S-3 Viking Suitability for Civilian Use?
Tony Whitaker
That's a very pretty airplane. I',m curious about how it would fare as a
civilian aircraft. Would it be outrageously expensive to purchase, own, and
operate? Or could it be competitive for civilian use?
Mike "Rotor" Nowak
firefighting aircraft in California (contest evenutally won out by the
S-2T), so there obviously are at least a few in mothballs, ready to go... if
you can get one, I bet it'd be rather nice.
I think I saw the show you were talking about... I didn't know they used
them in ground attack roles! Very nifty!
Mike
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ajm6d6$klt$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Bill Silvey
"Mike "Rotor" Nowak" <ro...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pXx79.45632$eb.31...@news2.west.cox.net...
> I remember hearing somthing about how S-3s were being considered for
> firefighting aircraft in California (contest evenutally won out by the
> S-2T), so there obviously are at least a few in mothballs, ready to go...
if
> you can get one, I bet it'd be rather nice.
>
> I think I saw the show you were talking about... I didn't know they used
> them in ground attack roles! Very nifty!
>
> Mike
Oh yeah. The Viking can carry Maverick, CBUs and other air-to-ground
weaponry.
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
Tony Whitaker
> I remember hearing somthing about how S-3s were being considered for
> firefighting aircraft in California (contest evenutally won out by the
> S-2T), so there obviously are at least a few in mothballs, ready to
> go... if you can get one, I bet it'd be rather nice.
>
> I think I saw the show you were talking about... I didn't know they
> used them in ground attack roles! Very nifty!
Yep. That's the show I saw. They were used on bombing missions, and showed
them carrying bombs.
I was thinking that in civilian use, the aircraft could carry luggage pods
under the wings. Then, if the passengers get out of line, you could
jettison their luggage.
Tony Whitaker
news:3vy79.321375$XH.71...@twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> weaponry.
I found web sites that say a Boeing Business Jet (737) costs $40 million, a
Gulfstream V costs $38 million, and an S-3 Viking costs $27 million. Of
course, the Boeing and the Gulfstream are much larger aircraft (heavier, at
least). But I'm guessing a huge proportion of the cost of an S-3 is in the
electronics and other military requirements that could be deleted for
civilian use.
Bill Silvey
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea and think it'd be pretty doggone nifty,
but here's the problems I forsee:
Lots of the S3 airframes are old or getting that way fast. IIRC, there are
no jigs or tooling to build replacement parts per se for airframe
structures. Thus, any rebuilding for civilian use will require quite a lot
of work (which demands more money). Then there's the issue of making them
comfortable, period. Military combat aircraft tend towards the spartan in
terms of anything other than crew comfort, and even that's questionable.
Finally, with regard to "available" parts (e.g., TF30 engines), are there
civilian equivalents that can be had as cheaply as the engines of a Lear or
Gulfstream (if they're the same engines, just tell me and I'll whack myself
in the forehead later).
Tony Whitaker
> nifty, but here's the problems I forsee:
>
> Lots of the S3 airframes are old or getting that way fast. IIRC, there
> are no jigs or tooling to build replacement parts per se for airframe
> structures. Thus, any rebuilding for civilian use will require quite a
> lot of work (which demands more money). Then there's the issue of
> making them comfortable, period. Military combat aircraft tend towards
> the spartan in terms of anything other than crew comfort, and even
> that's questionable.
>
> Finally, with regard to "available" parts (e.g., TF30 engines), are
> there civilian equivalents that can be had as cheaply as the engines of
> a Lear or Gulfstream (if they're the same engines, just tell me and
> I'll whack myself in the forehead later).
Oh. I thought it was still in production. Bummer.
Peter Stickney
"Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> writes:
>
> "Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:ajme6f$hi6$2...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>> "Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:3vy79.321375$XH.71...@twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>> > Oh yeah. The Viking can carry Maverick, CBUs and other air-to-ground
>> > weaponry.
>>
>> I found web sites that say a Boeing Business Jet (737) costs $40 million,
> a
>> Gulfstream V costs $38 million, and an S-3 Viking costs $27 million. Of
>> course, the Boeing and the Gulfstream are much larger aircraft (heavier,
> at
>> least). But I'm guessing a huge proportion of the cost of an S-3 is in the
>> electronics and other military requirements that could be deleted for
>> civilian use.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I like the idea and think it'd be pretty doggone nifty,
> but here's the problems I forsee:
>
> Lots of the S3 airframes are old or getting that way fast. IIRC, there are
> no jigs or tooling to build replacement parts per se for airframe
> structures. Thus, any rebuilding for civilian use will require quite a lot
> of work (which demands more money). Then there's the issue of making them
> comfortable, period. Military combat aircraft tend towards the spartan in
> terms of anything other than crew comfort, and even that's questionable.
There's also not going to be a lot of internal volume, relatively
speaking.
>
> Finally, with regard to "available" parts (e.g., TF30 engines), are there
> civilian equivalents that can be had as cheaply as the engines of a Lear or
> Gulfstream (if they're the same engines, just tell me and I'll whack myself
> in the forehead later).
That's less of a problem than you'd think. The same engine is used on
civil aircraft, including the Canadair Challenger. Actually, that
makes the idea of a cramped, noisy, slow S-3 conversion a bit
problematic. FOr a lot less money you can buy a used Challenger, and
get a bigger, faster, more comfy airplane. (And probably same enough
money to buy 5 years worth of fuel.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
tscottme
"Don't make me pull the yellow handle!"
Simon H. Lee
high-kicking electrons to spell out:
I don't think there's enough room back there for the passengers to
get out of line anyway, so to speak... :)
-- - Simon -
ALL DONE! BYE BYE!
Tony Whitaker
news:ajngnp$lla$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu:
> to
> get out of line anyway, so to speak... :)
Is it really that small back there? It sure looks alot bigger than a Lear
Jet for example.
Mike "Rotor" Nowak
regarding how large it was... same with the EA3...
Mike
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ajo58c$3a0$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Tony Whitaker
> Got any pictures of the behind area? I don't think I ever saw anything
> regarding how large it was... same with the EA3...
>
The EA-3 Skywarrior? That thing was HUGE wasn't it?
I managed to find this:
http://www.vrc-50.org/aircraft.htm
Says there was a cargo version called the US-3A which had 10 cargo
compartments and space for 5 passengers in addition to the crew of 3.
Giz
"Mike "Rotor" Nowak" <ro...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qpS79.49179$eb.35...@news2.west.cox.net...
> Got any pictures of the behind area? I don't think I ever saw anything
> regarding how large it was... same with the EA3...
Both are fairly cramped in the back in their current fit. A lot of
electronics would
be coming out though. I think the S-3 would end up being pretty comparable
to a
civilian Lear, and quite a head turner on the ramp.
Giz
Ralph Savelsberg
Mike \"Rotor\" Nowak wrote:
> I remember hearing somthing about how S-3s were being considered for
> firefighting aircraft in California (contest evenutally won out by the
> S-2T), so there obviously are at least a few in mothballs, ready to go... if
> you can get one, I bet it'd be rather nice.
>
Those in Mothballs are likely to be rather long in the tooth. The most common
stored are the ES-3A, some of the oldest airframes modified for ELINT and
withdrawn from service a few years ago, and the US-3A COD version. The latter
were used in small numbers by the navy as long-range fast delivery aircraft and
for this role were modified to carry six passengers and cargo, the latter also
in rather large underwing cargo pods. These were withdrawn from service around
1994 and are probably the Viking airframes with the most flight hours behind
them, at least they were said to each clock flighthours faster than a whole
squadron worth of plain S-3A/B Vikings.
Regards
Ralph Savelsberg
Giz
"Ralph Savelsberg" <r.save...@tue.nl> wrote in message
>
> Those in Mothballs are likely to be rather long in the tooth. The most
common
> stored are the ES-3A, some of the oldest airframes modified for ELINT and
> withdrawn from service a few years ago, and the US-3A COD version. The
latter
> were used in small numbers by the navy as long-range fast delivery
aircraft and
> for this role were modified to carry six passengers and cargo, the latter
also
> in rather large underwing cargo pods. These were withdrawn from service
around
> 1994 and are probably the Viking airframes with the most flight hours
behind
> them, at least they were said to each clock flighthours faster than a
whole
> squadron worth of plain S-3A/B Vikings.
