Lkuest

I agree with pjvr99 and NATOPS. Victor, never heard of a speed valve fail that way, so good to know!

EPCS is Electronic Propeller Control System, aka Electronic Valve Housing, which can be equipped to the 54H60 propeller. The NP2000 comes with EPCS by default, but you cannot install a standard hydro-mechanical valvehousing on the NP2000. I'm all for the NP2000. The prop we got now is a problem child compared to what we are capable of. I'd have to say an unfair percentage of the maintenance we do is prop related.

Found that a while ago, but I didn't think to post it because it comes out of a backshop TO on building up the QEC. I interpret it as quick-securing the cowling, because you will likely have to open the cowling back up again many times. The part number in the note is for the upper engine cowlings with the hinges, so there is no way this reference would pertain to normal flightline operations. That note is also in the 16W14-12-3, another QEC T.O. The patched camloc holes are a common sight as the camlocs are so close to the pivot point of the cowling that they tend to get caught and ripped out during routine engine maintenance.

There's a mod for the T56 out there to upgrade the series 3 engines up to Series 3.5. For those who don't know what a series 3 is, it is made up of the -14, -15, and -425 engines. There is a series 4 engine is the -427 in the E-2D, which is where these modifications for the series 3 came from. The mod involves changing out the compressor and turbine blades and air inlet housing. Along with the upgrade, we get the single crystal 1st stage turbine blades, like the AE2100 on the C-130J. The upgrade should increase the life of the turbine, as well as give us a fuel consumption boost of about 8%-12%. This is something the Air Force has already been looking into. You can read about here: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/hoc/2010_HOC_Presentations/Tues_0930_Rolls-Royce-T56-A-15-Chris_Culp.pdf and here: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/FUEL081409.xml&headline=Rolls-Royce%20Reveals%20T56%20Upgrade%20Plan&channel=defense Couple that with the NP2000, and you may see something as efficient as the J-model, without the extra cost for R&D, refitting nacelles, and recertification requirements associated with a re-engine program this size. It would also allow us to take advantage of the large supply of parts we already have, and since the modifications are already being manufactured for the -427, there's not much re-tooling necessary. After being in service this long, many of the kinks are already worked out of the T56, so keeping it around for a while longer just makes sense. If they plan on doing AMP and slapping new wings on as necessary, then it might be a good idea to leap the engine design way ahead of what it is now though. If they are just considering buying the C-130J for AFSOC, AMC, PACAF, and USAFE, and relegating the C-130H to the Guard and Reserve units like they are talking about now, then the cheapest option might be best. Because of how Congress, and therefore the Air Force handles pet project funding, we may never see anything happen. We should see the NP2000 break even with fuel and maintenance gains within 5 years. Who knows about the series 3.5 mod, but it is claimed that the modification will save the Air Force $80 mil worth of fuel every year. There is talk about some other interesting options, including adapting either the Rolls Royce AE2100S (Similar to C-130J) or a Pratt & Whitney PW-150 to the C-130H to give us about 20% better fuel consumption: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread400391/pg1 Those engines are so powerful though that I'd be worried about the wings unless they de-tuned the crap out of them, but still maintained efficiency, like the AE2100D3 on the C-130J.

I know for a fact that you are not allowed to have any camlocs missing within 4 feet of the intake, but I cannot remember where I read it. You could interpret that as, if I'm not allowed to have camlocs missing within 4 feet of the inlet, it must mean that I am allowed to have camlocs missing behind 4 feet of the intake. Other than that, I'd go by the definition of "panel closed and secured", which, since it isn't addressed in a TO, could be interpreted based on the 7-level inspecting it. The problem I have with replacing a camloc is that there is a reason it is missing in the first place. Simply putting a new one in a hole could create another FOD hazard. If the problem is a cracked or broken camloc retainer, you should replace it before inserting a new camloc. If it is one of those crappy plates that get riveted on, you need to remove the cowing, send it over to sheet metal, and get a new one riveted in that will probably go bad soon anyway. My world view is if the Air Force cared that much about the cowling fasteners, they'd have designed better hardware that doesn't crack and fall apart so easily, or a camloc retaining plate that doesn't wear out so quickly. As it stands, have fun repeatedly grounding the entire fleet due to crappy panel hardware. The alternative is allowing a 7-level to determine what "secured" means. I've heard a good rule of thumb is three in a row, five total, and any missing on the leading edge is cause for the cowling to be removed for repair, but use your own judgement. If it comes off in flight, it obviously wasn't "secured". Of course, you could always use the logic that, since you cannot find a limit, the limit is zero and are not allowed to have any missing.

I think you are asking: Why crossover is 800-840 degrees, and if it is not, why should we correct the problem? Am I correct? There are several reasons why crossover at 860 degrees or 780 degrees is bad. 1. Throttle alignment. The throttles all have to be within 1/2 knob of each other above crossover when aligning all 4 engine TIT signals. Below crossover, we have no temperature controlling, so we don't care about throttle alignment below crossover. 2. If the TD system is tuned properly, crossover will be 800-840 degrees. If it is not 800-840, your TD system is improperly tuned or you have a bad coordinator. 3. If the TD system is tuned properly, and the coordinator is not malfunctioning, then it could be a sign of TIT indicator malfunction, which should be repaired immediately.

If you look at the wiring diagram in 1C-130H-2-70FI-00-1-1, Figure 2-14, pg 2-465, you will see that the start interlock relay is in the circuit for the open side of the oil tank shutoff valve. The oil shutoff C/B only provides power to the system. And yes, if the oil shutoff valve is not full open, even so much as a crack, the start interlock relay will still engauge, making you start an engine with inadequate oil pressure. Had it happen. That's why the T.O. used to say visually verify the shutoff valve before some dummy changed the T.O. to say an audio check is good enough. Only flight crew is allowed to "assume" the oil valve is open, because, good luck visually verifying it while in flight. There are also plenty of reasons to check for positive oil pressure at 35%, such as failure of the oil pump or ADH, a ruptured line, a failed pressure regulating valve, etc.

The light illuminating signals that the start interlock relay is energized. The relay will not energize unless several conditions are met, such as the fire handle being in, the oil tank s/o/v being open, etc. The starter comtrol valve opens if the interlock relay is energized, and if you have bleed air applied to the motor.

You might have to find a T.O. for that particular aricraft. 7896 had it's own wiring diagram after a flight deck fire. You might also have to get some engineering assistance from AFETS. You might also go down the road to Blue. I know they have some pretty good hydro guys that have experience with that aircraft.

Ah, makes more sense that it's a coastie bird, although it's funny that they combined the AF and Coast Guard serials on the nose.

I think it's 58-6973, an HC-13B ground trainer. It was probably renumbered after a local squadron, the 341st. At Sheppard, the engine trainer there, 63-7779 has been renamed T001, which kind of looks like "Tool", so assigning vanity registration numbers doesn't surprise me.

They aren't all going at the same time. One month, we send one or two, then the next a couple more, and so on. At the 62nd, the last one flies out in September. I can't speak for the other "E" units.

That's hilarious. I watched the video again just to see if the lights were still on :)

Not 100% on this, but I heard through the grapevine it was one of the last H models made, which had a newer strut modification. According to some tech rep, the modified strut did not need to be chained during a malfunciton, so the crew just landed it with the malfunction, then the rest is on the video. No clue what the malfunction was, or why a tech rep would be making the decision to not chain the struts during an IFE event like that. Can't remember the tail number, but it was a '95 or '96 model for sure.

Is oil temp staying within limits?

Yes, actually, you do. The more bleed air systems you run off a motor, the higher the TIT is. Air valves go bad all the time, and oil cooler augmentation comes right off of the diffuser. I think what he was getting at was was just to check the augmentation system for leaks if it comes equipped.

