P8 MMA/MPA thread.

No. That's why no-one in the RAF is really getting too exercised about it right now.

I believe the hot water issue is fixable and the sink thing is just one of those strange 'wtf?' 'Boeing-isms.'

Regards,
MM
It's the bit that's hard to make out. You have a 737 derivative that has to do long patrols... surely you would leave everything in front of the passenger compartment bulkhead alone..... two heads with sinks and a galley..
 
It's the bit that's hard to make out. You have a 737 derivative that has to do long patrols... surely you would leave everything in front of the passenger compartment bulkhead alone..... two heads with sinks and a galley..
I know; it’s barking isn’t it. However, it’s how the Boeing designed the rear end and how USN accepted it. Sadly for now, we have to do likewise.

Regards,
MM
 
It's the bit that's hard to make out. You have a 737 derivative that has to do long patrols... surely you would leave everything in front of the passenger compartment bulkhead alone..... two heads with sinks and a galley..
On the other hand if the customer didn't specify it and you are struggling to meet the range / weight / Electrical power / Fitting kit and launch chutes (structural) requirements ditching a few 100 KG of power intensive equipment possibly in an inconvenient location is a no brainer.

Later on when they ask for it Boeing is not liable for any "new" problems.


Edit Im not claiming this is the case - but I wouldn't be shocked to learn it had been sacrificed on the alter of 'too hard'

As an example - Modification done to a light pax aircraft fitting all sorts of weird and wonder full kit - but provision to role change back to a light biz job**
We drew all sorts of fancy switching and priority relays to enable a person in the back seat in sneaky beaky config to TX on the co pilots channel - but ensuring co pilot had priority - no side tone from observer etc
The result was liable to be rather expensive and bespoke and at our cost. At which point a grown up closely read the specs and noted that there was no requirement for observer and co pilot in Sneaky config therefore
no need to design this just switch obs station directly into co pilots comms.

Later on when the customer said oh I wanted X he was shown the spec and told it would be an additional mod.

Its how many people get shafted by not nailing down the minutiae.

** Wasn't military was non UK 'Private' Ive no idea who why or what for - Its probably bumbling around Africa with Sandline2 or something
 
Last edited:
I reckon at some point someone at Boeing has been working to a weight/payload target, and gone "right, strip out everything non-structural, and then just put back the absolute essential stuff."
 
The P1 to me somehow looks small-ish in standalone pics.



But when you actually park it next to a P8 it looks huge!..well not huge but big..you get the point.



And does the UK P8 come with a MAD? The Indian P8 I seems to have one but the USN version doesn't seem to have it. Maybe the USN uses SW and something else to compensate for it?

Indian P8I:



USN:

 
Last edited:
The P1 to me somehow looks small-ish in standalone pics...But when you actually park it next to a P8 it looks huge!..well not huge but big..you get the point...
The cockpit windows on the P-1 are absolutely HUGE in relation to the airframe; it's like sitting inside a conservatory! So I think that tends to distort perspectives.

...does the UK P8 come with a MAD? The Indian P8 I seems to have one but the USN version doesn't seem to have it. Maybe the USN uses SW and something else to compensate for it?...
Only Indian P-8s have MAD.

Regards,
MM
 
It's an excellent aircraft. However, P-8 was the right call.

Regards,
MM
I think in general this is the problem when you're competing against American behemoths (yes, they keep the jobs ticking in my country). Too much scale and economics to swim against for the minnows who want to crack into the market. Of course other countries have their own scaled up aviation defense competitors too like the Europeans with their helicopters etc.
 
I agree. Even now the P8 looks a bit weird....looks too much like a Ryanair 737 with some harpoon missiles underneath it!
The P-8 is what it is - a civil airliner transformed into a military aircraft for the maritime environment. The P-1 is purpose-designed... so, for instance, four engines, not two - useful for loitering. Big windows - rather useful when carrying out visual searches...

We're getting something good, and the economies of scale, support packages and upgrade paths make perfect sense, but it's still a converted bus.
 
I think in general this is the problem when you're competing against American behemoths (yes, they keep the jobs ticking in my country). Too much scale and economics to swim against for the minnows who want to crack into the market. Of course other countries have their own scaled up aviation defense competitors too like the Europeans with their helicopters etc.
I'd rather we get the E-7 as a replacement for the current AWACS than any of the other offerings out there.
 
Actually, there's a question: does the E-7 have a sink on it?

I'm not being flippant. Genuine query. If it does, it makes the E-8 omission all the more remarkable.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top