EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6822 times:
I was surprised not long ago to discover the E-2C fleet has been re-engined with the same engines or engines very similar to those used on the C-130J. While the US Navy is anticipating getting the new P-8 from Boeing, are there plans to re-engine foreign Orions with engines like the C-130J uses?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11712 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6829 times:
No, the EP/P-3C/Es will not be reengined. All will be retired within the next 12 years. The RC-135s will take over all EP-3E missions, and the P-8A will replace all P-3Cs, as you already said.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6827 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): No, the EP/P-3C/Es will not be reengined. All will be retired within the next 12 years. The RC-135s will take over all EP-3E missions, and the P-8A will replace all P-3Cs, as you already said.
Your response addresses re-engining of U.S. Navy P-3s but I asked about re-engining of foreign P-3s. Many of the countries flying them won't be able to afford new P-8s, I suspect, so it seems a re-engining would be a good thing for foreign users. Your thoughts?
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6815 times:
All I can say for Canada is that I don't see replacement of our CP-140 (P-3) Aurora fleet anytime soon. There has been lots of defence spending lately, but it's all geared towards Afghanistan, either the mission itself, or support of it (ie. airlift capability). The patrol fleet has racked up a lot of hours prowling our coasts, but the most likely solution will be to supplement them with those damn UAV's. If we're lucky they'll spread the flight hours on the entire fleet, rather than retiring a whole bunch of airplanes to save money- but I wouldn't count on it. Fleet replacement is at least 10-20 years away, & is a lower priority than a Hornet replacement.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 789 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6795 times:
Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 3): The patrol fleet has racked up a lot of hours prowling our coasts, but the most likely solution will be to supplement them with those damn UAV's.
Might suck for someone who wants a seat in a CP-140, but augmenting the CP-140 fleet with cheaper UAVs is almost genius. It would almost be worth using the CP-140s as C&C platforms to manage a swarm of UAVs.
4 UAVs are tatically more valuable than 1 maritime patrol aircraft.
I am sure the re-engining has already been offered to forign countries, and I am sure in time the offer will be taken up.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6781 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter): While the US Navy is anticipating getting the new P-8 from Boeing, are there plans to re-engine foreign Orions with engines like the C-130J uses?
I think that was one of the changes that Lockheed offered to the Navy but lost the bid to the P-8.
Which is a shame, I for one feel that turboprops are much better suited to low level work then jet engines.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6767 times:
Seems like all Lockheed was offering was a re-hashed version of the original product.....I like the P-8 but you can't beat a turboprop for those long patrols.
Ozair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 663 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6739 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter): While the US Navy is anticipating getting the new P-8 from Boeing, are there plans to re-engine foreign Orions with engines like the C-130J uses?
Australia will have a need to replace their existing EP-3C by approx 2015-18. These aircraft are actually our most deployed air assets and continue to give sterling service in the Middle East and elsewhere. We use the C-130J and also expect to procure the C-27J in the near future as well so we would share excellent engine commonality within the fleet.
Saying that I cannot see a re-engine program being cost productive. As strong as the Orion airframe is there is a day when it will just not be worth the money (a similar situation to our current F-111 fleet). Even though we haven't joined the P-8 Industry and development team I see this as the option, albeit in limited numbers in conjunction with the Global Hawk. We have the Wedgetail and the 737BBJ for the PM, both of which will be around for many years to come, adding another 737 platform would be the logical choice and allow us to continue maritime patrol and surveillance.
Ftrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 358 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6677 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter): I was surprised not long ago to discover the E-2C fleet has been re-engined with the same engines or engines very similar to those used on the C-130J
The E-2's were NOT re-engined recently. They simply had new propellers with 8 blades installed with a couple other little mods.
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 6598 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 5): Which is a shame, I for one feel that turboprops are much better suited to low level work then jet engines.
Definitely. For ASW work, conducted mostly at low level, a turboprop should have longer loiter time than a jet for a given amount of fuel. Our previous ASW airplane, the Argus, was a modified Britannia- with the turboprops replaced by radials for even lower fuel consumption.
Of course the role for the P-8 is probably more generalized, a "multi-role" patrol plane if you will (ie. ASW/ASuW/surveillance).
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6574 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 9): Any idea what kinds of performance gains resulted?
The Squadron (VAW-117) in my old Air Wing (CVW-9) had these new props on their birds.
As an outsider looking in I can tell you one thing for sure--
IT'S NOWHERE NEAR AS NOISEY ANYMORE!!!
Those birds have a great new 'sound' now. Funny story I heard from the maintainers-
The props are so quite that the pilots and aircrew can now hear many other noises in the bird that they've never been able to hear before, and don't know weather to be worried about said noises or not!!!
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6568 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 11): As an outsider looking in I can tell you
Yeah, I suspected that specific performance figures were classified. I appreciate the info, though.
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 11): The props are so quite that the pilots and aircrew can now hear many other noises in the bird that they've never been able to hear before
Reminds me of the Honda Civic I used to drive. The muffler fell off completely one day, and I drove it for a few months without replacing it. When I finally did replace it, I discovered about three noises that were indicative of new problems....
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6565 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 5): I think that was one of the changes that Lockheed offered to the Navy but lost the bid to the P-8.
Which is a shame, I for one feel that turboprops are much better suited to low level work then jet engines.
I have to agree, especially in light of the fact that I just can't picture the 737 as a maritime patrol airplane. Granted the Brits have done great with the Nimrod; it hasn't failed 'em and they seem quite pleased with it, but it's a drastic revamp of the Comet, to the extent that it's largely a brand new airplane. I suspect the RAF will keep Nimrod for a long time.
Remember too that Boeing at one time offered a Patrol version of the 757, and that lost out ... but then so did the Lockheed P-7, which was a vastly improved Orion.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6564 times:
Quoting Ftrguy (Reply 8): The E-2's were NOT re-engined recently. They simply had new propellers with 8 blades installed with a couple other little mods
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6554 times:
Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 10): For ASW work, conducted mostly at low level, a turboprop should have longer loiter time than a jet for a given amount of fuel. Our previous ASW airplane, the Argus, was a modified Britannia- with the turboprops replaced by radials for even lower fuel consumption
Absolutely, which is why you still see so many DC-6's still flying low level freight up here.
To bad Canada no longer produces her own warbirds.
Seriously the last large airplane developed for the RCAF was what? the Yukon?
FIght-The CF-105.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6517 times:
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 11): The Squadron (VAW-117) in my old Air Wing (CVW-9) had these new props on their birds.
As an outsider looking in I can tell you one thing for sure--
IT'S NOWHERE NEAR AS NOISEY ANYMORE!!!
Those birds have a great new 'sound' now. Funny story I heard from the maintainers-
The props are so quite that the pilots and aircrew can now hear many other noises in the bird that they've never been able to hear before, and don't know weather to be worried about said noises or not!!!
Those new eight bladed props do reduce a good amout of noise. On or ship, the E-2 Squadron we carry has the new props on there planes, and the C-2 we carry has the old four bladed prop. Our C-2s are much louder than our E-2s, but I like the sound of the old four blades props.
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 6504 times:
The Orion 21 competitor to the P-8 was to be equipped with PW-150 engines with 7,150 SHP.
The Orion 21, as did the P-3, offered superior acceleration to the 737/P-8 and superior loiter time/fuel economy.
The Orion 21 would have been FAST as well, after all even the old P-3 with the 4,509 SHP T-56's set a speed record of 501 mph in level flight over a closed course a long while back, and had an "advertised" top speed of 473 mph.
I'll bet the Orion 21 would have been able to do at least 530 mph, just as fast as the 737/P-8.
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6399 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 15): Seriously the last large airplane developed for the RCAF was what? the Yukon?
That's the last one, also developed from the Brittania.
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 11): IT'S NOWHERE NEAR AS NOISEY ANYMORE!!!
The interesting thing is that I read an article on the C-130J a couple of years ago (Air International I think) wherein they said the cabin noise levels were even worse than the E/H models. Hard to believe there's a way to make the Herc interior louder!
Daveflys0509 From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 87 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6275 times:
The E2s have the T56-A-427 engine, with the new props they actually did change engines from the 425 to the 427. The reason being with the new props, they will burn up the -425 engines. The C2 however will have a modified -425 engine with the 8 bladed props if that ever happens. When Grumman sold the E2/C2 package to the Navy, the nacelles were supposed to be common to support the same engine, however, the Navy found out that the C2 nacelle is actually smaller than the E2 and the -427 engine will not fit properly, so now the guys over at PAX are trying to find a solution to fix the problem.
But yes, the turboprop engines are much more efficient in a max endurance mission, (E-2/P-3), where the turbofan is much more efficient in max range missions.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 663 posts, 
Funny story I heard from the maintainers-
From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 87 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
