NATOPS1

OK... Currently the ACI&EFC Inverter is in the Ess AC Bus position for takeoff (KC/C-130T) and all the other models I have inquired about... (Older aircraft) Question is why not run the inverter and take advantage of the "auto switch" function if the inverter fails while preventing the need to "manually switch" the inverter ON if the Ess AC Bus fails. I cannot find a reason to NOT use the inverter it just has always been this way. So run the inverter until after takeoff and then switch it to the Ess AC position at some point in the climb/after takeoff checklist. Pro Cons Need some good feedback on this please.

As an instructor I'm always looking for new pictures... if you could please send me a copy of your pictures as well, they will be greatly appreciated and utilized. I will take pics of any/all systems you have...

Scenario would be: engine fire, boldface (discharging both bottles) and now I need to loose some weight but I still see some smoke (and an occasional flame just to make it more fun) coming out of number 4! My climb performance is marginal and my number 3 is loosing oil px (yes…it’s one of those days). WHY NOT THROW IN A WINDMILLING PROP WHILE YOUR AT IT..... What would you do? Immediate return opposite direction....overweight landing and all.... Accept a lower dump rate (??) dumping from one side only and take your chances with the mountains or dump from both sides and take your chances with the fire? Dump from both based on your description…. (the dump outlets are quite a distance from your engine.) Run #3 until it runs out of oil/ oil pressure… (the reason for the immediate return) Will the fuel spray get any near that engine? No…. unless there is a wing structural failure due to the fire (exhaust area heat shield damaged…this fuel line is in the flapwell pretty well protected and if it were damaged you would not be able to dump from either side due to the manifold being pressurized all the way out to the outboard flap well area. (dump valves)

Thanks Vic, Did you get the AR information?

Agree the USAF -1 is written that way, engine +/- 10 for a range of 20 and gearbox +/- 20 for a range of 40.... The USMC/USN has no range of verbage... The question is not the limitation but the mean flux in limits and the transient out..... I think if you put out info like that some YAHOOOOO will try and continue operation of an engine with one of these conditions.... there is always one...... and I hope they get away with it and not teach us a lesson that need not be taught.

Yea kinda heard the same here; some bad "cracked" nuts on one aircraft that morphed into this.... Then more "bad" nuts installed on several aircraft. Always good to make sure....

Jsut like in airplanes if you need a bailout your in deep SH@#$%^&T.

Not sure I agree with the "clearly" part of the outside the engine limitation... But as always there are two sides... engine oil pressure flux limitation never made much sense period!! Thanks for the response any others....

I understand the issue of operations above or below the limitations and all the requirements Temp, Rpm to make the limitation apply.... What I would like to find out is if anyone supports this interpetation ( mean in limits fulx outside the underscored limits) and if so why. I for one do not buy into it....

OK... Engine and Gearbox oil pressures. Engine 50-60 +/- 10 (for a range of 20 USAF written, USMC/ISN implied) What can you say... the flux exceeds the limitation Gearbox 130 or 150-250 +/-20 (for a range of 20 USAF written, USMC/ISN implied) HUGE flux I do not want to get into the limitation themselves but would like to poll the Forum on application of the flux limitation… There is a movement to “allow†the flux to go above or below the maximum and/or minimum values (UNDERSCORED LIMITATIONS) as long as the “mean†is in the allowable range. So say the mean is 131 worst case +/- 20 the “allowable†flux would be as low as 111… Please lets not go out on the whys of the flux just the “allowable†interpretation. It should be noted the people pushing this WILL/ HAVE and in my opinion SHOULD ALWAYS shut down the engine… but they continue to push this and I think it is always BAD to put out numbers that are inconsistent with system knowledge and common sense and then ignore those numbers. It only takes ONE guy to continue operating with this type of malfunction and have a gearbox explode, engine seize with a loss of torque at a critical moment and... I have quieted most of the proponents by applying THEIR interpretation to the PROP. Once you tell them a prop is within limits at 97.6 THEY kind of back of… Any and all please comment so I can KILL this movement once and for all…. OK... Engine and Gearbox oil pressures.

