>>1951483I'm very confused about what you're trying to argue here. Your post is incoherent.
>why they used those large expensive airframesP3 and P8 are both civilian airliner airframes. There's an economy of scale at work there that drives the price per frame down, even if those frames use more material than a US-2. The US-2 is a bespoke design, so obviously it's more expensive, though only marginally so more than a P-3 which is about the same size as a US-2 but with no water landing capability. Which, you know, was the main point of the US-2.
>Obviously you'd reach the conclusion that 8h shifts in a small, crumpled space would be an impossible task that'd spell disaster real quick.Have you seen the interior of a US-2? It's not cramped by any means.
>Tell me of another dedicated plane that has anything even remotely close to that capacityHang on, I thought the post I was replying to was dragging on it for a "low" firefighting payload. Which in my mind made sense given that it's a seaplane designed for maritime patrol and SAR, but I don't know much about payloads on firefighting aircraft. Just a general sense of design limitations. Obviously payload weight and volume would be lower in an seaplane optimized for long range and STOL. Per wikipedia it's outdone by the 737, MD-87, Martin Mars, and DC-10. About even with the C-130Q, which honestly is surprising, and above the P-3.
I guess my point is that it's a bad comparison to drag on the US-2 for any perceived or real disadvantages compared to a land-based maritime patrol aircraft such as the P-3 or P-8. They overlap in roles, but a seaplane design requires major compromises that a civilian airframe doesn't have to make.
