Why does the Navy use commercial airliners for this role? The P-8 is basically just a 737, and the P-3 it is replacing was an airliner as well.
Is it just a neglected aspect of the navy where they are cutting corners, or are these airplanes genuinely well suited to the job?
>>29274557
>Jim we need a plane with good range and loiter time so it can go on long maritime patrols
>Boeing 737
>Done
The air-frame isn't special. It's the stuff that is inside that makes it special.
Boeing shilling all day every day
>>29274557
Well suited, same air frame being used in other roles saves a lot of money as well.
>>29274557
>Why does the Navy use commercial airliners for this role?
Because the requirements for a maritime patrol aircraft are generally
>long range
>long endurance
>docile handling
>reasonable payload
all of which a commercial airliner fills perfectly.
Of course, if we're going for nothing but endurance, we could go with props like the Tu-142 or Avro Shackleton, but I wager the Navy doesn't want their planes to be so loud that subs can hear them coming.
>>29274557
>Why does the Navy use commercial airliners for this role? The P-8 is basically just a 737, and the P-3 it is replacing was an airliner as well.
Anon, that is my favorite thing about the USN: When they take a civilian design that handles that shit, and let it handle that shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_expeditionary_fast_transport
> The design is 70 percent in common with the Hawaii Superferry
That's what I'm talking about. Fuck that sexy shit. Let's get the job *done*. Am I right?
>>29274557
Because the shit works. P-3 is one of the best kept secrets of the navy. Fuckers are used all over the world and are still getting new orders (looking at you Taiwan).
P-8 on the other hand has some inherent design flaws (lack of angle into wind stream for sonobouy launch) but once it goes through a couple of deployments and years it'll get streamlined and hashed out with what works and what doesn't.
Sad fact of the matter is P-3 Air frames are old and have been extended/abused past most of their HONA hours and got a little bit of life back into them from the ASLEP program. They may be slow but they have legs and endurance for amazing overhead time that still exceeds some more modern assets especially with engine loiter operation.
>Of course, if we're going for nothing but endurance, we could go with props like the Tu-142 or Avro Shackleton, but I wager the Navy doesn't want their planes to be so loud that subs can hear them coming.
That's what we are upgrading from in the P-3C/EP-3
>>29274557
In Soviet Russia anti-submarine aircraft becomes an airliner. And a pretty fucking good one.
>>29275541
>loud as unholy fuck
you ever flown on one of those things? I thought my fuckin teeth were going to rattle out of my head.
>>29275640
>The Tu-114 was known for reliability, speed and fuel economy. Its safety record was rarely matched (there was only one accident involving fatalities but the plane was not airborne at the time) and was only withdrawn from service after the introduction of the Il-62 and after carrying over six million passengers with Aeroflot and Japan Airlines.
Cool story though.
>>29275800
I never said it didn't have good performance or safety record. I just said it was incredibly loud.
So the US military can continue to flood the labor market with airline pilots. Keep the wages for new pilots below that of bus drivers.
Defense acquisition is all about COTS. You can't do much better than a commercial vehicle that's had decades worth of maturity.
>>29275840
The last part of the quote kinda suggests those 6 million people that flew it weren't really bothered much.
>>29275911
The last part of the quote says nothing about how comfortable the ride was.
Fucking nobody likes flying puddle jumpers, yet they transport hundreds of thousands of passengers every year.
>>29275961
>The design was not without shortcomings. Passengers on the Tu-114 endured high noise levels (108–112 dB) and vibrations from the engines
>The noise levels inside an Airbus A321 during cruise have been reported as approximately 78 dB
I mean it was obviously tolerable enough in order for this much people to fly it. Also the interior was pretty cool. Btw, what's the plane in the front on this pic?
>>29275183
I pulled one of those in once. Line handlers=best handlers.
>>29276156
>>29276121
Any noise levels for VC10, 707, or similar aircraft?
>>29276121
>(108–112 dB)
Jesus fucking Christ, how horrifying. The hearing loss threshold for sustained exposure is like 90 dB, 110 is the pain threshold.
>>29276188
Best I could find in a quick search:
http://jcaa.caa-aca.ca/index.php/jcaa/article/view/1854
>As a general tendency, continuous noise levels were seen to be 60-65 dB(A) prior to takeoff, and 80-85 dB(A) and 75-80 dB(A) during flight and landing, respectively.
across a broad survey of airliners, averaged fore to aft noise levels. This is about the only remotely scientific survey I found, and the full survey is in French.
Since dB is a logarithmic measurement metric, the Tu-144 is actually over 100 times as loud as the modern commercial average.
>>29276262
That's what counter-rotating props get you. Great performance and efficiency, but loud as all fuck.
My uncle who flew F-4s for the USN claims that they could actually clearly hear prop noise from Bears while flying intercept/escort.
>>29276262
>Tu-144
Excuse me, typo. I meant Tu-114 obviously.
>>29276188
No idea, just got it from google.
>>29276230
Come the fuck on. Do these people look like they are suffering from pain or are about to get permanently deaf?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-yTcy3MXY
>>29276287
>Come the fuck on. Do these people look like they are suffering from pain or are about to get permanently deaf?
They look like the sound has pulverised their brains and turned them into vegetables.
Maybe they're frequent fliers and can't hear anything but EEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>29276307
Yeah, right, whatever.
>>29276287
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-yTcy3MXY
That's 12hz, you dipshit. Below human aural perception (though you do feel it). Listen to this for a sense of how ridiculous that example is in this case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwrbFj9r10Y
>Come the fuck on. Do these people look like they are suffering from pain or are about to get permanently deaf?
http://american-hearing.org/disorders/noise-induced-hearing-loss/#causes
100db:
>chainsaw, pneumatic drill, snowmobile; 2 hours per day is the maximum exposure without protection.
115db:
>sandblasting, loud rock concert, auto horn; 15 minutes per day is the maximum exposure without protection.
Second reminder for this thread that dB is logarithmic. The difference between 80dB and 90dB is multiplying SPL (sound pressure level) by 10, not adding 10.
A three hour flight at 112db is absolutely hearing loss, even accounting for the ear's counteraction to prolonged exposure (swelling increases intra cochlear pressure, which reduces amplitude somewhat).
t. sound engineer
>>29276121
It's a Sud-Quest Caravelle
>>29276352
>A three hour flight at 112db is absolutely hearing loss
Look at all these people, being tortured by soulless communists, suffering and slowly turning deaf. That old man in the back is probably already dead and the girl on the front is most likely getting a heart attack. Two men in the front are KGB agents equipped with earplugs.
Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.
>>29276395
Thanks.
>>29276410
>not understanding that the physiological pathology of hearing loss was not remotely mapped in 1960
>not understanding that the human ear and brain both work to buffer and alleviate pain perception to a certain degree during long term exposure to high amplitude sound pressure level
>not realizing that in 1960 it was a pretty awesome plane, and people didn't realize it was contributing minimally but permanently to their cumulative permanent hearing degradation, just like they didn't bother with ear protection while running metal grinders
just stop
>>29276437
>Implying implications
>Deafness Research Foundation says: Airline cabin noise varies depending on the type of plane, usually between 95 and 105 decibels
>A friend of mine measured a Boeing 757 (years ago) as never being below 70db during an entire cross-country flight
Yeah, you better stop before you imply and everyday deaf holocaust across the globe. This is not a joke. These people fucking suffer on these pics.
>>29276502
I'm no sound engineer, but I actually rode in the fuckin thing back in the mid-80's. I remember it now and always will as the loudest fucking plane ride I've ever taken. Bar none.
Keep posting your super awesome pics, though. Just know you aren't convincing me.
Did you ever take a flight in one?
>>29276525
Have you not been following the discussion? I'm not saying it's not louder than usual, I'm saying it was obviously tolerable enough for 6 million people that flew in it, while that anon above says you must be fucking deaf by now.
>>29276502
>These people fucking suffer on these pics.
Thank you for posting a picture of when people smoked like it was good for them, heart attacks were in, house wives were on uppers that fucked with their bodies. Kids were eating lead chips and being touched by your uncle was ok. Of course they didnt care about the noise dumbass.
>>29276544
>while that anon above says you must be fucking deaf by now.
Sound engineer anon here.
You clearly still do not understand the concept of permanent hearing damage. There's a reason old sound guys aren't completely fucking deaf. But after 30 years on the road, they can't hear anything above about 500hz for shit, and even below that they can be shaky. It doesn't happen in any noticeable way overnight, but it does matter little by little, and it is actually unpleasant to painful while exposed to it as >>29276525 noted.
>>29276287
>>29276340
>>29276410
>>29276502
>>29276544
holy fucking kek
look at this autist sperg out just because his favorite passenger jet has something about it thats not perfect and an anon had the gall to point it out
>>29276558
So you decided to ignore the information I quoted and concentrate on moving goalposts instead?
>>29276574
What does it have to do with taking a couple or two hours flight in an airliner? Yes, it was loud. But it was not fucking making people deaf and it was fucking fine and comfortable enough for the considerable amount of people that flew it. Of course it would sound unpleasant after a jet airliner.
>>29276582
>favorite passenger jet
That would be Tu-154 ever after I watched Air Crew. I'm just saying Tu-114 was not making people deaf.
>>29276644
Fuck you and your sports fuckboy
>>29276307
Currently about to finish a degree in audio but couldn't be fucked typing as I'm on phone. Good that someone said it.
>>29276649
There's not need to be upset.
>>29276644
>I'm just saying Tu-114 was not making people deaf.
Maybe you should talk to air crew that had to work it for any length of time. You find a stewardess that worked it for 5 years without serious hearing loss and I'll eat my shorts.
>Of course it would sound unpleasant after a jet airliner.
And prop planes. Basic fact of the matter is that counter rotating props will always be significantly louder. It's simple physics and well documented, especially in the case of the Bear.
>>29276673
So that's the route you want to take? Well that's not how it works. Go and find me a single fucking reference to ANYONE having ANY problems with hearing because of Tu-114. I'll wait.
>>29276673
>especially in the case of the Bear
Where? What where its noise levels compared to other aircraft of the era?
>>29274557
What if we just combined the P-3 and P-8 into one single P-38 platform?
It was very successful in WWII, so why can't we just revive the design?
>>29276726
Jesus fuck. Why are you even commenting on this shit when you've never even been within 5 miles of a Tu-95? Never even seen one at a fucking airshow? IT IS LITERALLY THE LOUDEST PLANE ANYONE'S EVER HEARD. The only thing that might have been louder is the XF-84H.
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/14/71/
>Each of the Bear’s eight four-blade propellers break the sound barrier as they turn, making the Tu-95 perhaps the loudest plane on the planet. In fact, Bears are so noisy that they can be detected by U.S. underwater sonar sensors and submarines. Fighter pilots sent up to intercept Bears have reported that the planes’ unmistakeable drone can even be heard over the sound of their own jets.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-blast-the-past-beware-the-tu-95-bear-strategic-13669
>Even when the bomber is in top-notch shape, the turboprop-powered Tu-95 is loud … really loud. In fact, it’s so noisy that listening devices on submerged U.S. submarines can hear a Bear flying overhead.
http://civilianplanespotters.blogspot.com/2010/01/tupolev-tu-95-bear-worlds-noisiest.html
>How does something qualify as extremely noisy? Well, if a certain airplane’s engine noise could create so much noise that SONAR arrays meant to track submarines can hear it, then yes. Believe it or not, the four counter-rotating propeller array driven by the Tu-95 Bear’s four powerful gas turbine engine produces so much noise. That the long-range bomber’s engines’ unique harmonics can be heard by the SONAR Surveillance System of the US Navy – i.e. SOSAS – meant to track Soviet era submarines during the height of the Cold War.
>>29276736
repeat joke is repeat
it was funny. once.
>>29276726
>Where? What where its noise levels compared to other aircraft of the era?
Check. I've been having a discussion with someone who is unaware the Bear is a loud aircraft, yet is arguing about hearing loss and SPL in the Tu-114. I'm bailing out here.
>>29276745
>>29276757
It's a different anon, dumbfucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyotSqShz20
>Revelation 8:7
>The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
>>29276767
>It's a different anon, dumbfucks.
I don't buy that, and I'm definitely done trying to educate you. Have a pleasant evening.
>>29276745
Any dB numbers? I'm genuinely interested.
All those articles ever mention is hearsay or retarded shit like 'loud...really loud'.
And the SOSUS thing, obviously a device that can detect a SSBN hundreds of kilometres away is going to be able to detect any (according to Norman Polemar, at least) aircraft.
>>29275865
In the airline industry, there is generally a lack of pilots since Congress mandated that commercial pilots need 1500 hours to fly compared to the previous 250. It's rather hard to become a pilot and pretty unattractive. Long hours, inconsistent sleeping schedule, low pay for most routes.
Being a pilot is kinda shit and the USN using civvie planes means nothing other than that the DoD can buy cheap parts for the plane from Boeing and airlines.
>>29276800
>Any dB numbers?
I'm unaware of the VVS releasing any sort of standard SPL ratings for any of their aircraft in service. Exact measurements can easily be used to range an aircraft if one knows local air conditions.
>>29276800
They were flying directly over my house at the 9th of May. It was loud, but not like that "that" loud as you may thing from reading such articles. And it was a really nice low menacing sound. Some teen shitheads racing on mopeds under my windows were much louder and infinitely more annoying.
>>29276857
>plane at 5,000ft agl
>not louder than motorbikes 50ft away
you don't say
>>29276857
How loud were they compared to the Tu-22M or Tu-160? Or other aircraft?
Tu-204P when?
Im a sailor in a VP squadron based out of hawaii AMA
>select all palm trees
>>29275541
>>29275800
>>29275911
I saw one of those in Krakow.
Funny how they kept bomber pit.
>>29276169
>Captain: "Do we have that spring line out yet!?"
>Me: "Uhh, no sir. The line handler just kinda wandered away... I think he's taking pictures."
>Captain: "Shaking my head to be honest senpai, roger that."
>>29276287
The noise is so loud that it has liquefied their brains.
>>29274692
>subs can hear them coming.
No worries comrade. Is just a RyanAir 737.
>>29274657
>their lobbying doesn't break $1m per year
Are they even trying?
>>29276230
>110 is pain threshold
wrong.
>>29278725
Jesus. Do some research. Pic related. It's not just the amplitude. It all depends on the frequency of your signal as well.
