AWAX type aircraft..fuel waste

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I watched an aircraft with the markings US Customs and Border patrol fly by ..what is strange about this aircraft and all the others I have seen is the excessive black smoke from the engines .
These planes are always trailing long black exhaust trails..If this was a private aircraft the government would be all over it due to the emmisions..this cloud of black smoke seems wastefull to me..or is there some other reason for it.
not sure if this is the right place to post this..thanks
Orion P3..AWACS type of aircraft..viewed at about 1000 feet.They are stationed at NAS Corpus Christi
edit on 20-1-2012 by granpabobby because: add information




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by granpabobby
 


Were you able to get a picture to post?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Do you mean to say AWACS? Airborne Warning and Control Systems? The planes with the big disc on top?

edit on 20-1-2012 by AwakeinNM because: Airborne, my bad



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
First off I think you mean"awacs" (Airborne warning and control) The "AWACs" is very recognizable because of the giant frisbee on the top containing the radar antenna.

Some older aircraft may have less efficient engines but they are maintained by highly trained technicians; The engines arecertainly "flight worthy"if nothing else...... Wanna put more money into defense?

I'm sure G.E.would love to re-fit any of those older airframes with upgraded power plants.Most programs plan for upgrades anyway. Don't know exactly how many different engine upgrades the old "buffs" ( b-52's) have been through but its more than "a couple".
Smoke may be characteristic of that particular engine; at that throttle setting under those temperatureand pressure conditions.

F4's phantoms have a characteritic droopy smoke plume(trail) when they are entering the "pattern"around a base. every single one I'v ever seen does it.( that certain throttle/airspeed/altitude combination).
edit on 20-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by granpabobby
 


You probably mean 'AWACS'?

Do you know the airplane type? Here is a list of what they have in their fleet:

CBP Aviation Resources


If it was an 'AWACS'-looking airplane, then most likely the Orion P-3. (Already pictured in the Wiki article).

The Allison turboprops that power it usually do not produce an excessive amount of sooty exhaust.....although if you were able to recognize it, and see the markings, then it was at low altitude? That could account for the exhaust being dirtier than normally at higher altitudes.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Get your buddy Obama to sign an executive order The "excessive/unsightly smoke act of 2012"

that's right up his alley...
edit on 20-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by granpabobby
 


That's AWACS, not AWAX, no offense intended, but please try to research and get your facts straight before making a post. That's why I balk at people that have thousands of posts and tens of thousands of points but yet make no real educated thesis in any of them.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


This?? Border patrol P-3B AEW

Smoke trails are characteristic of some old engines - C130's up to the H model and P-3's with the same engines often leave them.


NASA shot of one of their P-3B's showing smoke trail -

Also the old turbo-jets and low-bypass ratio turbofans of early 707 type/size engine (such as DC-8's, early 727's, B-52's, KC-135's, etc) - here's a good pic on flikr

AFAIK it is caused by incomplete burning of the fuel - excess fuel passes through the combustion section, and then carbonises (turns to soot) in the hot exhaust flow.

But at least they don't do this anymore:



This was caused by water injection to increase takeoff thrust!
edit on 20-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It could have been a P-3B or any of the older AWACS platforms that are still in service, as you said. That's the problem with acting like the world police. You have to spread yourself very thin and older equipment ends up staying on the MTOE for extended periods.

MTOE -Military Table of Equipment
edit on 20/1/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by granpabobby
 


There is a sticker on HUMMV's engines basically stating that this engine is exempt from emissions control. They are also on everything the US Army rolls. I'm sure that the USAF and USN have similiar relaxed standards.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I'm not sue there are emission standards for aircraft anyway.

I know engine manufacturers do strive to reduce pollutants - but AFAIK that is for efficiency rather than to meet a given standard - perhaps someone can set me straight if I'm wrong on that?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by granpabobby
 


There is a sticker on HUMMV's engines basically stating that this engine is exempt from emissions control. They are also on everything the US Army rolls. I'm sure that the USAF and USN have similiar relaxed standards.


