Unbuilt ASW/MARPAT versions of airliners?

Jemiba said:
From Aviation Week 1977 1-9 a Boeing derivative of the 727, still 3 engined, but
with the tail side mounted engines moved to pods under the wings. Any explanation
why ? Lower noise level in the cabin, for a better acoustic environment ? ???
Click to expand...
But the 727 was one of the quietest cabins of all the airliners, the compressor whine was easily damped out...

Maybe to make the aircraft more resistant to damage, as most events that would take out engine(s) would only get one?
 
Color version from National Archives
Still you should understand that this is nothing more than artist's imagination, and not a real Lockheed proposal
 

Attachments

  • DF-SC-85-01219.jpeg
    DF-SC-85-01219.jpeg
    2.4 MB · Views: 412
flateric said:
...Still you should understand that this is nothing more than artist's imagination, and not a real Lockheed proposal
Click to expand...

Gordon Phillips' artwork comes up a lot in Air Force and Space Digest articles. Anyone know if he was a USAF artist?
 
Apophenia said:
Gordon Phillips' artwork comes up a lot in Air Force and Space Digest articles. Anyone know if he was a USAF artist?
Click to expand...

I wonder if he was the same Gordon Phillips mentioned at this link. The dates seem right, but the subject matter is different. I vaguely recall that we've seen some other Western art with the same signature elsewhere on this site.

https://www.askart.com/artist/Gordon_Dale_Phillips/5633/Gordon_Dale_Phillips.aspx
If so, the aircraft art could be examples of commercial art done for hire, probably by the aircraft manufacturers.

Edit: My mistake; the artist I was thinking of is Allen A. Adams.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...218-sea-control-ship-fighters.103/post-168650
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I'd want different engines for that, but the general layout is definitely usable for ASW.
Click to expand...
When Boeing 727s proved too loud for newer noise-abatement laws, there were a couple of proposals to re-engine them with fan jets. The complex ducting prevented replacing the center engine.
At least one proposal suggested replacing side engines with large-diameter fan jets.
 
riggerrob said:
When Boeing 727s proved too loud for newer noise-abatement laws, there were a couple of proposals to re-engine them with fan jets. The complex ducting prevented replacing the center engine.
At least one proposal suggested replacing side engines with large-diameter fan jets.
Click to expand...
And that was after they'd been re-engined once already with quieter engines that had a mixing area surrounded with noise absorbers after the turbines.
 
riggerrob said:
When Boeing 727s proved too loud for newer noise-abatement laws, there were a couple of proposals to re-engine them with fan jets. The complex ducting prevented replacing the center engine.
At least one proposal suggested replacing side engines with large-diameter fan jets.
Click to expand...

The Dee Howard Tay re-engining addressed that by increasing the cross-section of the fore and aft duct sections, but with a constrained intermediate section to accelerate the airflow.
 
Kiltonge said:
The Dee Howard Tay re-engining addressed that by increasing the cross-section of the fore and aft duct sections, but with a constrained intermediate section to accelerate the airflow.
Click to expand...
I never saw those, place I worked at took care of FedEx and Northwest Airlines 727s (among lots and lots of others). And I'm not sure that was a particularly good swap, the JT8D-200 series engines used in the hush kits had significantly more power.
 
With two larger fuselage mount nacelles...might the hollow tail for the missing third engine have some type of optics package or something?

An airborne laser really needs that position instead of hacking at the nose as with the 747.

The 727 is quite agile for its size...it really needs some military application. Canards in the nose?

I was fortunate enough to have ridden in one and it was a real joy---as opposed to other tri-jets that rode like trucks.
 
publiusr said:
With two larger fuselage mount nacelles...might the hollow tail for the missing third engine have some type of optics package or something?

An airborne laser really needs that position instead of hacking at the nose as with the 747.

The 727 is quite agile for its size...it really needs some military application. Canards in the nose?

I was fortunate enough to have ridden in one and it was a real joy---as opposed to other tri-jets that rode like trucks.
Click to expand...
If they're turning it into an MPA, then the Magnetic anomaly detector gear gets installed in place of the 3rd engine, with sonobuoys in place of the rear airstairs.
 
TomS said:
Maritime patrol version mainly for environmental surveillance, I assume? The Microwave radiometer suggests weather applications.
Click to expand...
Yes
The equipment is identical to the Do 228 LM, used by the German Navy for pollution control and enforcement of the maritime pollution convention.
The German Wikipedia article on the plane is very detailed and describes the use and origin of most of the devices.
 

Attachments

  • Do228LM.png
    Do228LM.png
    616.5 KB · Views: 324
JYB said:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/unbuilt-asw-marpat-versions-of-airliners.300/post-18760
Click to expand...

I thought this had been covered before but cannot find it with Search. So, ...

In 1986, when Boeing owned de Havilland Canada, they offered two maritime patrol DHC-8 derivatives dubbed Triton. These were a short-bodied DHC-8-200 airframe-based general maritime patrol aircraft and the longer-bodied Dash 8M-300ASW. The Dash 8-200 was similar in appearance to the DHC-8-102-based Canadian Forces CC-142 nav trainer with its extended nose radar modification.

For the ASW role, Triton would be fitted with 4 x underwing pylons and 2 x fuselage-side hardpoints - for Harpoon (or Exocet) ASMs. The aircraft was to have an underbelly radome for search radar and a MAD tailboom. Carrying maximum fuel, Triton endurance was to be over 11 hours.

Boeing Canada pitched their Triton to replace the aged Canadian Forces Grumman CP-121 Tracker fleet on fisheries protection and maritime patrol. But DND intended to upgrade the CP-121s (including turboprop conversions). Instead, in 1990, the CP-121s were withdrawn from service without direct replacement. By then, Boeing Canada had already abandoned the Triton and was trying to sell off DHC.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 240
hesham said:
From Aviation magazine 1-10-1986
Click to expand...
On a related note, Canadair tried to bid on the most recent RCAF contract for long-range maritime patrol airplanes with a Challenger variant. Challenger never had the range to do serious patrols in the Canadian high arctic, so Canadair's bid was little more than an embellishment on the contract process.
Eventually (2024) the contract went to Boeing P-8 which is operated by several other allies: USN, Australia, etc. At latest report, RCAF crews were training in P-8s off the coast of Scotland.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
If they're turning [a 727] into an MPA, then the Magnetic anomaly detector gear gets installed in place of the 3rd engine, with [edit] sonobuoys torpedoes in place of the rear airstairs.
Click to expand...
Using the airstairs area as the bomb bay would give you a very deep space to stow things, that whole unpressurized volume is like 12 feet deep at the bulkhead. Mk44 Torpedoes are only 8'3" long, not counting parachute, Mk46s are 8'6" long, Mk50s are 9'6" long, and the Mk54s are only 8'10" long.

This gives you a choice of mounting. You could mount the torpedoes vertically and really pack a large number of weapons into the back, or you could rack them horizontally roughly 3-4 wide and maybe with room for two rows in tandem. I don't remember how heavy the airstair is, but each torpedo is 400-800lbs with another 200lbs of parachute, and we're probably talking 6 fish for ~4800lbs (including parachutes) assuming Mk46s.

Changed my mind on the sonobuoy location, those are better being rigged up with tubes going out through the aft cargo bay, using the air pressure to shoot them out. That probably fills the back half of the cargo bay. I'm going to stick an extra fuel bladder into the front half of the rear cargo bay. It'll be the first fuel used, since it's aft of the MLG by a little.

All the specialty radar bits and control panels are all the way forward for CG. The forward cargo bay is probably full of fuel bladders.

And you've got a pair of CF6s or PW2000s or CFM56s for power on the sides of the fuselage! A pair of CF6s would be a little heavier than 3x JT8Ds while making nearly twice as much thrust. A pair of PW2000s would be right at the same weight as the trio of JT8Ds while making at least 1/3 more thrust. The CFM56s are a bit underpowered for the mission, barely equaling the power of the JT8Ds, but a pair of CFM56s is about 3000-4000lbs lighter than a trio of JT8Ds.

Hang 4x Harpoon/Exocets under the wings, maybe even two 3-packs of Mavericks for shorter-ranged antiship, and give it a pair or quartet of Sidewinders, just to piss everyone off.
 
About that boeing 727 project. Maybe my eyes got bad, but where is the MAD? Is it in the front of the vertical stabilizer?
 
From the VFW 614 - Development, Variants and Projects thread:
Jemiba said:
A 3-view of the mentioned ASW/maritime recce version, shown in the
FliegerRevueX 51. The proposal was made in 1977 for the MPA 80
(Maritime Patrol Aircraft) program.
Click to expand...
vfw-614_asw-jpg.518043
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom