• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
9,263
Points
1,360
So why is it an issue now?

Or does the CAF really want P-3’s from the Boneyard?
I don’t think it’s (exposed wheels) is really an issue for the P-8. The linkage to electronics payload limitations due to limited space related to gear was mentioned, but I don’t see it as any kind of a substantive issue.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,342
Points
1,090
Well, in fairness, the facts have been around for more than half a century. 😉
I can’t say I noticed the wheels not having coverings since I read this thread. I must’ve seen 737s in flight dozens of times… I never once noticed or asked myself about it.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
9,263
Points
1,360
I can’t say I noticed the wheels not having coverings since I read this thread. I must’ve seen 737s in flight dozens of times… I never once noticed or asked myself about it.
1658758527716.gif

😆
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
66
Points
430
As
As Max mentions
167955_Boeing_P-8A_Poseidon_US_Navy_VX-1_%2814676673471%29.jpg
Were gee
The 737 is far from the only plane with no main wheels doors. The 737 main wheels wells are fitted with a seal and the wheel with a hub to reduce parasite drag. The saving in weight (and thus the reduced induced drag) makes up for it.

The 737 sits too low to fit it with main wheel doors. That was a deliberate design choice from Boeing and operators see no operational benefit from having the main wheel doors hence they were never designed and installed.
I’m replying to many of you at once. Had Boeing gotten of their butts and made a 797 to replace the 737 doors would have been covering the wheels, and doors for landing hear would be much lighter. Landing gear would likely been lighter. Boeing likely to lose the short haul because they kept kicking the can down the road. But American companies and government will keep it flying.

This is the mother of all tangents.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
816
Points
1,040
As

Were gee

I’m replying to many of you at once. Had Boeing gotten of their butts and made a 797 to replace the 737 doors would have been covering the wheels, and doors for landing hear would be much lighter. Landing gear would likely been lighter. Boeing likely to lose the short haul because they kept kicking the can down the road. But American companies and government will keep it flying.

This is the mother of all tangents.
Not all Boeing fault. The airlines loved the 737. They like not having to re-cert the pilots for a different type rating. Etc etc. So you know they went back and forth with it. Cost, customers etc. They have taken the 737 out probably as far as it could go. The 737 why great for the flying public it basically opened the skies to everyone at an affordable price.

I think they are now working the replacement. Its going to be a tough call.

 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
563
Points
960
As part of their testing for the first 737, they landed it on the grass field at Hope BC, a picture of it on the field is in the VSA clubhouse.
Don't forget Nordair operated them from graveled runways through the addition of a deflectors on the nose gear. They were a little noisy though when the odd stone would ping off the lower fuselage
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,334
Points
1,160
Don't forget Nordair operated them from graveled runways through the addition of a deflectors on the nose gear. They were a little noisy though when the odd stone would ping off the lower fuselage
I flew in on one for crew change in the Arctic
 

Quirky

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
842
Points
1,140
I’m replying to many of you at once. Had Boeing gotten of their butts and made a 797 to replace the 737 doors would have been covering the wheels, and doors for landing hear would be much lighter. Landing gear would likely been lighter. Boeing likely to lose the short haul because they kept kicking the can down the road. But American companies and government will keep it flying.

Sounds like you are advocating for a 737 lift kit to accommodate the main gear doors.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
66
Points
430
Sounds like you are advocating for a 737 lift kit to accommodate the main gear doors.
I wouldn’t. I found the article above informative. Lots of options to get a single aisle up in the air more quickly. Boeing is a few steps behind and did it to themselves.

Also, i don’t think the current government is looking for More than mpa. Beyond what that means it don’t know. But it probably has Airbus in it.

One thing that I believe that we should buy pre-selected weapons of our allies. MQ-9B, CF-355, Type 26. So, P8. Even if we have Even if Boeing never covers the landing gear. I think Boeing could have done better than it did for the electronics,
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,342
Points
1,090
As

Were gee

I’m replying to many of you at once. Had Boeing gotten of their butts and made a 797 to replace the 737 doors would have been covering the wheels, and doors for landing hear would be much lighter. Landing gear would likely been lighter. Boeing likely to lose the short haul because they kept kicking the can down the road. But American companies and government will keep it flying.

This is the mother of all tangents.
I agree with you that Boeing, for a few years there, should have got off their butts.

Their priorities were profit, and continually less government oversight. And it caught up with them in some big, big ways. Not to mention how much of a mess some of the military projects ended up being.


But I’m not sure the uncovered landing gear on the 737 is the real ‘smoking gun of laziness’ you’re making it out to be? It works, and has for a while 🤷🏼‍♂️

(The two crash sites on the other hand…)
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
66
Points
430
I agree with you that Boeing, for a few years there, should have got off their butts.

Their priorities were profit, and continually less government oversight. And it caught up with them in some big, big ways. Not to mention how much of a mess some of the military projects ended up being.


But I’m not sure the uncovered landing gear on the 737 is the real ‘smoking gun of laziness’ you’re making it out to be? It works, and has for a while 🤷🏼‍♂️

(The two crash sites on the other hand…)
At this point in what I’ve learned, i wouldn't say that the landing gear is the problem. It is anachronistic and a symptom of a bigger problem in Boeing, as you said.

From what I can tell, the A321xlr crossed the Atlantic before Boeing’s design cross a computer screen.

Anyway, so we kind of agree.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,334
Points
1,160
At this point in what I’ve learned, i wouldn't say that the landing gear is the problem. It is anachronistic and a symptom of a bigger problem in Boeing, as you said.

From what I can tell, the A321xlr crossed the Atlantic before Boeing’s design cross a computer screen.

Anyway, so we kind of agree.
Air Canada seems to like those with orders for 6 and plans for another 20.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
816
Points
1,040
Air Canada seems to like those with orders for 6 and plans for another 20.
Boeing

"As of June 2022, 15,167 Boeing 737s have been ordered and 11,066 delivered." So more than 4000 more on order to build. They are going to be around for a long time.

Also with the P-8 being picked by more countries and the E-7 entering service with the US. This platform will be around to the end of time.

P-8 Used by RAAF, RAF, RNZAF, Germany on order, USN, South Korea, RNAF, India (and they have a MAD unit on it)

E-7 Used by RAAF, RAF, South Korea, Turkey plus ordered by the USAF. Many other are looking.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,342
Points
1,090
Boeing

"As of June 2022, 15,167 Boeing 737s have been ordered and 11,066 delivered." So more than 4000 more on order to build. They are going to be around for a long time.

Also with the P-8 being picked by more countries and the E-7 entering service with the US. This platform will be around to the end of time.

P-8 Used by RAAF, RAF, RNZAF, Germany on order, USN, South Korea, RNAF, India (and they have a MAD unit on it)

E-7 Used by RAAF, RAF, South Korea, Turkey plus ordered by the USAF. Many other are looking.
It’s good to see commonality in the airframe used not just by the USAF in different roles, but allied countries as well.

Makes planning and logistics a lot easier when everybody is showing up with the same airframe for certain tasks, i.e. P8

For the love of ***, I hope Canada just signs on to the P8 program as a customer. We can’t keep the P3 fleet flying forever, and it makes no sense to stuff Block 4 P3 aircraft full of expensive & capable gear if the airframe itself will be retired sooner vs later.

For the same benefits as it would benefit anybody else - common airframe & and solid interoperability. Not to mention the abundance of spare parts & qualified mechanics/techs.

(If we can get a similar capability out of a smaller aircraft produced by Bombardier, that’s another conversation entirely. But SAAB pull the plug on that recently, so I’m not looking at that as a reliable option.)



The Airbus MRTT is also a solid aircraft, and will be used by both us & some European allies in the tanker role.

Airbus earned that business the honest way, by having a solid product to offer to its customers that worked as advertised.

I believe they even reached a milestone & performed some A/A refuels autonomously, something the KC-46 isn’t even close to being able to attempt.



They also won the USAF competition to refresh their tanker fleet, which would have added hundreds of aircraft on order.

If it wasn’t for Boeing intensely lobbying Congress (aka bribing various congressmen with cash payments & the threat of jobs leaving their districts) I imagine the USAF would be flying license-built MRTT’s now without all the headaches the KC-46 has/is giving them.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
816
Points
1,040
It’s good to see commonality in the airframe used not just by the USAF in different roles, but allied countries as well.

Makes planning and logistics a lot easier when everybody is showing up with the same airframe for certain tasks, i.e. P8

For the love of ***, I hope Canada just signs on to the P8 program as a customer. We can’t keep the P3 fleet flying forever, and it makes no sense to stuff Block 4 P3 aircraft full of expensive & capable gear if the airframe itself will be retired sooner vs later.

For the same benefits as it would benefit anybody else - common airframe & and solid interoperability. Not to mention the abundance of spare parts & qualified mechanics/techs.

(If we can get a similar capability out of a smaller aircraft produced by Bombardier, that’s another conversation entirely. But SAAB pull the plug on that recently, so I’m not looking at that as a reliable option.)



The Airbus MRTT is also a solid aircraft, and will be used by both us & some European allies in the tanker role.

Airbus earned that business the honest way, by having a solid product to offer to its customers that worked as advertised.

I believe they even reached a milestone & performed some A/A refuels autonomously, something the KC-46 isn’t even close to being able to attempt.



They also won the USAF competition to refresh their tanker fleet, which would have added hundreds of aircraft on order.

If it wasn’t for Boeing intensely lobbying Congress (aka bribing various congressmen with cash payments & the threat of jobs leaving their districts) I imagine the USAF would be flying license-built MRTT’s now without all the headaches the KC-46 has/is giving them.
Boeing in hindsight wished Airbus had won the contract too. It was a fixed priced contract they low balled to get. They have lost billions on it. That and Force One that Trump made them low ball too. The Boeing CEO has said as much.

Boeing's CEO Says It Shouldn't Have Signed Air Force One Deal.


The next program from Boeing to watch is the T-7 Redhawk. They went low on that one too. But have SAAB onboard to control cost. And the real hope on that is the International orders. RACF is high on the list on that one.

Then again Airbus is not much better......FWSAR....cough cough.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
66
Points
430
Boeing

"As of June 2022, 15,167 Boeing 737s have been ordered and 11,066 delivered." So more than 4000 more on order to build. They are going to be around for a long time.

Also with the P-8 being picked by more countries and the E-7 entering service with the US. This platform will be around to the end of time.

P-8 Used by RAAF, RAF, RNZAF, Germany on order, USN, South Korea, RNAF, India (and they have a MAD unit on it)

E-7 Used by RAAF, RAF, South Korea, Turkey plus ordered by the USAF. Many other are looking.
They’re the most used because it is was the only one. They are used in America by Americans because ‘Merica

I agree with the statement 737 opened the skies for manny people. And they did that without covering their landing gear. 😀

My point is that Airbus is winning the single aisles and the single-aisle is where the action is for now. The 777 on the other hand is an amazing piece of engineering.

Quite the rabbit hole.
 
Top