For the navy its only combat equipment my brother works as a mechanic on a navy base and has to smog everything but combat equipment.

Vehicles used for support roles on base like maintenance and range prep ECT ECT are smogged

Many military heavy aircraft smoke during takeoff and landing because of the reduced power setting or high power setting without the proper airflow into the engine.
This is a FAA rule that engines are set to a rich mixture.during takeoffs and landings
A lean setting can and will cause a hot engine at full power takeoffs and can cause a flame out during a aborted landing if the throttle is slammed to the wall



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I can correct myself - there are emission standards -


Standards limiting the emissions of smoke, unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from turbojet and turbofan aircraft engines are contained in Annex 16 Volume II (Second Edition, July 1993, plus amendments) [Reference 2] to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The Annex also contains approved test and measurement procedures.
- from here

However it should b noted that ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation - a branch of the UN) is just that - a CIVIL aviation organisation, and its standards are not mandatory.

There's an FAA rule on emissions - F AA Rule Part 34 - this contains standards for smoke emissions for new engines starting in 1974. After that date the standards get progressively tighter, with newer engines having to emit less smoke and less nitrogen oxides.

There is also a standard for engines already in use in 1974 in a different part of the rule - here - which seems to be the same as for new engines from in 9174 - so is the equivalent to the oldest standard for new engines.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I don't think there a waste of fuel.
Maybe that particular one you saw



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Military aircraft don't fly as often as civilian ones whereas the cost of upgrading the engines stays the same. So the benefits of new engines would not be reaped fully by upgrading the engines - cheaper to just keep the old ones if they get the job done. Also as far as I know military aircraft are not required to comply with air pollution and noise pollution regulations.
edit on 24/1/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
It's not just the engines.

The shape of the aircraft is equally important as well..

The most advanced, cleanest, most fuel efficient engine fitted to a flying brick will certainly burn a lot more fuel than a very clean, very low drag design fitted even if fitted with WW2-era jet engines.

The fact that the B-52 while their old engines smoke a lot, they are more aerodynamically efficient than most modern jet airliners today using cleaner engines that's why the B-52 can cover the same distance, and probably burn the same amount of fuel.
edit on 25-1-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk
The fact that the B-52 while their old engines smoke a lot, they are more aerodynamically efficient than most modern jet airliners today using cleaner engines that's why the B-52 can cover the same distance, and probably burn the same amount of fuel.


do you have any actual figures for that?

Because unless you do you're guessing.

And I reckon you'd be guessing wrong - the B-52 is not a heavy aircraft by modern standards - maxing at 220 tonnes (220,00kg) with a combat radius of 7210km or ferry range of 16,232km on a fuel load of 181,610 litres (all from wiki

A 777-300ER, OTOH, has max takeoff weight of 351 tonnes, and a maximum range of 14,690 km on 181,283 litres. (also from Wiki

but those 2 range figures conceal that the 777 range is as an operating commercial airliner with pax and freight on board - the B-52's is a ferry range - so empty except for max fuel.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
The USAF dropped the ball when they didn't take Rolls-Royce up on the offer to lease engines for the B-52 in the 90's.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


If it was indeed an AIRFORCE AWACS, it makes sense that the engines would leave a smoke plume, since it is based off the 707. Ever watch that show PAN AM? They fly a 707 and it also has plumes trailing the engines. I really do not see what the big deal is. Planes sometimes fly from place to place. And if it was for some reason monitoring the border(In which case it is unlikely that it was the E-3) then wonderful... People jump the border every day but my wife of 5 years cant even get into the US legally until we pay even MORE money to US immigration.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by steppenwolf86
 


All correct above, except that in the case of this OP, the thread author saw a Lockheed P-3 that has an AWACS set-up, and is used for U.S. Border Patrol purposes.






new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join