When you guys say "bad" do you mean the bad part that needs to be replaced or are you refering to a cracked "bad" part then replacing it? We are getting two stories and bad information at this point is limiting the reaction here.

AN-12 Sorry could not (wasnt smart enough) to get it on the first reply...

Maybe a AN-12? HUGE Single 4 blade prop but about the closest to a 130...

Does the limiter blow when you "bump" the switch 6 or 7 times to extend the wire or just for rewind?

The initial start up current draw is much higher then a steady state (unwind/rewind) so if the switch is continuously cycled the heat build up in the current limiter (due to the higher initial current draw) will do just as you describe, cause the limiter to open. As I see it the system is working as designed.... Not sure why you would need to cycle the switch 6 or 7 times in rapid succession but....

I'd like to get a count of the manhours that will be spent on this ..... My guess....Bout as many fasteners as Bailout dollars..... Only difference is I can see the fasteners, I'll NEVER see any of those dollars!!!

USMC and Navy do the same... Door open, Manual release, allow weight to drop the door....

Think of it like a shock absorber.... only this \"shock absorber\" works like this….instead of compressing air to reduce shock it allows hydraulic fluid to flow (at a set rate) between the “damping side†and the “replenishing sideâ€. This set rate prevents the door form lowering at excessive rates. (With no hydraulic pressure used to close the door) As the door is released from the uplock the weight of the door will cause a pressure increase inside the snubber. This pressure increase will displace a check valve that will allow the “pressure†(hydraulic fluid) to bleed off (flow to the other side) at a specific rate and slow the speed of the door.

If it makes noise with the brakes off BEARINGS!!! If you fly it, take a look at the MLG (AFT) as it retracts, see if you have any vibration during the retraction (do you have a nose wheel shimmy)?

We are talikg same aircraft right.... A single transducer failure would only render that wheel brake inoperative, not ALL brakes... No voltage would tell the control the wheel is not turning and release the brake pressure for only that brake assy. allowing it to trun and not \"skid\"

Agreed, if the aircraft thinks it is in the air the TD switches (weight on wheel switches) (Squat switches) what ever you call them....will prevent the appplication of the brakes...part of the cant land with the wheels locked protection.... Was there a wingdown condition during the rollout?

Utility to Aux transfer is possible but it would not return to the utility system upon shutdown and the Aux would eventually be overserviced...

\"If the utility system is serviced to capacity it would hold right at 20 gals total.... if the system is serviced correctly the reservoir would hold 6.5 gals....if the check valve was bad and the system is fully serviced the reservoir would over fill and make quite a mess.\" So with that said, The check valve IS bad and your system was/is not fully serviced. The fluid in the lines leading to the engine pumps was draining back into your reservoir making it look full. I guess the time frame for the fluid level to return to normal is overnight..... (Priming check valve is bad!!!) Sounds like your system was not serviced correctly due to the reservoir \"looking\" full due to the valve failure.... the bad check valve allows fluid to return to the reservoir and everyone is happy cause it looks full... your FE filled the reservoir with the engines running so everything was good and upon shutdown the failed check valve allowed fluid to drain back and caused the mess... Change your Priming Check Valve and Reservoir vent filter, re-service the system and you should be good....

Wasn\'t it called \"wing limiting fuel\" back in the 60\'s and 70\'s? And the 80\'s, 90\'s....and today... I first heard the term Ballast fuel when I flew with the Navy... I always called it Wing limiting fuel... Same, Same.... 8252 drop me a note so I can get in touch off-line...

Easy to understand definition of \"Ballast Fuel\"... RIGHT!!! Try \"Ballast Fuel\"... is defined as \"Extra\" fuel carried and distributed in a manner that allows flight operations to be conducted in a more desirable area (A,B,C,D) of the Primary fuel management chart.