Seaplanes for the Air Force, maybe.

Lawman

Well-Known Member
I believe the P-3 guys flew around 500' AGL (that's not missing a 0) when they were doing their sub hunting stuff
From a friend….

Dependent on profile.

Sub Hunting
Dropping a sonar bouy and stuff had a specific low altitude and speed requirement.

Not Sub Hunting
When they had their pattern out though they would go to a more economical loiter in the 3-5k range. It’s also where they spent most of their time doing non traditional ISR patrol with their cameras. And they wanted as little to do with skimming around low because that’s where the Seahawks would be doing their games.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

///AMG

Well-Known Member
Yeah that makes sense. I also imagine their low profile might not be the greatest place to shut down engines......not sure if the shutdown thing was reserved for that loiter profile you mention or not.
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
Yeah that makes sense. I also imagine their low profile might not be the greatest place to shut down engines......not sure if the shutdown thing was reserved for that loiter profile you mention or not.
From what he was saying it simply wasn’t done anymore. It’s one of those “in the old days we used too….” TTPs that made it into Sea Stories about the community, but nobody was actually doing it. Somebody early on with god knows what experience from WWII/Korea probably sat down before more restrictive NATOPs manuals did some cocktail math with under developed performance charts and a stop watch to proof it, went out and did it, and it became a thing.

From what my buddy was saying though, the reliability issues in the P3 towards its end life were such nobody wanted to go hunting for suddenly having to do 3 engine fuel planning because #4 won’t restart.

I know a Vietnam A-37 pilot that said the same kind of thing was done in their community during loiter ops over the trail. Shut down down an engine, trim it out, run the other hotter to achieve better fuel burn. Sounds honestly insane to me but apparently it was something they did back then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Pilot Fighter

Well-Known Member
From what he was saying it simply wasn’t done anymore. It’s one of those “in the old days we used too….” TTPs that made it into Sea Stories about the community, but nobody was actually doing it. Somebody early on with god knows what experience from WWII/Korea probably sat down before more restrictive NATOPs manuals did some cocktail math with under developed performance charts and a stop watch to proof it, went out and did it, and it became a thing.

From what my buddy was saying though, the reliability issues in the P3 towards its end life were such nobody wanted to go hunting for suddenly having to do 3 engine fuel planning because #4 won’t restart.

I know a Vietnam A-37 pilot that said the same kind of thing was done in their community during loiter ops over the trail. Shut down down an engine, trim it out, run the other hotter to achieve better fuel burn. Sounds honestly insane to me but apparently it was something they did back then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It was still a thing with the Aussies as recent as the MH 370 search.

I recall that there was a procedure for shutdown of both 1 and 4 but 1 was the only one shut down in practice because it wasn't used for power generation.

A related question is, do TacAir guys have any patrol buddies?
 

///AMG

Well-Known Member
From what he was saying it simply wasn’t done anymore. It’s one of those “in the old days we used too….” TTPs that made it into Sea Stories about the community, but nobody was actually doing it. Somebody early on with god knows what experience from WWII/Korea probably sat down before more restrictive NATOPs manuals did some cocktail math with under developed performance charts and a stop watch to proof it, went out and did it, and it became a thing.

From what my buddy was saying though, the reliability issues in the P3 towards its end life were such nobody wanted to go hunting for suddenly having to do 3 engine fuel planning because #4 won’t restart.
Not entirely related, but I wonder if that mishap we had up around here a number of years ago contributed to that change. I agree, it sounds like a weird thing to have been doing, especially in a non-wartime scenario.
 

knot4u

Repeat Offender
From what he was saying it simply wasn’t done anymore. It’s one of those “in the old days we used too….” TTPs that made it into Sea Stories about the community, but nobody was actually doing it. Somebody early on with god knows what experience from WWII/Korea probably sat down before more restrictive NATOPs manuals did some cocktail math with under developed performance charts and a stop watch to proof it, went out and did it, and it became a thing.

From what my buddy was saying though, the reliability issues in the P3 towards its end life were such nobody wanted to go hunting for suddenly having to do 3 engine fuel planning because #4 won’t restart.

I know a Vietnam A-37 pilot that said the same kind of thing was done in their community during loiter ops over the trail. Shut down down an engine, trim it out, run the other hotter to achieve better fuel burn. Sounds honestly insane to me but apparently it was something they did back then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Not to argue, but has been previously mentioned the P-3 and C-130 shared basically the same engine/prop platform, including the propellor control. The P-3 had a prop control that allowed it to unfeather and the C-130 didn't. I don't know if it's possible to unfeather a C-130 prop inflight, but it didn't have the same provision designed into the prop system.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Not entirely related, but I wonder if that mishap we had up around here a number of years ago contributed to that change. I agree, it sounds like a weird thing to have been doing, especially in a non-wartime scenario.
i still remember the midair of the two P-3s from Moffett off the coast of San Diego where one leaving station collided with one entering station. Something crazy like 28 or so fatal.
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
Not to argue, but has been previously mentioned the P-3 and C-130 shared basically the same engine/prop platform, including the propellor control. The P-3 had a prop control that allowed it to unfeather and the C-130 didn't. I don't know if it's possible to unfeather a C-130 prop inflight, but it didn't have the same provision designed into the prop system.
I’d imagine if you sat down with a side by side comparison there is far more different between the two than just mounting or a feature here/there.