Perform all the TD system checks with the engines running. Max Start TIT, Crossover, Max Auto, Temp Limiting (leach all the air off that motor that you can in order to get it to overtemp.) If all those checks are normal, then your TD system and Indication systems agree with each other. Did you do a Torque Cal on all 4? You should only compare all 4 engine TIT's and torques with bleed air valves closed. Hooking up the TD tester to the firewall TIT harness is a step I love using when troubleshooting these write-ups. What else has been done so far?

What if your fuel flow and torque are lying to you?

Was a bit of a joke. I figure if you can't see the outboard motors, and they make it out ok, then tailpipe vibes are a bit of a comfort item to look at. Here's what I got for a vibe. If the vibe is in the tailpipe only, and not in the throttle or condition lever: Check tailpipe for proper installation Inspect front engine mounts (i'd just change them and be done with it. Sometimes the inspection lies.) Inspect rear engine mount (already changed it, right?) Borescope turbine (-15 engines can throw a rotor blade and you wouldn't be able to tell otherwise) If no defects were found, then the tailpipe vibe is within limits, and I dare anyone to try to create a limit with a ruler. If the tailpipe vibe is accompanied with a throttle or condition lever vibe, then this is what I got: Perform a propeller loose blade inspection Perform a propeller blade tracking inspection Inspect prop afterbody, torque retainer assembly, and front spinner for loose or damaged components Check propeller hub nut for proper torque (replace RGB if out of limits) Check prop shaft vertical movement and end-play Check rear engine mount (already changed) Check prop balance If no defects are found, replace propeller These are only recommendations, of course. You can complete them in any order. Checking the wing truss mounts like Ben said couldn't hurt, as well as checking the engine sloping longerons and tie struts as well. You should also look at the maintenance history. If either the engine or propeller have been changed just before the problem started, suspect shipping damage or improper installation of either the engine or propeller or other major structural components. Sometimes, a throttle vibe is normal, and a tailpipe vibe is normal, it's your call. Just pretend like you are going to be flying on the plane and make sure you look at anything that would make you want to land as soon as possible.

The Air Force can call it what it wants. If the Air Force decides to call it C-130XYZ, that's what it's going to be, no rhyme or reason to it. Can't remember who does Air Force C-130 designations, but I want to say it's Warner Robbins. The Navy has a lot of designations based off the Air Force C-130B/E/H, like C-130F/G/Q/R/T. Other countries have their own designations too, notably Britain.

Ask'em what #1 and #4 are doing ;)

I hear some H1's are getting the 241 soon.

I wish I had my hands on that plane so I could poke around, but my shoot-from-the-hip instinct says it's a propeller malfunction. If the propeller causes the RPM to drop, the fuel control will think it's still trying to accelerate up to ground idle RPM, and start putting a lot of fuel. We've had at least three cases that I can think of on the top of my head where the Valve Housing caused the engine to go to full takeoff power (fuel flow, TIT, torque all went up) upon upspeeding the engine. The bleed valves opening up below 94% could also partially explain the high TIT without massively overtorquing. Again, this is shooting from the hip, so I make no claims that I know exactly what's going on. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be suprised one bit if a prop change fixed the problem.

They follow all of the main bearings, except for the zero bearing. The numbered bearings are located both in front and behind the compressor, and again in front of and behind the turbine. The #4 is the only one that is easy to reach, as you only have to tear apart the rear bearing support assy. The #3 requires removal of the turbine assy. The #1 and #2 lab seals, as far as I know, requires you to basically tear the engine down to the compressor assembly.

Have you looked at the FI? It basically has you looking at wiring. If it's not wiring, the problem might be that the engine overtorqued so much that it permenantly twisted the torque shaft, or maybe the torque shaft was manufactured improperly. I've never seen this problem before personally, so I'm just shooting in the dark.