Canada signs deal for CP-140 Aurora life extension

[W5]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... nsion.html

[RatherBeFlyingInCanada]

A waste of money in my opinion. I think money would be much better spent on a 737 Maritime Patrol variant that Boeing will be producing than refurbishing a turd. My guess is its cheaper to maintain an aircraft that is in current production than refurbish one that isn't.

Sea King comes to mind.

[RoyalCanadianRegiment]

RatherBeFlyingInCanada,

I totally disagree with you. The CP 140 Aurora is the best platform available, at this time, to achieve the missions as set forth by DND and the Canadian government. The CP 140 is being upgraded to a full glass cockpit and with the new Life Extension Program it will be just as capable as the new P8. The P8 will not be able to achieve the same missions that the Aurora can, for example you cannot loiter a jet engine to extend your mission time. Nor can you fly a jet aircraft, feet above the ocean and not watch the fuel lbs bleed off at a fast rate. The P8 is designed to be up in the atmosphere where the engines work best, the CP 140 is designed to be down close to the water looking for subs and surface contacts. I really like to know how Boeing is going to be able to drop armaments from FL200+ and not have them break up on contact with the water.

Cheers

Chris
http://www.learning-to-fly.com

[x-wind]

Really don't know much about this. But I see the Aurora in action, often low over the water. Couldn't see a 737 doing that, if that's what needs doing.

[CD]

How things change in a year, eh?

Military wants to scrap $1B plane upgrades
Pumping more money into 25-year-old Auroras makes no sense, DND argues

David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen

Thursday, November 29, 2007

AvCanada: Ottawa halts $1.6B upgrade of maritime patrol aircraft

[viccoastdog]

RCR write

I totally disagree with you.

Thanks for such a well thought out post...too often AvCanada posters fall prey to the belief that any decision made by (or on the behalf of) the CF is based on penny-pinching economics instead of sound operational reasons.

I see Auroras all the time over the Strait, and they're way down low; not the terrain for a turbojet or turbofan.

[Spokes]

You might want to tell these guys that.



They have been operating jets low level for alot of years.

[RatherBeFlyingInCanada]

RatherBeFlyingInCanada,

I totally disagree with you. The CP 140 Aurora is the best platform available, at this time, to achieve the missions as set forth by DND and the Canadian government. The CP 140 is being upgraded to a full glass cockpit and with the new Life Extension Program it will be just as capable as the new P8. The P8 will not be able to achieve the same missions that the Aurora can, for example you cannot loiter a jet engine to extend your mission time. Nor can you fly a jet aircraft, feet above the ocean and not watch the fuel lbs bleed off at a fast rate. The P8 is designed to be up in the atmosphere where the engines work best, the CP 140 is designed to be down close to the water looking for subs and surface contacts. I really like to know how Boeing is going to be able to drop armaments from FL200+ and not have them break up on contact with the water.

Cheers

Chris
http://www.learning-to-fly.com

I would be interested to see the pounds of Jet fuel burned per hour while loitering over water (CP-140 having fovs P8) , also as previously mentioned the Brits have been operating the Nimrod over water for sometime at low-altitude.

None-the-less the CP-140 airframe is dated and will be replaced sooner or later, no matter how fancy the avionics you put up front.

[Big Pratt]

Weren't the Cosmopolitans converted to glass mere months before being retired?

BP

[linecrew]

Weren't the Cosmopolitans converted to glass mere months before being retired?

BP

I believe that was the result of a change in government with differeing views from the previous one that approved the upgrade.

[rd1331]

the 737 with the 26k engines burns 300kgs per hour per engine at idle on the ground. Never really look at it well comming in on the approach, actually we have that page turned completely off, so don't have an idea what it would be at cruise low level. I know the aurora has the capability to shut 2 down and run on 2 to conserve fuel and extend mission. I have no idea what type of fuel burns they run though. I wouldn't doubt that the 737 would burn considerably more fuel than the aurora, but would that cost be overtaken by the extra maintenance, i donno.

[Spokes]

It's been awhile, but I believe that with 4 engines running at low level the Aurora would burn about 4-5000 pounds per hour.

Shutting down engines is sometimes done, but there are restrictions. First off, you must be VMC. If you are in moisture they must be left on. Shutting down one engine is very common. Shutting down two not as much as we used to do in the 80's. BTW with 2 engines shut down flight below 1000' is prohibited.

Of course when you would shut down engines depended on your current weight. If you are still heavy, a shut down engine would require that power on the remaining engines be increased to burn even more fuel.

I think the lowest fuel burn I have seen with two engines shut down was 2600 lbs per hour. I beleive with one engine shut down burns in the mid 3k range was common.

I don't know much about jets, but how things were explanined to me was that yes, fuel burns at low level are high, overall mission times are about the same (8-10 hours) as transits to the operating areas are shorter.

[rd1331]

Even with all engines running you are burning less than the 737NG down low.

Just looked up the holding charts, these are for the 737-800 with 26K engines. At 1500ft and 79,015Kgs you burn 1420 KGs/Hour per engine with 63% N1 and 242 Kts. At 70,000Kgs you burn 1260 Kgs/Hour per engine with 59% N1 and 227 Kts. 60,000kgs, 1110Kgs/Hour per engine, 55% N1 and 210Kts.

Even at 60,000kgs your burning 5000lbs per hour total, but only at 210 kts, which is getting low for the bird.

[ScudRunner]

What about a Q400 or a Global Express

[shitdisturber]

Weren't the Cosmopolitans converted to glass mere months before being retired?

BP

I wouldn't go so far as to say "mere months"; they were already in the aircraft when I got on squadron and I wasn't posted out until the squadron restructured 18 or so months later.

[Conquest Driver]

Big Pratt wrote:
Weren't the Cosmopolitans converted to glass mere months before being retired?

BP


I believe that was the result of a change in government with differeing views from the previous one that approved the upgrade.

So, guess what we might be looking at in a week or so? A Liberal govenment based on 77 seats? Last time they got in they canceled the EH-101 at a cost to the taxpayers of around $400 million. I wonder what they'll cancel this time. The Chinooks?

This is turning into "Groundhog Day".

[ScudRunner]

How about this the Japanese built

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan--- ... 1448517/M/

[WJflyer]

How about this the Japanese built

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan--- ... 1448517/M/

Japan does not export their military hardware... would take a ton of arm twisting to get them to even consider to sell to us.

[Spokes]

What about a Q400 or a Global Express

covered in other threads. They are not really suitable replacements.

[looproll]

great news for IMP!