A sort of apples/oranges comparison in regards to flight hours. In civilian
trim
there would be no more deck cycles and a far less corrosive environment.
P-3's
are long in the tooth approaching 20,000 hours, while several L-188's are
over
100,000.
Giz
Tarver Engineering
"tscottme" <blah...@blah.net> wrote in message
news:gbH79.198516$6Z1.9...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Yeah sure, like your luggage is going to the same place you are.
John
Tarver Engineering
"Giz" <giz...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:wnT79.1930$Hr.20...@kent.svc.tds.net...
The way Part 21 reads right now the basis of certification would have to be
flight tests done by the manufacturer, so you probably would hve no hope of
US operations with passengers.
John
X
writes:
>Both are fairly cramped in the back in their current fit. A lot of
>electronics would
>be coming out though. I think the S-3 would end up being pretty comparable
>to a
>civilian Lear, and quite a head turner on the ramp.
>
What kind of cargo capacity would it have...assuming that it was stripped out
for strictly airfreight operation. Seems to me that a carrier-based plane would
need to have good short-field performance, which might make it a good
short-hop airfreighter...especially if it could be had cheaply enough.
Thanks,
Jeff
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"
(Remove the "x" to reply)
willips
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ajm6d6$klt$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Tony Whitaker
news:um35age...@corp.supernews.com:
> What in the world would you do with it?
It could be like a lear jet. Carry several passengers and their luggage.
I'm not sure, but I think it's performance would be superior to a lear jet.
I hope someone knowledgeable will comment on this subject. I think the high
mounted wing is superior to the low mounted wing of a lear jet because that
allows you can carry things under the wings. Is it permissible for civilian
aircraft to have hard points?
Peter Stickney
Well, not so much a Lear, but something bigger, like a Challenger.
Here's a quick comparison. The S-3 numbers are from the S-3 Standard
Aircraft Characteristics, and the Challenger numbers are from the
'79-80 Jane's.
US-3A CL-600 Challenger E
Empty Wt: 26,000# 19,670
Normal To Wt: 43,000#
Max To Wt: 52,000# 48,000#
Internal Fuel 13,000# 22,600#
Cruise Speed/Alt/Range 348 kt/ 475 kt
39,000' 37,000'
2765 NM 3860 NM
Accomodation: 2 crew in hot seats 2 crew, 11 pax on
5 passangers plush leather with
room to stand up and
a galley
Cabin Length: 37'
Cabin Width 8'2"
Cabin Height: 6'1"
So, with the Challenger, which uses the same engines, & thus about the
same running costs, you can go 1,000 Nautical miles further, 150 kts
faster, carry more than twice as many people, (or the same number of
people & a full bedroom), and have room to stand up.
Seems like converteing S-3s to Bizjets isn't quite there.
Unless you have your own aircraft carrier.
sid
> same running costs, you can go 1,000 Nautical miles further, 150 kts
> faster, carry more than twice as many people, (or the same number of
> people & a full bedroom), and have room to stand up.
> Seems like converteing S-3s to Bizjets isn't quite there.
> Unless you have your own aircraft carrier.
The costs to attain civilian certification which would be pretty stout
as well. The economics of converting those airframes to any civil use
other than maybe firebombers evaporate when compared to the product
offerings from Lear, Cessna, Canadair, and Embraer.
tracy & da SWAMPdogs
videotape if possible...
TIA!
Tracy
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ajm6d6$klt$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Tony Whitaker
news:ajur7v$aua$1...@nnrp.atgi.net:
I'm not sure of the name of the show. I think it's "Sea Wings". It's a
series of shows in which a particular aircraft is discussed for each show.
I know it's repeated incessantly on the Discovery Wings channel, so, if you
have that channel, it should be easy to get a tape.
Mike "Rotor" Nowak
S3 show was "Defender of the Fleet", or somthing like that... the name of
the show as listed was most likely the title of the episode. Give it a few
months and it'll be back on (maybe sooner!).
Mike
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ajvtio$484$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
David E. Powell
https://www.facebook.com/KC-3A-Super-Viking-1375651372749068/?fref=ts
<https://www.facebook.com/KC-3A-Super-Viking-1375651372749068/?fref=ts>
New carrier-based tanker? Why not? The other roles are doable, too. Cargo or Anti-Sub.
Big ups to the Viking squad!