OT: Oh no, a mod already!

CriticalMass · Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 27

Boeing Converts 737 Into Bomber

TANX
Andrew

Stewy · Joined: 25 Dec 2001 Posts: 2040 Location: Australia

...worked for the Germans with the HE-111.... Wink

JSLTIGER · Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:29 am Post subject:

Does anybody else see the advantages of jet propulsion being a disadvantage here? High-speed could create weapons damage as the torp hits the water, fuel economy on jets is worse than props...

TLAM Strike · Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:10 am Post subject:

Well they have parachutes to slow down the weapon; I guess they can make them bigger to slow them down more.

Jets are faster and the 737 has greater range so that�s a definite advantage even if it cost more to fill it up.

Looney11 · Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 307 Location: Netherlands

Further to that, at low altitudes, the jets take up more fuel.

And with 1 engine OOC due to a SAM impact or whatever, the 737 must limp back home imo.

sonar732 · Joined: 03 Jul 2003 Posts: 1358

Spectator · Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 384 Location: germany

"low speed" is not really a problem for experienced pilots. with full flaps a 737 can maintain ~160kts and keep steady alt. for comparison a p3 has a patrol speed at 1500ft of ~200kts -> no problem for a 737

nattydread · Joined: 09 Jan 2004 Posts: 667

Yuck, patrolling at 160 kts and full flaps sounds like it would suck. Thats a lot of flaps, power & fuel from drag, limited bank, etc.

Im sure the 737 could do it at full flaps, but generally in any airplane going past 50% flap settings gives you much more drag than lift, in fact lift becomes a distant second to drag and lowering the Angle of Attack. It would seem very inefficent to base one's operations on full flaps. Anything over 20-25^ flaps would seem excessive. If i remember correctly, that would limit the 737 to about 180kts with gentle manuvers and likely to 200kts for a better safety buffer for normal or more aggressive manuvers.
I could be wrong since I dont have a Operating Manual in front of me...thats just my take, and Im personally pretty conserative when it comes to airspeeds i think.

JSLTIGER · Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:25 pm Post subject:

I suppose the one advantage would be the ability to get out of a sticky situation more rapidly than a P-3.

jeroen · Joined: 21 Sep 2001 Posts: 43 Location: Arnhem, Netherlands

Or get into a sticky situation quicker than a P-3.

If other sources report a sub 100nm away then the 737 will be there first.

Spectator · Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 384 Location: germany

why would they spend millions of dollars on a bird that's not capable of doing what they expect it to do.
i'm pretty sure that there have to be some very good reasons why someone told the navy, hey come on guys let's do the 737 thing. Wink

JSLTIGER · Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:09 am Post subject:

Quite simply: it's cheaper to use an in-production design that is modified for the military than designing one from scratch. This is an increasingly common theme found in the USN. Just think about the VA class, and the cost savings that they needed over the Seawolf.

Scion · Joined: 31 May 2001 Posts: 1552 Location: New Zealand

In the scheme of things, the speed should matter. As long as the ting can take off and land, drop sonobouys, and fire weapons, it will be OK. The weapons are retarded by parachute anyway so the drop altitude is all that matters, not speed.