AWAX type aircraft..fuel waste

reply to post by ProudBird


Guess I got distracted by the replies. Wow, what does the border patrol do with that? I could imagine that they are looking for low flying smugglers, but then I have never heard publicly or otherwise about an intercept over US airspace. Any ideas?

reply to post by steppenwolf86


They use the AWACS-type equipment to spot drug-smuggling airplanes:

United States Department of Homeland Security / Customs and Border Protection / Office of CBP Air – eight P-3 AEWs; based at NAS Corpus Christi, Texas and NAS Jacksonville, Florida. Used for border patrol and anti-drug duties. Former USN aircraft, modified and equipped with the same Airborne Early Warning radar as fitted to the E-2 Hawkeye.

Here


And also the CBP website

The P-3 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) Detection and Monitoring aircraft are the only dedicated law enforcement AEW aircraft in the world. They were developed to provide wide area search, increased command control, and communications capabilities.

Originally posted by ahnggk
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)

Actually, the vast majority of efficiency savings come from the engines - the Boeing 787 has about a 20% increase in efficiency over the Boeing 767, with more than 15% of that efficiency gain coming from the engines alone - aerodynamics improvements these days count for single digit increases in efficiency.

The reason the B-52 has never been reengined is because the USAF is still sat on an absolutely huge stockpile of already purchased engines and spare parts - if you reengined, you would have to dispose of that stockpile and buy new spare parts, which vastly increases the costs of any reengining program.

Thats the sole reason the USAF rejected a proposal in the 1990s.