Lockheed P-3 Orion Ideas and Inspiration

[kitnut617]

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

[GTX_Admin]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

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:

[The Big Gimper]

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:

Mike recently had a 20% off sale.  Maybe he will still honour it.

[kitnut617]

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   

Like this --

[elmayerle]

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).

[elmayerle]

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.

[Gingie]

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?

[GTX_Admin]

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.

[elmayerle]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

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:

[Kerick]

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.

[Gingie]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

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:

[arkon]

That is a sad picture 😥

[finsrin]

Cringe 

[elmayerle]

Odd thought, Tyne-powered P-3's in RAF markings as an early Shackleton replacement with possible AEW derivatives.

[GTX_Admin]

Odd thought, Tyne-powered P-3's in RAF markings as an early Shackleton replacement with possible AEW derivatives.

 :)

[GTX_Admin]

P-3 Floatplane?

[KiwiZac]

I like the Tyneorion idea!

P-7 - what would one hypothetically need to build a model?

[elmayerle]

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.

[elmayerle]

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.

[Volkodav]

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.

[elmayerle]

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.

[Rickshaw]

I can't see any "swept tail surfaces" in the drawings I have: