Jump to content
Aero Precision provides OEM part support for military aircraft operators across more than 20 aircraft

US Herk

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by US Herk

  1. 0282 did 'bounce' off the desert floor in AFG in '02-03 timeframe, I think. Altimeter error that went unrecognized until last minute - pilot saved their bacon, but aircraft go banged up a little. I remember the "...buff out..." markings. ;)
  2. TRIADS - TRIwall Aerial Delivery System RWR - Radar Warning Receiver
  3. What about all your airdrops & terminal area stuff - you know, where we make our money?? HSLLADS - High Speed Low-Level Aerial Delivery System LAPES - Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System CDS - Container Delivery System CRS - Container Release System CRL - Container Ramp Load GRADS - Ground Release Airdrop System LCLA - Low Cost Low Altitude airdrop GPES - Ground Proximity Extraction System PLADS - Parachute Low Altitude Delivery System CARP - Computed Air Release Point HARP - High Altitude Release Point PI - Point of Impact CEP - Circular Error Probability FARP - Forward Area Refuel Point FARRP - Forward Area Rearm and Refuel Point ALARP - Air-Landed Arming and Refueling Point (UK Herk) RGR - Rapid Ground Refueling SCA - Self-Contained Approach Navigation Stuff: TF - Terrain Following TA - Terrain Avoidance ARA - Airborne Radar Approach STOL - Short Take-Off and Landing NVIS - Night Vision Imaging System NVD - Night Vision Device IDS - Infrared Detection Set VG - Vertical Gyro RCR - Reverse Current Relay MFD - Mutli-Function Display MC- Mission Computer CDC - Control Display Computer LORAN - LOng RAnge Navigation TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation VOR - Visual Omni Range ADF - Automatic Direction Finder SKE - Station Keeping HF - High Frequency UHF - Ultra-High Frequency VHF - Very High Frequency SCNS - Self Contained Navigation System INS - Inertial Navigation System IRS - Inertial Reference System RNAV - aRea NAVigation Misc: AMC - Air Mission Commander DMC - Deputy Mission Commander
  4. Return on Investment wouldn't even be close...RR claims the 3.5 engine pays for itself in 4-5 years. Better hot/high/heavy takeoff performance, higher cruise, lower fuel flow - what's not to like? Don't get me wrong - I support the J - just don't think it's currently viable. That may change soon as most of the L382G time out their wings. Only Lynden is doing CWB replacement right now...nobody else is commercially.
  5. Know they've been out of Leadville - highest in US. ;)
  6. Bose are unit purchased, typically with EOY fallout money...
  7. Any part time positions?
  8. You're probably right, Bob! I have heard both one and two, so never knew which to believe. I believe their planes are modified with the glass cockpit like LAC & Tepper.
  9. When you rotate a Herk at Vto, you are airborne nearly instantly. It's nothing like a jet where you sit there for a second. The blown lift changes the whole equation.
  10. That whole concept is a jet-ism. In a Herk, if you rotate at Vto-5, you're flying at Vto-5. Yes, you will continue to accelerate (assuming you don't over-rotate) and go through Vto likely as the mains come off, but you're flying before you're supposed to. This is the challenge when trying to put a one-size-fits-all definition into books... The Herk will fly much, much slower than even Vmeto...buyer beware.
  11. Don, I'm not sure Tepper has...I can find out easily enough, I think. Prescott might've done their one plane...and there is a linkage. I know the other 'major' commercial operators like Safair and Transafrik haven't and aren't. Lynden is certainly the only part 121 operator and as such, keeps their planes very well maintained. The challenge isn't just the cost of the certification and planes, it's the viability of squeezing any money out in the supplemental part 121 world and making them pay for themselves. The most expensive plane in the world is viable if the market supports the costs, and while there is money to be made in the niche airlift world, even the supplemental part 121 portion of that market (which is tiny indeed), it requires relatively low overhead. Lynden paid a ridiculously low price for the last plane they purchased, N407LC. I know they owner has talked with Lockheed about the J-model extensively, but the margin just isn't there right now. Who knows what tomorrow brings. As for performance, the 3.5 engines, EVH, & 8-bladed props, if they can ever get STCed, will provide performance very close to that of the J for a tiny fraction of the price while saving fuel. I think Lynden would go that route over a J, as would most operators. It's all about keeping the overhead costs low. All that said, if you had a company and could ink the correct long-term contract, a J might be a wise investment...I'm just not certain the performance difference justifies the cost difference right now. The flip side is there are few L100s in good enough shape to pursue any real business with, so perhaps that's the angle for the J. Just hope they don't price themselves out of the market...
  12. Currently, the price tag doesn't make this a viable option...that and certification issues. Lynden is going to be the last L100/L382 operator - they're the only ones replacing CWB. Lockheed approached Lynden a few years ago about the J, but the price wasn't going to be viable. Lynden has also looked into C17. When it comes to niche transport, Lynden is about as varied as it gets. Lynden International is about 25 different transport companies from trucking, rail, hovercraft, specialized shipping, littoral, etc.
  13. Yep, fuel gauges in kilos. That was relatively knew on the fleet when I showed up in '00. Going from kilos to pounds was easy, (KGx2 + 10%), but the other way was slightly trickier. Had that same momentary panic attack too...that and the gauges didn't move as quickly, so I often wondered if they were stuck or broken. I was referring to their K-model books, but no doubt their J-model books are the same. It was just really starting to be used in '00-01 when I was there. 24 SQ was just starting to do operational route flying (airland trashhaul) - there was no tac being done outside of the their test squadron at the time.
  14. I considered them stretched Super-Es - most were '68 vintage. My point was they were cleared to the same basic weight limits as the J-30. However, they didn't use a dash-1 for guidance like the majority of Air Forces do, they wrote their own guidance based primarily on the FAA type certificate for the L100/L382...which meant they were often more restrictive. Make no mistake, they picked and chose which things to use in their book, but it was decidedly a mish-mash between T.O. and FAA Type Certificate standards.
  15. Well, I've been retired for a little over a year, but during at least the overwhelming majority of my time (as long as I paid attention to such things beyond actually just flying), any fuel removed from the plane couldn't be used in a plane again - they used it for the AGE and other ground-based stuff, but not the planes. Always struck me as a little wasteful, but I understood the reasoning to some extent...
  16. The RAF Mk.3 was the same - normal max gross weight was around 163K, but emergency wartime weight was still 175K (of course, they did it in kilos)
  17. Many/most places don't allow the defueled fuel to be used in aircraft again. This would seem a huge waste of 21000lbs of aviation fuel...
  18. AFSOC had them already when I retired, but at the time, they weren't allowed to connect to anything and had most of the apps disabled or removed from them - they were, effectively, expensive e-readers. Sounds like they're find a way to sort that out.
  19. Found a pic of the newer 7th Print: 1699 - Merlin's Magic (one of my favorite planes) 0023- The Fourth Horseman 0194 - Iron Maiden (I believe this was originally 'The Dawg Pound') 0280 - The Highlander 0193 - Berserker I don't recall 0476...it was something with a bird coming at you with Talons extended, I think...if I think of it, I'll post it up for grins.
  20. OK - that makes sense. I flew them all (even the four lost) - hard to keep track of which & where. Original assignments are trickier still. Yeah, that was put on in '99-00 timeframe, but it was on all the 15th birds - still is on most of them, at least when I left last year. The Mildenhall birds were the only ones with unique noseart to my knowledge. Makes sense with what I remember too. 0476 was the first one delivered to Mildenhall (I said 475 in the post above, but 475 was a Hurlburt bird) and was on the squadron print long after it left. 0194 was on the latest squadron print, complete in her Iron Maiden noseart (which was removed by MX in the middle of the night after some female MX personnel complained). To the original poster - only Mildenhall birds got noseart. There was the original five and later 280 got some after the very first tail shuffle in '04 or so. Since 282 was originally a Hurlburt bird, it never got noseart. And after the second great tail swap for EBH conservation in '06 or so, Mildenhall quit putting noseart on the planes... The Hurlburt, 15 SOS Bat didn't start until sometime in '99-00 timeframe. The first version was too bright and showed up on NVGs, but it has since been 'darkened'. You can still see it, but not like before.
  21. Was 282 an original Mildenhall bird? That penguin has gone swimming - I know 0023, 1699, 0475, and I can't remember the other two - was it 0193 & 0194? The Mildenhall birds are the only ones I'm aware of that had unique nose art. 0280 got some when it went to Mildenhall, the Highlander. I think 282 may have been a Hurlburt bird - I know 280 was an original HRT bird, as was 281...I honestly can't remember if 282 was or not - it may well have been a KAD bird. The original ABQ birds were 0125, 0126, & 0127.
  22. One thing we don't have in the Vcef / Vref discussion is Vtakeoff. Vto will always exceed Vcef, but Vref may exceed Vto. Since peacetime ops always has Vto >= Vmca, if Vref > Vto, I can always stay on the runway beyond Vto up until Vref. If I lose an engine beyond Vto, but below Vref, I can either takeoff or stop in the remaining runway. I wish I could draw a pretty chart, it'd be a lot easier to explain. The point is, our charts give us the minimums, but do not do a lot of explaining about what happens beyond these minimums and what other factors can help or hurt us.
  23. That's an excellent explanation, thanks for that. I wish I'd seen that scissor chart when I was first starting out! My only comment is that this is how I learned this stuff early on (without the chart) and I think we could do better by also explaining that neither acceleration nor deceleration are linear when we talk about more advanced concepts. The relationships don't change, and the chart is 100% valid to explain the relationships, but when used in absence of true curves or explained that way, it doesn't explain everything. In fairness, when we're first learning these concepts, it's probably better to keep it simple, but there still needs to be some explanation that acceleration is not linear. And this skews our understanding of following concepts like accel time checks. To be clear, my point doesn't affect this aspect of TOLD at all, and to address the OP's question, this is probably as far as we need to delve into it. My point about acceleration curves only affects the accel time check which was brought up during the discussion.
  24. Training vs real world. Simulated vs actual. AF books told us to calculate the highest check speed/time so it would be the most accurate - normally 10kts below the rounded down GO speed (whether that was T/O or Refusal). My concern is this has always reduced the margin for error, so I would ask my FE to crunch 20kits lower when the numbers were "tight". The challenge is in the acceleration curve. The faster you go, the faster you go faster. Once again the challenge is the acceleration curve. The ability to stop is based 100% on accelerating to that speed normally. This determines a distance remaining once you reach that point. Since a normal acceleration will achieve that speed sooner, you have more runway remaining than if you reach that speed later. This really isn't the "two trains leave the station" kind of problem it appears on the surface. And it's all because acceleration is a non-linear curve. ADDED: This acceleration curve is why we usually "blow through" the accel check speed. In my last plane, we rarely missed it by anything less than 10-20 knots, forget the 3 knot tolerance. This goes beyond 95% vs 100% engines by a wide margin...and we rarely had 100% engines. My brothers on the Talon I side of the house had to have 97% engines for their TF and I've discussed this concept with them as well - they had similar experiences - "beating" the accel time speed by wide margins. So there's a pad in there that's padded on the wrong side of the equation if you ask me... I really won't argue this with you too much. It's too counter-intuitive and goes so far against our training it is difficult for people to grasp/believe. I finally had a physics guy/pilot reach my same conclusion, but it almost cost him an ulcer by the time I convinced him... This is a 'light bulb' kind of thing - the worst part is it's incredibly difficult to convey as it seems so counter-intuitive. I'll just ask you to keep an open mind, don't completely discount what I'm saying, and just look up when the nav calls "time" and ask yourself if you could stop if you had to. I believe things are padded too much on the acceleration side and these relationships are skewed worse in high DA situations. Yes, but there is a reaction time built into the computation (I believe it's 2 seconds). This is what the OP was referring to and hence my reference. Because acceleration isn't linear, it is an exponential curve. That, and at least one no-kidding, real-world, I missed my accel/time check, but no way in H**L I could stop meant I had to go. Fortunately, our T/O numbers are padded as well...even max effort T/O. Previous experience in another AF had given me the ability to make a different decision based on more than just theory and numbers...and we all lived to tell the tale...with some margin. This event precipitated my scrutiny of accel time check numbers. If I can continue past "go" and still stop, why would I take the airplane into the air if I don't have to? The concept of V1 vs VR is a jet thing. Jets are more stop limited than go limited. Herks are more go limited than stop limited. In other words, I can land places I can't take off from (the J-model is the other way around and I'd be curious to crunch their numbers - I'll bet the traditional thinking works far better for them). So I'm usually able to stop. So, long runway, heavy plane, I will leave it on the runway until 5-kts below nosewheel speed (if I can get there, or whatever my real refusal is). Knowing that I can still lose an engine after "go" and still stop comfortably. Speed is life. Altitude is only life insurance. A sick plane on the ground with room to stop is far better than a sick plane wallowing just out of ground effect. I've had the occasion to operate at extreme gross weights operataionally (well over 180K), conducted take offs at extreme low speeds (low 80 knot region), climb terrain at charted 1.3 Vstall in test profiles, fly deep stall profiles (test), and operated 3-engine in many regimes. There are margins and pads built into every aspect of our performance book. Most of them are very positively in our favor and a very few aren't that accurate (recent Vmca changes prove this, but the ongoing Vmcg issue also illustrates this). Fortunately, we don't spend much time in the margins. I didn't teach anything contrary to our books. I always trained A/Cs to follow the performance books. Instructors, I challenged to understand more of what was going on. I offered my experiences for them to think on. I told them I could not tell them to ignore the books, but to think about things, use their own experiences, and always have a plan-B. I also told them my secret was that I always planned to fail up until I succeeded. In other words, I assumed I'd abort every takeoff until I left the ground. I assumed I'd "no drop" on every drop until the LM called, "load clear". I assumed I'd go around out of every single landing until I touched down and was decelerating. And so on. It's not a failure mindset, but a mindset to survive. Those "two second" reaction times they always talk about are real...even when you're prepared. The tough part is making the decision, what you did after that was canned - or at leas thought through by preparing. Folks who didn't do it that way, often ate more time than they needed to. Sometimes, those fractions of a second are important. Good judgment comes from experience and experience? Well, a lot of that comes from bad judgement. - that's one of my favorite quotes (attributed to many people), but some experience comes from bad luck too - that counts as well - if you survive. Always learn - even if it's what not to do. But in that case, don't learn too much! EDITED (added a short paragraph above and the following) - I will concede that my old airplane may have had worse numbers. And I certainly don't mean to imply that all C-130s always perform the way my experience was. There were corrections and factors into the speeds we had in the cockpit (KCAS vs KIAS) and I was never confident those always translated correctly into our -1-1. However, if there were factor-induced differences, it only magnified an existing problem, it didn't fabricate one that didn't exist.
  • Create New...