Similar to how you hear the old trope of “the same engine as a chinook helicopter” whenever somebody does a documentary on the Abrams. Like no… hell no even.

I do know at least with the 130, you could select individual engine speed/prop settings to maintain cruise while loading one wing up compared to the other. Makes a small difference in the total power requirement needed for a heavily laden helicopter to make the move into contact with a refueling drogue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
wings of gold wearers who have never landed on a boat? Like an E-6A pilot. Even helo guys have been on the boat.
“Hey I know this Army guy that’s boat qualified… it can’t be that hard if he can do it.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

knot4u

Repeat Offender
I’d imagine if you sat down with a side by side comparison there is far more different between the two than just mounting or a feature here/there.

Similar to how you hear the old trope of “the same engine as a chinook helicopter” whenever somebody does a documentary on the Abrams. Like no… hell no even.

I do know at least with the 130, you could select individual engine speed/prop settings to maintain cruise while loading one wing up compared to the other. Makes a small difference in the total power requirement needed for a heavily laden helicopter to make the move into contact with a refueling drogue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I've never actually worked on either aircraft, but I used to overhaul the 54H60 propeller controls for both and they were very similar. My comment was more along the lines of maybe they designed that into airplane from the outset because the controls were different, pure speculation.
 

Pilot Fighter

Well-Known Member
I've never actually worked on either aircraft, but I used to overhaul the 54H60 propeller controls for both and they were very similar. My comment was more along the lines of maybe they designed that into airplane from the outset because the controls were different, pure speculation.
Gotta find a Natops, I'm interested in the shutdown procedure. I recall there being something unique about it.

On a related note, I'm curious why my S-3 had such a distinctive sound compared to its stepsister the A-10. I'm thinking that nacelle design is a big part of it. Maybe @MikeD can do my homework for me. As always, he seems to be all-knowing.
 

///AMG

Well-Known Member
i still remember the midair of the two P-3s from Moffett off the coast of San Diego where one leaving station collided with one entering station. Something crazy like 28 or so fatal.
Jeez, I don't remember hearing about that one, but sounds pretty terrible.
 

///AMG

Well-Known Member
Gotta find a Natops, I'm interested in the shutdown procedure. I recall there being something unique about it.
Oh I found it:
*Throttle Affected Engine - OFF
*Adjacent Engine Prop Control - Feather
*Engines on Other Wing - Firewall Both
*Yoke - Full against roll, Full aft
*Rudder - Ignore
*Send it

On a related note, I'm curious why my S-3 had such a distinctive sound compared to its stepsister the A-10. I'm thinking that nacelle design is a big part of it. Maybe @MikeD can do my homework for me. As always, he seems to be all-knowing.
Didn't/doesnt the CRJ also share that motor?
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Jeez, I don't remember hearing about that one, but sounds pretty terrible.
was in early 1991, just as Desert Storm was ending. Both planes and all crew members from VP-50 at Moffett.


Do you remember the USCG HC-130 out of Sacramento and the USMC AH-1W Cobra that hit each other in nearly the same area?
 

Get-home-itis

Well-Known Member
was in early 1991, just as Desert Storm was ending. Both planes and all crew members from VP-50
Mike, while I wouldn't swear to it, I believe there were a couple of Wing staff guys on board as well. It was not uncommon for them to occasionally come along for the ride so that they could get the hours to retain flight pay and just sleep through a 10 hr burner. I remember thinking that the handful of Wing staff on that flight picked the wrong one.

And yes, on particularly long flights, we would shut down 2 engines but that would limit us to 1000 ft agl. When we were actively prosecuting a sub we'd be down at 200 ft (daytime) or 300 ft (night) looking for a MAD boom hit. If you're just monitoring a sonobouy field you'd tool around at several thousand feet.

In regards to 2 and 3 engine loiter, I can remember taking a bunch of local civilian media members from the JAX area on a demo mission and all the reporters freaking out when we feathered number 1... it makes quite a sound and looks real strange when you look out the window and at a still prop. In nearly 25 years of flying at SoJets I've never had an engine come close to failing but in 9 years of maritime patrol I did engine out landings 3 times because the damn thing wouldn't restart after being shut down 8 hours or so
 
Top