Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MontaniSemperLiberi

Oh, I don’t know. Possibly jet engines, more lift capability for equipment and crew, extended range, better avionics, but those are just the basics.


6 posted on 01/26/2011 5:14:55 AM PST by Wizdum (Wisdom is what you gain when things go wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Wizdum

That’s nice. I have a few rhetorical questions for you.

So how long can a turbofan engine stay on a low altitude station vs. a jet engine?

Answer: Much, much longer.

So is the wing loading better for a jet engine than a prop engine?

Answer: No, not really, they are two different variables, the P-3 does just fine and if one needs more weapons on station, just take another P-3 with you.

So how good do the avionics need to be for a four engine turbofan airplane?

Answer: Not very good at all.

So is the range of the P-3 too low?

Answer: No, it’s just fine and better than the P-8 thank you very much.

So the range is longer without refueling, the time on station is longer, it carries plenty of weapons, costs less, etc., etc. etc.

You’re right about one thing, you don’t know. You’ve struck out on everyone of your points. Tell us again how the P-8 is going to accomplish the same mission but this time do it with numbers and with a cost comparison.


8 posted on 01/26/2011 9:44:32 AM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson