. Though whether or not they will actually go ahead with this project is yet to be decided.
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12): All in all, a strange effort by the Japanese I think... why not concentrate on a dedicated airliner first, which you can export, and then derive a patrol aircraft from it?
Quoting GDB (Reply 2): But they want to retain the ability, be it by their own space launch vehicles or aircraft.
With the recent launch of the Mitsubishi Regional Jet, the first airliner from japan since the moderate selling YS-11 turboprop of the 1960's, their reasoning here becomes apparent.
They want to stay in the game.
GDB hit the nail on the head here. During the development of these aircraft, there were even regulations governing who could participate in the project. No engineers above a certain age limit could be involved. This even extended down to the first tier sub-contractors.
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1275 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5549 times:
I just watched the videos.
The XP-1 is so cute
Looks so tiny but actually is as big as a P-3.
The C-X really IS a C-17 with two engines.
The front fuselage, the tail arrangement and, at a lesser extent, the wings are all very similar to the american cargo plane.
Those CF6 engines looks massive.
Great job, Japan. Too bad they won´t be available for export.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5543 times:
JoeinTX From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 17 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5324 times:
The Japanese P-X and C-X designs are interesting.
Japan, facing the end-of-life of the C-1 and looking past the P-3 decided that they would construct a domestic replacment program for both using a loose "large aircraft" development program.
Is the P-X Convair-ish? Yes. Is it a commercially viable platform as designed with four engines? No. As one poster above noted, this was one of Japan's notorious public/private programs to foster domestic production of aircraft without a clear marker on any sales afterwards.. Japan simply decided that it was going to design and build its next series of large military aircraft for domestic consurmption purposes hoping it might later adapt those models for sale. Nothing wrong with it, just the facts.
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1275 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 5155 times:
I think there could be an interesting export potential for both models.
Countries like Germany and Italy have been looking to an Atlantic replacement without success. Germany opted to buy former Dutch P-3.
Italy, as usual, decided against deciding, that´s to say, the old Atlantic are still in service.
The C-X could well get some attention from Countries that want a larger platform than the C-130 but cannot afford the C-17 or don´t trust the ability of Airbus to deliver the A400M in time and in cost.
But these two nice birds will never wear any other insignia than the rising sun.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3072 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 787 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2006, 448 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 661 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4422 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3766 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2006, 247 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
