[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

It is striking how different the disposition of patrol aircraft is between Canada and the U.S.

You have to look at the geography of the mission. On the West Coast, the US has several bases off the main land providing coverage: Hawaii, the Philippines, Japan etc...

On the East Coast, not so much. Canada covers most of the North Atlantic and the Arctic. The wide expanse from Newfoundland to Greenland, Iceland, near the Canary Islands and Barbados.

You require a lot of aircrafts for relief on station if you're tracking a bogey. The missions are usually 10 to 14 hours long and at very low altitude for MAD operations which means a lot of buffeting inside the craft. Many AESOs, because of their seating positions, suffer from air sickness.

EDIT: I should add that some of the Auroras from Nova Scotia have been deployed overseas.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

You have to look at the geography of the mission.

Good post. After posting, I did reconsider the geographic realities; the Pacfic coast of Canada is pretty short. The Chinese are coming, it is true, but at least so far not so much in the northern Pacific.

I suppose the P-8s will follow much the same pattern as the CP-140s.

And I wonder what the RCAF will designate the aircraft? (I haven't figured out the Canadian system.)

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Canada has formally requested the sale of up to 16 Boeing P-8A patrol aircraft, along with spares and support, at an estimated cost of US$5.9 billion.

But Quebec-based Bombardier is protesting the purchase of the P-8s, proposing instead the procurement of a Canadian-built Global 6500-based maritime reconnaissance aircraft. (computer-generated image.) Given that the Canadian government has already requested the P-8 purchase, which has been approved by the U.S., it may be too late.

The Bombardier option is smaller than the Boeing, with a gross takeoff weight of 99,500 lbs versus the P-8's 189,200 lbs. I have not seen a cost comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Global_Express

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The Bombardier option is smaller than the Boeing, with a gross takeoff weight of 99,500 lbs versus the P-8's 189,200 lbs. I have not seen a cost comparison.

The Bombardier probably doesn't have the endurance range but would be perfect for Coast Guard duties. Canada already flies the 604 so there would be a lot of commonality.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

And I wonder what the RCAF will designate the aircraft? (I haven't figured out the Canadian system.)

CP for Canadian Patrol but for the numerical designation, your guess is just as good as mine.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

CP for Canadian Patrol but for the numerical designation, your guess is just as good as mine.

Yes, I figured CP was for sure; typically the numerical portion includes some relationship to the U.S. number, doesn't it? For instance CF-188 and CC-130. So how about CP-1x8? (The x representing an as-yet unknown number; 148 is already taken, I note; CP-108?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...itary_aircraft
(you probably have this list memorized...)

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

The Bombardier probably doesn't have the endurance range but would be perfect for Coast Guard duties. Canada already flies the 604 so there would be a lot of commonality.

Per wikipedia:
Global 6500 = 6,600 nautical mile range
P-8A = 5,200 nautical mile range

Advantage Bombardier, it looks like. I think the 6500 is also faster; that may not be an advantage in the MR mission. Fast is good to get quickly to a datum before the target submarine can move too far, but slower is probably better for searching; once you lay a sonobuoy pattern, you need to stay nearby within reception range.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Per wikipedia:
Global 6500 = 6,600 nautical mile range

True for the civilian version. The endurance of the military version (Sentinel) is 4994nm or nine hours which is very close to the P-8A.

[vreihen16]

.

[vreihen16]

.

[Llarry]

The problems with the S-58 RV are (1) fuel cost; the fuel capacity of the S-58 Navy ASW SH-34G was 317 gallons. That's an expensive answer to "fill 'er up!" and (2) maintaining that Wright R-1820 1,525 hp engine and the rest of the flying RV in airworthy condition.

The Catalina would be worse for the airframe: bigger and subject to the effects of water, plus two engines to keep purring instead of one.

But if you've got the money to buy one, I suppose these costs are trivial.

[Llarry]

I think it is not commonly appreciated that the Corsair of World War II and Korean War fame was built not only by Vought Aircraft as the F4U, but also by Goodyear as the FG and, in small numbers, by Brewster as the F3A. (No wonder the Navy aircraft designation system is confusing!) In fact, Goodyear built 3,018 FG-1 Corsairs during the war of the 11,484 total built in all years.

In late 1944 and early 1945, the U.S. Navy was in desperate straits, taking major losses from Japanese suicide aircraft attacks. Goodyear was given the go-ahead to design a more powerful Corsair using the 3,000 horsepower Pratt & Whitney four-row 28-cylinder R-4360 radial engine in place of the F4U-4's 2,100 horsepower R-2800. This was designated the F2G and sometimes referred to as the 'Super Corsair." The F2G had a phenomenal rate of climb.

The F2G was too late to contribute to the war effort; only 10 were built. After being declared surplus, they were used for air racing.

The first photo is of an F2G of the Naval Air Test Center. Note the longer engine cowling and the cut-down fuselage with full bubble canopy. Compare these features with the F4U-4 in the second photo.

[Llarry]

The first U.S. jet was the Bell P-59 Airacomet, which first flew in October of 1942. Initially the whole project was very hush-hush. When on the ground, a fake propellor was attached to the nose of the aircraft to disguise the fact that it was a jet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-59_Airacomet

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Llarry

But if you've got the money to buy one, I suppose these costs are trivial.

Given the poor construction quality and amount of time many RV's spend parked in their owners' driveways, the fuel and maintenance costs might not be as outrageous as we think.

If you want to keep up with the Jones, a Winnebago HeliHome would be hard to trump.....

[vreihen16]

I'd love to see the annual cost of ownership of a suburban homeowner's RV compared with a single-engine GA airplane.....

[3798j]

.

[3798j]

.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The F2G was too late to contribute to the war effort; only 10 were built. After being declared surplus, they were used for air racing.

The first photo is of an F2G of the Naval Air Test Center. Note the longer engine cowling and the cut-down fuselage with full bubble canopy. Compare these features with the F4U-4 in the second photo.

Well not ALL of them ended up in air races.....

[Llarry]

The Indian Navy has selected the French Dassault Rafale M as their multirole carrier fighter. They intend to buy 26 aircraft: 18 to equip a carrier squadron and 8 for spares.

The Indian Air Force already operates the Rafale with 36 aircraft in the inventory.

The process of selection of the replacement for the Indian Navy's MiG-29K carrier fighters started in 2017; the other main contender was the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The French Navy Rafale M is unique in being the only foreign aircraft cleared to operate from U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. (second photo)

[Llarry]

Everybody knows that Amazon is Big Business, but I had no idea they have their own fleet of cargo aircraft operated by various airlines. They've got B767s (pictured), B737s and A330s. No wonder they get the stuff to me so fast!

[vreihen16]

The RCAF's MiG-21 squadron.....

.

[Llarry]

The last U.S. Navy P-3C patrol plane has gone from the training squadron in Jacksonville, Florida, to the boneyard in Arizona. There are probably still a very few P-3's modified for special tasks still flying for the USN, but their time is about up. The dozen-plus EP-3E SIGINT aircraft -- based on the P-3C -- are still active but their days are numbered as well; they are to be replaced by the MQ-4 unmanned air vehicle within a couple of years. This old naval aircrewman will lament their passing.