Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Damian on January 08, 2014, 07:18:35 AM
-
Hi guys,
Was doing a little research into the PX-L and P-X programs when I decided to tinker with the P-3 airframe and mate it to a new wing with winglet, tail plane and turbojet engines. This resulted in a deepening of the fuselage (now can house a bomb bay and sounabuoy launchers). Bear in mind this is a very quick and rought job and I have been up since 05:30 local (now 01:21) :)
I think with a little refinement this could be a pretty cool whiff. Will play around with the configuration changing up engines, wings and fuselage to see what works.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/824/t84s.png)
-
Err, the P-3 currently has both a weapons bay and sonobuoy launchers. The weapons bay is just forward of the wing and aft of the APU installation (if you see a picture of an EP-3E, the "M&M" mounts in the weapons bay) while the sonobuoy launchers are in the aft fuselage. Working on the P-3C--> EP-3E conversion gave me a nice familiarity with the basic aircraft. I could see deepening the fuselage giving you a more spacious weapons bay as well as more fuel tankage, but, really, to make it useful, the upper lobe needs to be widened, it's rather tight, especially on an EP-3E that's crowded with ELINT crew and electronics.
-
Further to what Evan has said, here is an image of a RAAF AP-3C showing very clearly the weapons bay and the sonobuoy chutes:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/AP-3_Orion_with_bomb_bay_doors_open_2010.jpg)
That aside though, I certainly do like your jet P-3. Very tempting.
-
Err, the P-3 currently has both a weapons bay and sonobuoy launchers. The weapons bay is just forward of the wing and aft of the APU installation (if you see a picture of an EP-3E, the "M&M" mounts in the weapons bay) while the sonobuoy launchers are in the aft fuselage. Working on the P-3C--> EP-3E conversion gave me a nice familiarity with the basic aircraft. I could see deepening the fuselage giving you a more spacious weapons bay as well as more fuel tankage, but, really, to make it useful, the upper lobe needs to be widened, it's rather tight, especially on an EP-3E that's crowded with ELINT crew and electronics.
As I said long day, forgot about the forward bay :)
So for the upper lobe would you suggest taking the approach of the Kawasaki P-X in terms of design to give the crew more cabin room?
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/leLG3_hvgUY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Thanks for the input so far :)
-
I wonder...a twin engine P-3?
-
So for the upper lobe would you suggest taking the approach of the Kawasaki P-X in terms of design to give the crew more cabin room?
([url]http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/leLG3_hvgUY/maxresdefault.jpg[/url])
Well I'll be darned, I'd never even heard of that before I saw your pic of it. :-[
You learn something new etc. etc.
-
So for the upper lobe would you suggest taking the approach of the Kawasaki P-X in terms of design to give the crew more cabin room?
([url]http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/leLG3_hvgUY/maxresdefault.jpg[/url])
It could definitely use it, both in the patrol and ELINT versions, especially the latter. The basic P-3 was derived from the Electra which was set up for two-abreast seating on each side of the aisle, and those were coach seats. Only plane I've been in that was tighter than an EP-3E was an E-2.
-
Only plane I've been in that was tighter than an EP-3E was an E-2.
I can tell you've not been inside a Shackleton then........... :)
-
Only plane I've been in that was tighter than an EP-3E was an E-2.
I can tell you've not been inside a Shackleton then........... :)
No, no I haven't. I haven't even seen one anywhere in the USA that I've been. I'd love to, but doubt I'll get to see one.
-
Four A400M engines mounted on top side of wing. That high enough for props to clear ground ?
Be a BIG power increase.
-
Considering that the present engines are already on the top side of the wing, you may need to raise those A400M engines a bit more. It would be rather more modest, but I'd like to see one with the engines and propellers of a C-130J. If you have the extra power, perhaps add back in the 10ft they removed from the Electra in making the Orion.
-
Only plane I've been in that was tighter than an EP-3E was an E-2.
I can tell you've not been inside a Shackleton then........... :)
No, no I haven't. I haven't even seen one anywhere in the USA that I've been. I'd love to, but doubt I'll get to see one.
WL790, which was the world's last airworthy Shackleton, is currently on static display at the Pima Museum in Texas. It used to be with the RAF's 8 Sqdn. at Lossiemouth and I had the pleasure of going aboard 'Mr McHenry' (all 8 Sqdn's Shacks were named after Magic Roundabout characters.... :)) while she was in service there. When the RAF swapped its Shacks some Boeing jet devices two of them were bought by Air Atlantique in Coventry, and WL790 was kept in flying condition for a while, but the CAA here wouldn't play ball and the aircraft was flown to the USA. It was based at Anoka County Airport just north of Minneapolis MN for a while and I managed to get aboard her AGAIN while she was there.
With funds running out she was flown down to the CAF base at Midland TX for a few years and was then moved to Pima.
See this site for information on her last flight. http://www.skippyscage.com/aviation/az/wl790/ (http://www.skippyscage.com/aviation/az/wl790/)
-
Four A400M engines mounted on top side of wing. That high enough for props to clear ground ?
Be a BIG power increase.
The A400M props are a whopping 17'-6" in diameter Bill (about 1 1/2 times bigger than an P-3 prop and almost the same size as the Hughes HK-1)), not only would you need to move them up further, you'd have to space them out on the wing more for fuselage clearance and then engine to engine clearance.
-
Ok, I see. Is overkill for engine & prop.
C-130J combo closer to doable !
-
Yes, just a tad ---- ;)
I think a lot of people get the impression the A400M is just a European C-130, when really it's in a different class altogether
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa263/kitnut617/CC-150%20and%20CC-177/A400M_C-130_C-17002.jpg) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/CC-150%20and%20CC-177/A400M_C-130_C-17002.jpg.html)
-
Robert: The A400M is in the middle? What is the El-humungo plane on the bottom?
(http://blog.avionslegendaires.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/comparaison-a400m-c-130j-30-infographie.jpg)
-
Further to what Evan has said, here is an image of a RAAF AP-3C showing very clearly the weapons bay and the sonobuoy chutes:
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/AP-3_Orion_with_bomb_bay_doors_open_2010.jpg[/url])
That aside though, I certainly do like your jet P-3. Very tempting.
Grief that's a small weapons bay!
Weaver
Used to Nimrods ;)
-
Grief that's a small weapons bay!
Weaver
Used to Nimrods ;)
Didn't the Nimrod have the largest weapons bay of ANY RAF aircraft ever?
Hmmmm, Nimrod B1 (Special) anyone? ;)
-
Robert: The A400M is in the middle? What is the El-humungo plane on the bottom?
Front end of a C-17, or in our case CC-177. Same scale.
I'm going to build my C-130J as a Canadian one (CC-130-30), got the fuselage plugs for it already.
-
The Hasegawa P-3 Orion kit does not have the bomb bay feature so you have to add it in and these two detail and conversion sets from Eduard will allow you to do just that:
P-3 Orion bomb bay conversion kit instructions for Hasagawa kit (72nd scale 72467) (http://www.eduard.com/store/Eduard/P-3-bomb-bay-1-72.html?cur=2&listtype=search&searchparam=72467)
P-3 Orion detail set for Hasegawa kit instructions (72nd scale 73282) (http://www.eduard.com/store/Eduard/P-3-S-A-1-72.html?cur=2&listtype=search&searchparam=73282)
-
Interesting to note that the P-3 has blade aerials actually on the bomb bay doors...
Grief that's a small weapons bay!
Weaver
Used to Nimrods ;)
Didn't the Nimrod have the largest weapons bay of ANY RAF aircraft ever?
Hmmmm, Nimrod B1 (Special) anyone? ;)
I think it was the longest: not sure about total volume though, since all the V-bombers' bays were much deeper.
There was some talk of the MRA.4 have a "Nimrod B.4" capability, since it had a MIL.STD-1760 databus and four high-rated 3-point pylons that could carry virtually anything. Most of the artwork had Harpoons on the wing pylons so we used to envisage it with 4 x SLAM-ERs on the wings, 4 x JDAMs in the bomb bay, 4 x ALARMs on the outboard side of the pylons and 4 x AMRAAMs on the inboard sides for self-defence (the radar would have had a pretty decent air-to-air capability). >:D
-
I'd like to see one with the engines and propellers of a C-130J.
That's basically the Orion 2000. I understand that after the 'issues' experienced with the C-130J that Lockheed Martin were very cautious regarding doing a 'simple' re-engining on the P-3.
-
Grief that's a small weapons bay!
Big enough to do the job though... ;)
Besides, there are also pylons:
(http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_P-3_Harpoons_Torpedo_Sidewinder_lg.jpg)
(http://www.lynellen.com/p3orion/pics/weapons/rockeyes.jpg)
(http://www.tpub.com/aviord321/12309_files/image834.jpg)
-
Interesting to note that the P-3 has blade aerials actually on the bomb bay doors...
IIRC, they were added as part of either AIR5140 or AIR5276
-
I think a lot of people get the impression the A400M is just a European C-130, when really it's in a different class altogether
Slightly off topic, but this gives you a good comparison between the C-130J, A400M and C-17. As you can see the A-400M fits nicely between the two:
(http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/6831/a400g.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9iDnMPq49xc/UgLBx9g2rBI/AAAAAAAAC-g/GzG_ruylh30/s1600/c173m.jpg)
-
Are there any pictures of RAAF P-3s carrying that much iron around?
-
I have seen at least one photo - can't find it though. Probably saw it during RAAF days.
-
I have often thought of doing a RAAF AEW P-3 based on this:
(http://imagery.vnfawing.com/archive/Aircraft/P-3/p0054258.jpg)
…which was originally a RAAF P-3 anyway. ;)
-
Some by SC:
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/P3Orion_PT2_RAAF08.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/P3Orion_PT1_RAF08.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/P3Orion_PT2_RAF08.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/P3Orion_PT1_USN08.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/P3Orion_PT2_USN08.jpg)
-
The Kiwis have to have the coolest (in every sense of the word) operating location for their Orions:
(http://www.airforce.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/8cae1801-2fd0-44b4-a24c-0af142f91e75/0/p3konice06.jpg)
-
The Kiwis have to have the coolest (in every sense of the word) operating location for their Orions:
([url]http://www.airforce.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/8cae1801-2fd0-44b4-a24c-0af142f91e75/0/p3konice06.jpg[/url])
Is that Mt Erogenous in the background? :o
-
Errr…I think you might mean Mt Erebus ;D
-
Errr…I think you might mean Mt Erebus ;D
Just checking if you are paying attention. >:D
-
oh, don't worry…any mention of Erogenous zones will get my attention ;D
-
At the model show put on by IPMS Pearson Modeleers in Vancouver, WA several years ago, we got talking about the Orion. I shared something a high school friend of mine had done in Orions to flush subs. This man literally jumped up and sternly ordered me to stop talking and never say that again startling the buhjeezus out of us. It turns out he was an Orion Captain and I had just spilled something no one is to know about. :-X :icon_crap: :icon_crap: :icon_sueno: :-[
But, conversation switched from 'I wonder', 'I've heard' and 'I suppose' to all kinds of Orion facts. What a machine! It was a great hour.
And now back to regular programming.
-
Oh, the stories I could share re Orions…if only allowed. ;)
-
KP-3B I did ages ago:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/KP3B.jpg)
-
The Orion was a bit of a missed opportunity for the RAAF. We had the B airframes and a need for AEW, tactical tanking, additional fisheries surveillance (now Border Protection) training and additional transport. The Bs could have filled all of those roles from the mid 80s onward and then gone on to be replaced by similarly configured 737s, ah what could have been.
-
A bit of an interesting one here - mention of possible Vietnamese P-3 Orion…
US eases arms embargo on Vietnam amid China's maritime expansion
ATSUSHI TOMIYAMA, Nikkei staff writer
October 4, 2014 5:33 am JST
HANOI -- The U.S. government on Thursday relaxed an arms embargo on Vietnam, which likely lobbied for the move to boost its naval capabilities as territorial disputes with China heat up.
No details have been confirmed on the specific weapons Vietnam will acquire from the U.S., but state-owned media here has suggested the P-3 Orion surveillance planes, among other equipment and devices.
The Chinese navy owns about 10 times as many vessels as its Vietnamese counterpart. For example, China owns almost 70 submarines, while Vietnam counts just two.
In addition, over 95% of Vietnam's weapons are Russian-made and generally inferior to those manufactured in the U.S. and other Western countries. Many outdated models are still in commission as well, and modernizing equipment had become a pressing issue for its military.
Vietnam is also concerned that Russia, its biggest arms provider, is pivoting toward China as relations with the West break down over the Ukraine crisis.
But many note that Vietnam does not yet have the capability to use advanced weapons. It likely plans to first import weaponry related to maritime security and train personnel on highly advanced Western equipment, then branch out to other armaments such as fighter jets and helicopters.
he U.S. has not exported arms to Vietnam in about 40 years. The partial lifting of the embargo could signal further developments in their relations, which have improved steadily since they normalized ties in 1995. The Southeast Asian country is also a potential ally in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a planned economic framework headed by the U.S.
Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang had told former U.S. President Bill Clinton in July that easing the embargo would be an important demonstration of mutual trust and the full normalization of bilateral ties.
Hanoi has also invited U.S. President Barack Obama to visit next year for the 20th anniversary of the bilateral accord, and could be preparing policy measures to attract U.S. investment in the country.
Source (http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/US-eases-arms-embargo-on-Vietnam-amid-China-s-maritime-expansion)
-
KP-3B I did ages ago:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/KP3B.jpg[/url])
Nice! two pods, 1 under each wing? If you were only going with one refueling drogue, I'd mount the pod in the weapons bay with only the drogue out in the airctream.
-
Agreed. This one envisaged a pod under each wing.
-
Agreed. This one envisaged a pod under each wing.
removeable auxiliary tank in the weapons bay for added capacity? You'd add a touch of weight with the plumbing that would stay with the aircraft, but everything else would be removeable.
Thought for a simple P-3 whif upgrade, the same props and engines as the C-130J and C-27J.
For a nasty bit of SEAD, some of the EP-3E's sensors (you might not want the "M&M" antenna mounted in the weapons bay, but the other fairing would work) combined with suitable ARMs.
-
Thought for a simple P-3 whif upgrade, the same props and engines as the C-130j and C-27J.
That's basically what was proposed with the "Orion 2000":
(http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mma-orion21.jpg)
I recall discussing such options with the LM FSR back when I was with 92WG. I still recall him saying that after the 'fun' experienced with the C-130J (e.g. the vicious stall characteristics etc), they were extremely wary of trying such a "simple engine/prop change" with the P-3.
-
Hmm, I can understand that. Oh, BTW, the picture isn't showing.
Still, in the whif-verse it's perfectly plausible. The Lockheed P-7 was supposed to be a stretched and improved P-3 with new engines; only the stretches ended up turning it into an entirely new aircraft and the cost went well above what the USN had signed for, so that program was cancelled. I wonder if the propulsion portion (GE T407 turboprops driving 5-bladed propellers) of that could be applied to a "stock" P-3.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqJjKlUf-ihZeVw0wibAMnAOwl_71myJt0Z0tXufh7GIo-YkgDsw)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFjuwEfQ_NT8IMDRfcflKGvcvDyAgYTDuZEpEqMZMW56O-yT1SZQ)
Note: A bit more googling shows that an improved version of the T407 is the GE38 that will power the CH-53K (roughly a 25% increase over what was intended for the P-7A). I could see a flat-rated version of that engine and a more modern propeller used to upgrade P-3s, particularly variants that need more power than the T56 supplies.
-
The pic from Greg's post:
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/BTS/mma-orion21.jpg)
-
We're sending some CP-140's to Kuwait to spy on ISIL....would be an interesting WHIF in desert cam and maybe armed with something more than optics.
-
A gunship with a turreted 20, 25, or 30mm rotary cannon in the weapons bay would be nice. Along with a brace of Griffon and SDBs
-
Maybe like those done by SC a while back - see Reply # 28 of this thread.
-
Thanks for that now you've reminded me I remember seeing them before. What I was thinking of was a removable gun pak for the weapons bay
Always thought the Orion airframe would have been great used for a variety of roles in addition to its primary MPA. AEW as discussed earlier would have been a no brainer and perfect for the RAAF as would the other specialised versions developed over the years. A tactical tanker transport version would have been interesting, airborne command post. A maritime attack bomber probably carries on from MPA but I wonder if a stand off land attack bomber would be possible too, especially in the 60s.
-
We're sending some CP-140's to Kuwait to spy on ISIL....would be an interesting WHIF in desert cam and maybe armed with something more than optics.
A rack full of Hellfire missiles in the weapons bay would be effective.
-
A tactical tanker transport version would have been interesting,
In 1/72, there's a conversion for an Electra to turn it into a water bomber, one of those under the P-3 would make a pretty good tanker I think
-
We're sending some CP-140's to Kuwait to spy on ISIL....would be an interesting WHIF in desert cam and maybe armed with something more than optics.
A rack full of Hellfire missiles in the weapons bay would be effective.
Except that the weapons bay on a P-3 is actually quite small.
-
A tactical tanker transport version would have been interesting,
In 1/72, there's a conversion for an Electra to turn it into a water bomber, one of those under the P-3 would make a pretty good tanker I think
Like such:
(http://www.air-and-space.com/20060918%20SBA/_BEL2955%20P-3A-45%20N921AU%20Aero%20Union%20Tanker%2021%20left%20side%20take%20off%20m.jpg)
The conversion is available from Lone Star Models:
(http://s1.scalemates.com/products/img/4/4/7/182447-11761.jpg?nr=lsm0157&company=lone%20star%20models&name=lockheed%20p-3c%20orion%20aerostar%20firebomber%20conversion)
-
A tactical tanker transport version would have been interesting,
In 1/72, there's a conversion for an Electra to turn it into a water bomber, one of those under the P-3 would make a pretty good tanker I think
Like such:
([url]http://www.air-and-space.com/20060918%20SBA/_BEL2955%20P-3A-45%20N921AU%20Aero%20Union%20Tanker%2021%20left%20side%20take%20off%20m.jpg[/url])
The conversion is available from Lone Star Models:
([url]http://s1.scalemates.com/products/img/4/4/7/182447-11761.jpg?nr=lsm0157&company=lone%20star%20models&name=lockheed%20p-3c%20orion%20aerostar%20firebomber%20conversion[/url])
Mike recently had a 20% off sale. Maybe he will still honour it.
-
A tactical tanker transport version would have been interesting,
In 1/72, there's a conversion for an Electra to turn it into a water bomber, one of those under the P-3 would make a pretty good tanker I think
Like such:
The conversion is available from Lone Star Models:
I remember that one now :)
There's another by Contrails Models which is for an Electra -- but you have to convert the P-3 first ;D
Like this --
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa263/kitnut617/Airdrie%20Airshow%202013/AirdrieAirshow2013034_zps0d7738a7.jpg) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Airdrie%20Airshow%202013/AirdrieAirshow2013034_zps0d7738a7.jpg.html)
-
We're sending some CP-140's to Kuwait to spy on ISIL....would be an interesting WHIF in desert cam and maybe armed with something more than optics.
A rack full of Hellfire missiles in the weapons bay would be effective.
Except that the weapons bay on a P-3 is actually quite small.
]
Are you talking lack of length or lack of depth? The latter certainly is there (though that does make mounting the "M&M" easier on the EP-3).
-
For an AP-3, modified mounting of TADS/PNVS from the Apache in place of the FLIR turret and suitable guided weapons under the wing and in the weapons bay.
-
I think a Hellfire would put them within the line of weapons release for shoulder fired SAM. Maybe something with longer legs? Or a bomb?
-
For an AP-3, modified mounting of TADS/PNVS from the Apache in place of the FLIR turret and suitable guided weapons under the wing and in the weapons bay.
Minor point but remember that the RAAF already has AP-3Cs - this is the official designation given post their upgrade in the late '90s.
-
I think a Hellfire would put them within the line of weapons release for shoulder fired SAM. Maybe something with longer legs? Or a bomb?
Laser-guided version of a SDB or perhaps an upgraded Hellfire derivative, like Brimstone, perhaps? Laser-guided Mavericks strike me as being rather much overkill. Of course, we could go multi-national and use AS.30Ls but those atill strike as a bit large for the major taskings.
On the other hand, perhaps a Hellfire derivative intended to be launched from altitude? You'd need a larger, longer-burning, motor and possibly a longer lasting internal battery, but I think both are well within our current level of technology.
-
AC-130s (and indeed even some KC-130s) regularly carry underwing Hellfire missile snow so a P-3 fit out isn't out of the question:
(http://f.ptcdn.info/152/014/000/1388993373-harvesthaw-o.jpg)
-
Predator drones carry hellfire and launch from pretty good altitude. I think it would glide (falling with style) after motor burn out. Seems to work for the CIA.
-
Open source info indicated all variants of Hellfire have 8km max range, and Grom is around 5.5km, so CP-140 could be outside the SAM bubble and still engage with AGM.
-
Not inspiring - this was an aircraft I worked with during my time in the RAAF. It is one of the first RAAF Orions removed from service:
(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/20141020raaf8201782_009-ap-3c-orion-a9-663-was-broken-down-into-small-pieces-so-it-could-be-put-through-the-shredder-for-recycling.jpg)
-
That is a sad picture 😥
-
Cringe :icon_sueno:
-
Odd thought, Tyne-powered P-3's in RAF markings as an early Shackleton replacement with possible AEW derivatives.
-
Odd thought, Tyne-powered P-3's in RAF markings as an early Shackleton replacement with possible AEW derivatives.
:)
-
P-3 Floatplane?
-
I like the Tyneorion idea!
P-7 - what would one hypothetically need to build a model?
-
If memory serves me correctly, the P-7 used the P-3 fuselage but went with a new wing and engines. I suspect you could approximate it by combining inverted C-130J nacelles and C-130J propellers with a P-3C kit.
For the Tyne-Orion, you'd need the Tynes from a suitable kit (in 1/72, a couple Breguet Atlantics or Transalls, in 1/144 the engines from a Vickers Vanguard) fitted to a P-3C.
-
P-3 Floatplane?
Hmm, with streamlined struts picking up the main landing gear trunnions and removing most of the need for additional structure? You might could even do it as a major field conversion kit.
-
If memory serves me correctly, the P-7 used the P-3 fuselage but went with a new wing and engines. I suspect you could approximate it by combining inverted C-130J nacelles and C-130J propellers with a P-3C kit.
For the Tyne-Orion, you'd need the Tynes from a suitable kit (in 1/72, a couple Breguet Atlantics or Transalls, in 1/144 the engines from a Vickers Vanguard) fitted to a P-3C.
Plus swept tail surfaces.
-
Here's the description from Wikipedia:
The P-7 was designed as an enlarged version of the original P-3C. The fuselage, of similar cross-section to that of the P-3, was lengthened by 2.40 m (8 ft), and the wingspan by 2.10 m (7 ft). The wing center section was increased in length, which moved the engines farther away from the fuselage to reduce noise levels in the cabin. The tailplane was increased by about 25% in area, but shortened in height compared to that of the P-3. The P-7A was to be powered by four General Electric T407-GE-400 turboprops with 5-blade propellers.
Initial plans included the Update IV electronics equipment of the P-3C. The cockpit was to be fitted with eight CRT displays and a stowable HUD for weapons delivery.[3] Other equipment included search radar, MAD, decoy flare launchers, electro-optical detector, radar warning receivers, IR suppression on the engine exhausts and laser deflection screens on the windows. The primary submarine detection sensor was to be the sonobuoy, of which 112 were carried internally; 38 more could be stowed for in flight reloading. Another 150 could be carried in 10 underwing pods.
The design had an internal bomb bay for a maximum of 3,400 kg of weapons and 12 underwing pylons.
I note with amusement that the stretch mentioned here returns the fuselage to almost the original length of the Electra fuselage the P-3 was derived from.
For the speed range it flies at, I can't see swept tail surfaces being useful, except perhaps aesthetically, and I'd stay with the straight ones, though I might square them off (supposedly the older, "square tail" single-engine Cessnas have better control than the later versions with swept verticals); looking at drawings and models of the P-7A, it appears that Lockheed did enlarge the tail surfaces and square them off.
-
I can't see any "swept tail surfaces" in the drawings I have:
(http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/p-7-4.jpg)
(http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/p-7-1.jpg)
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/p-7-3.jpg)
-
I can't see any "swept tail surfaces" in the drawings I have ...
I think they are trying to describe the rudder hinge line. Compared with the P-3, the P-7 LRAACA vertical tail is very slightly swept back
-
Squared of and modernised is probably a better description, but swept is the term that came to mind.
-
If you went with the C130J engines and nacelles, a new wing, added a new lower lobe to the fuselage and lengthened the fuselage, you could probably get away with the same basic fuselage diameter, which pays big benefits in development. The lobe could handle a larger weapons bay, move the sonobuoy chutes out of the rear cabin, permit more avionics to be placed below the floor and, with modern smaller avionics, allow the same or smaller crew to work with more comfort. It would allow the carriage of heavier weapons, additional fuel and permit longer patrols. Derated engines would permit a lot more flexibility in cruise while allowing a greater all up weight for take off.
All while keeping mostly within the existing vehicle size envelope and fuselage shape, simplifying development and keeping the very economical turboprops and low altitude capabilities that come with them. Always thought he P-8 to be too fast for a lot of the work the patrol aircraft have to do outside finding subs.
-
Adding a lower lobe to the existing P-3 fuselage, even if the new volume is unpressurized, gets to be "interesting" because the existing APU is mounted in the forward fuselage. You're almost getting to a completely new aircraft, then, after designing this out or designing around it.
-
Yes, it's pretty much a new aircraft in many ways, for sure, however the Brits added a new lobe to the Comet fuselage to get the Nimrod, so it can be done economically.
-
Thanks guys, this info and the drawings are a big help. I found the P-7 at Secret Projects last year and thought it'd make a nice RNZAF project.
Speaking of my beloved RNZAF: one of our P-3K2s has been deployed to the Middle East to aid in anti-piracy efforts (https://www.facebook.com/notes/nz-defence-force/nzdf-to-help-counter-piracy-and-trafficking-in-the-middle-east/1238965476140596). In yesterday's news on the radio station we listen to at work it was described as "an army plane".
So. Who wants to do a New Zealand Army Orion? ???
-
Do it as an AP-3. It's predecessor, the P-2 Neptune, was flown by the US Army as the AP-2H and by the USAF as the RB-69 as well as by the USN.
-
Do it as an AP-3. It's predecessor, the P-2 Neptune, was flown by the US Army as the AP-2H and by the USAF as the RB-69 as well as by the USN.
Mind you, please remember that Australian Orions were officially designated AP-3Cs after their upgrades under Projects AIR5140 and AIR5276.
-
Club shred: P-3 with four 20mm or 30mm gun pod units mounted under the wing and fuselage. Perfect solution to the East Africa/Indian Ocean pirate problem.
-
^ Or the Pave Gat 20mm Vulcan turret from the B-57G? >:D
-
^ Or the Pave Gat 20mm Vulcan turret from the B-57G? >:D
Definitely worth exploring. A more selective servicing of targets instead of a wall of fire and shotgun approach to hitting something but there goes your fear and terror factor :)
With Pave Gat mounted in the weapons bay and a huge ammunition supply it would be quite the show stopper.
-
^ Or the Pave Gat 20mm Vulcan turret from the B-57G? >:D
Definitely worth exploring. A more selective servicing of targets instead of a wall of fire and shotgun approach to hitting something but there goes your fear and terror factor :)
With Pave Gat mounted in the weapons bay and a huge ammunition supply it would be quite the show stopper.
Project I've been developing would have one 20mm Vulcan and one GAU-8 30mm Avenger in a turret. The turrets would be in the front section of the wheel bay sponsoons, one above the other and one turret on each side. A P-3 sized aircraft with a turret under the fuselage would work too
-
That's nice but they often don't know pirates are about until after they've boarded a ship,
so you'd come down and blast the taken vessel out of the water along with the hostages?
Seriously folks, they're not swanning about in a 21st century version of the Black Pearl
looking for the main chance, you can't tell the pirates from the plain fishermen and who bears
the cost of the standing patrols? The insurance companies far prefer to pay the ransoms, than
they do extra taxes or direct levies for services, a decision they made over two centuries ago
and are not likely to reverse.
Piracy is as old as maritime trade and will continue until such a point that human race, as a whole,
has finally grown up.
-
Good points. :) And of course it's always a problem applying military force to what is, essentially, a law enforcement issue.
I recall reading a report stating the biggest costs aren't ransoms, but rather the heightened fuel costs for when the ships travel at a higher speed through areas where they're likely to encounter pirates in an attempt to present as small a target as possible.
-
A mates daughter used to do security on ferries that travelled through Suez for refurbishment in Europe, fire hoses were the main tool used, very hard to board something big from something small when being blown into the water by very high pressure water. The biggest issue was being caught unawares and not being able to defend the ships sides in time. While Somalian pirates were in the news the traditional pass time of fishermen around the various straits in South East Asia continued unabated attacking targets of opportunity. Not just fishermen mind you, the occasional commercial seaman has been known to dabble in piracy when they know they can get away with it.
Oh my mates daughter got out of that game and got a job as an armourer on Game of Thrones and now sends him memorabilia at the end of each seasons shooting. How do I get my kids into a game like that? :)
-
so you'd come down and blast the taken vessel out of the water along with the hostages?
Which is why we have the PLA- Navy conducting anti-piracy ops off the horn ;)
-
Well rumour has it the Russians are actually interdicting pirates and summarily executing them.
-
Wouldn't surprise me, they bear as much responsibility as
the 'West' for the mess the Horn became, but of course
they can't be arsed to actually help fix things, which is
typical, going back centuries for that lot.
-
Well rumour has it the Russians are actually interdicting pirates and summarily executing them.
Pretty much standard practice for how long? ;)
One of my friends was on an MEU when they encountered Somali Pirates. Boy oh Boy this was exciting!!! MEUs are equipped and trained to handle anything from disaster relief to full on assault. The options were limitless! They could board, they could capture with navy seals, bomb with harriers, launch a helo attack, send in Force Recon! the options were incredible. So the MEU boss called the higher ups and then those higher ups called the higher ups. There was lots and lots and lots of talk about all the various options that could be taken. While everyone was deciding a vessel from the Indian Navy shot it and sank it. And no more excitement was had that day.
The whole cruise would have been a wash if it hadn't been for the Harriers getting to bomb Libya later on
;D
Behind closed doors the Captain confided in my friend that in all seriousness he probably could have just sent the Navy security team to take it down for all the training Somali pirates have and that the problem in this case was the MEU just being so capable no one could decide what overkill option to take LOL
-
On adding a new lower lobe, I need to correct my earlier post, the APU on the P-3 is installed side-to-side just aft of the nose gear well and just ahead of the weapons bay. Adding a new lower lobe is going to require a fair bit of redesign there, too. Seriously, I think an all new aircraft might be less expensive and certainly more roomy (P-3's, with just eight crew aren't too bad, EP-3E's, with 23 on board, along with a host of electronics, are quite crowded, though not as much as E-2's).
-
the APU on the P-3 is installed side-to-side just aft of the nose gear well
Interesting, because on the Electra the APU is in the rear fuselage. At least that was what was shown on an Ice Pilots episode when they couldn't get it started.
-
I suspect the presence of MAD gear and the sonobuoy launchers made that location unsuitable for the P-3's APU.
-
That makes sense Evan
-
Adding a new lower lobe is going to require a fair bit of redesign there, too.
If I'm not wrong, the Nimrod added a new upper lobe, essentially keeping the wings and structure where they were and adding a new "loft" storey. :)
Thus you can increase the sizes of things like the weapons bay upwards versus lowering or lengthening landing gear.
This image shows an upper fuselage width increase of about 3 feet.
-
The Nimrod was a Comet which had a new lower lobe added to make it into a Nimrod
-
Worked with an engineer who had been with BAE and worked on the wing for the MR4, including strain gauging a full wing set for fatigue testing, before the projects cancellation. He told me about the issue with each Nimrod being different and the grief that caused, he also mentioned that it may not have been much more expensive to do a completely new aircraft.
-
I'd like to have seen the new wing attached to a wide body Airbus fuselage or something like that
-
Possible VTOL Orion inspiration:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7v0-FCUGgrE/WK4cxuJd8JI/AAAAAAABYB0/S1PcmYiODh46CYBYNsePu52zpCGsRTusQCLcB/s1600/xC-142%2Bartwork-1.jpg)
-
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/RAFOrion.jpg)
-
RNZAF goes old school bombing:
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*PYkCVWfA_mh3X7G2c91TyA.jpeg)
https://dms.licdn.com/playback/C5605AQHioWnnpfL1ew/64a66a6f6f7d45609666b5b4dcca20cc/feedshare-mp4_3300-captions-thumbnails/1507940147251-drlcss?e=1542308400&v=beta&t=UOPGWmfMBPULNbiQvK02gO61icTQ31w9SvDoASOefI4
-
Nice video.
-
The P-3 is now retired from the USN.
OAK HARBOR, Wash. (NNS) -- The Patrol Squadron (VP) 40 Fighting Marlins successfully completed transition from the P-3C Orion to the P-8A Poseidon, the Navy’s newest maritime patrol aircraft, May 14.
VP-40 began the P-8A platform transition in November 2019 following its return to Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island after completing the Navy’s final active duty P-3C deployment. On this landmark deployment, the Fighting Marlins made significant contributions to international maritime security while conducting sustained operations from three continents, marking the conclusion of VP-40’s forward-deployed P-3C operations that began in 1968.
Source: https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=113106 (https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=113106)
(https://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_200518-N-CL765-0002.JPG)
-
If nothing else, the P-8A has to have a roomier fuselage that the P-3. Wonder if we'll see an EP-8A to replace the EP-3E's in service?
-
The P-3 is now retired from the USN...
So ex-USN P-3C Orions will soon become available through FMS?
-
They were already available though I would be cautious since Orions have often built up quite a bit of airframe fatigue over the years.
-
When I was in vq1 I think our “newest “ plane was built in the early seventies
-
They were already available though I would be cautious since Orions have often built up quite a bit of airframe fatigue over the years.
Nothing a little whiffery can't overcome ;)
-
They were already available though I would be cautious since Orions have often built up quite a bit of airframe fatigue over the years.
Nothing a little whiffery can't overcome ;)
From a whiffery standpoint, they are all shiny, zero-timed and new!
-
Put them through a Kestrel style upgrade (http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p22051/mobile/ch06s02.html).
-
From a whiffery standpoint, they are all shiny, zero-timed and new!
It is astonishing what those nanobots can accomplish :D Suddenly, SMOH is an obsolete term ;)
Put them through a Kestrel style upgrade ([url]http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p22051/mobile/ch06s02.html[/url]).
Project Kestrel sounds like it was well-run. An out-there option would be adopting some LM Orion 21 features - glass cockpit, 7,000 shp PW150As with NP2000 props, etc.
In the ANU article, I spotted a minor typo which amused: "not even Lockheed Martin, had ever re-winged a P-5B Orion with P-5C wing". Now, an Orion fitted with the wings of a P-5 Marlin is something I'd like to see ;D
-
there could be a market for demilitarised civilian versions, not just fire fighting and freight versions.
take for example my Junior Electra i built last year, if the P-3 was converted from an airliner, why not vice versa ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/xAus8Rt.jpg)
-
In the ANU article, I spotted a minor typo which amused: "not even Lockheed Martin, had ever re-winged a P-5B Orion with P-5C wing". Now, an Orion fitted with the wings of a P-5 Marlin is something I'd like to see ;D
You have seen too much...time to come with these men in black and look into their light.