Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Engines On The P-3 Orion?  
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9911 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?


Dare to dream; dream big!
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9918 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.

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9916 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?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9904 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.


Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9884 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.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9870 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.
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9856 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.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 877 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9828 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.


User currently offlineFtrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9766 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.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9766 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Ftrguy (Reply 8):
They simply had new propellers with 8 blades installed with a couple other little mods.

Any idea what kinds of performance gains resulted?


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9687 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).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wolodymir Nelowkin




Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineStudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9663 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.  highfive  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!!!

 scared   eyepopping   scratchchin   eek   confused   banghead   wideeyed   laughing 



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9657 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
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....


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9654 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.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9653 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

New propellers on the old engines?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9643 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.
User currently offlineFtrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9622 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 14):
New propellers on the old engines?

Yes


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9612 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 15):
To bad Canada no longer produces her own warbirds

I think we have a few modified Dash-8s in our invintory
 rotfl 


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3719 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9606 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.


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9593 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.


User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9488 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!



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineDaveflys0509 From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 87 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9364 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.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New Engines On The P-3 Orion?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
On How Few Engines Can The Buff Fly? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 21:01:58 by Bsergonomics
New Aircraft For The Army Golden Knights? posted Wed Feb 28 2007 05:28:31 by Scottieprecord
UK To Cancel New Carriers For The Royal Navy? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 21:21:22 by Lumberton
Any Information on the Ethiopian Air Force? posted Sun Dec 24 2006 16:43:26 by HangarRat
I Think I Am Almost Over Missing Out On The F-14. posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:21:56 by 747400sp
Marine General On The V-22: How Do You Figure? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 21:53:03 by AirRyan
Aurora - New Fuel For The Fire posted Wed Jun 14 2006 23:58:28 by RichardPrice
Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22... posted Fri Apr 7 2006 04:49:04 by AirRyan
How Could The US Navy Pass On The Natf posted Sat Mar 11 2006 01:45:16 by 747400sp
First C-5 With New Engines. posted Tue Nov 8 2005 13:21:00 by Galaxy5
Bad Trouble On The ISS, The Loo Is OTS posted Tue May 27 2008 19:19:56 by L-188
Buran On The Move posted Wed Apr 2 2008 11:34:00 by Petertenthije
Any New News On YAL-1A? posted Sat Feb 23 2008 02:46:21 by KC135TopBoom
New Variant Of The F-22? posted Mon Nov 26 2007 10:09:51 by EBJ1248650
Operational Questions On The MV-22 posted Sun Oct 14 2007 13:53:21 by CX747
Questions On The F-14's HUD posted Thu Sep 13 2007 04:35:19 by NoUFO
First Refuelling Ground Test On The A310 Arbs posted Thu Jul 5 2007 13:22:12 by WINGS
Info On The F-15N posted Tue Apr 24 2007 01:10:56 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format