larry myers

Great job Trev! Reading your posts over the past several months it was apparent how tough it was. There were many times I was glad it was you and not me. My view is there should be a generous bonus comming. I'll bet there was a huge smile on your face when the bird got airborn. Based on past performance would be very surprised if you don't get the work on 4825, politics notwithstanding. Don't belive anyone has ever worked so hard to get a hanger queen in the air as you have. About now I would be walking around with my chest puffed way out and smiling from ear to ear. Myers

There were two YC-14s and two YC-15s built. Anyone know what happened to the other two acft?

Chris, Have you discussed the issue with the your red x guy? Get the TO out, and point out to him/her what it says about how much and where to apply sealant. Hopefully he's not above learning something from a jr. mech. Additionaly, anyone on red x orders is obligated to sign off the descrepancy iaw the TO, not based on how he/she thinks it should be. On the other hand maybe he knows something you don't.

Way back when, the authorized C-130 tow tractor was rated at 100,000 lbs. This tractor was ok in A model units but with the arrival of the E it became way too lite. Everyone knew it was too light but it worked ok so the rating was ignored. About 73/74 we discovered WR-ALC, without telling anyone, intended to up rate the tractor without any data to support the up rate. The command protested demanding data be provided to support the change. An agreement was reached whereby the 316th flew the tractor to Loring AFB, in the winter, to test the tractor at max gross weight on worst condition tarmack. Not surprising the tractor failed. The end result is the tractor in use today.

Dan, you have one heck of a memory. I had a minor part in the delivery of the Dyess Hs. The command tried to get several subsystems improved or replaced. The only reason the acft. got -15 engines was there were no more -7 engines. Among other things, we wanted to replace the APN 59 the autopilot and move the top anti-collision lite to the backbone. ASD was the roadblock to the improvements sought. And in the middle of the run two acft. were diverted to the RCAF.

And this represents capability Marine Corps Air thinks is going to make a difference on the battlefield? Think they should change the name to Harvest CHICKEN.

Good idea.

Just had brain dump realizing Dan and I are talking about two different time frames. My frame of reference is late 60s to late 70s. Believe Dan's to be later. My experience is the longer an acft. is in the field the more capability wing maintenance acquires. Some previous depot maint. tasks become I level tasks. Process usually driven by shop chiefs who believe task is within their capability. ALCs usually not receptive to giving up such work and raise all kinds of stupid objections. When necessary we would play the money card. The difference between depot repair costs and I level costs was usually the winner.

Dan, There are indeed situations where accomplishing depot level maintenance at home station does happen. For example, a Hays International depot repair team replaced the left wing on an AC-130A at Hurlbert damaged during fueling after fuel cell repair. It's very possible a similiar situation required longeron replacement at home station, especially if the longeron was damaged to the point the acft. was not flyable. Keeping in mind my perspective is TAC only acft., to the best of my feeble memory, although we replaced numerous left side longerons, don't recall doing any at home station. Acft. were repaired at one of three facilities; WR, Hayes International or Aero Corp. What surprises me is this structure is still a problem after almost 40 years. In my day replacement was driven primarily by corrosion. Caused in part by troops/crew dawgs with short stacks and low manifold pressure failing to taxi up close to the aft urinal. Is corrosion beneath the urinal the problem today? Regards, Myers

Would not sloping longeron replacement be considered depot level maintenance? This longeron, primarily the left one, has been problematic as long as I can remember. Many years ago it was a special emphasis item in the PDM work package. If units discovered a defective longeron on an acft. not going to PDM they submitted a depot maintenance assist. I believe the authority for this was contained in TO 00-25-107. Once the schedule was agreed the acft. would be flown to WR-ALC or one of the contractor depot facilities. I would be very reluctant to tackle this task at the I level primarly for lack of special tools, shoring, tech data, experience level and large MMHs required. While don't have access to applicable TOs, it appears from prevous threads tech data is still sketchy. Shoring, a great deal of it, required is by itself as major issue and requires precise placement. And, as the troops at WR have stated the last thing you want to do is attempt to replace both at the same time. Further, my guess it no one in the org. has experience at the task. On the other hand the troops at WR have been doing this for 35+ years.

In the begining (early 70s) there were two sqds. with AWADS equiped acft. One sqd. at LR the other at Pope. This would not have been a problem, however, the orginial plan was to have both sqds. co-located. Thus spares provisioning was based on this plan. The end result was there was a chronic shortage of spares. This, in turn, had a big effect on FMC rates. And as several posts have said the system was not known for it's reliability. At the time TAC was bringing on three new acft., the A-10, F-15 and F-16. Airlift in a fighter command was pretty much an afterthought. As such, was unable to raise the concern level in the LGMA shop. So, many of the 130 avoinics issues ended up on my desk. After beating my head against the wall for a year decided to attempt a fix. Wrote a form 1 recommending both AWADS sqds be placed in the same wing. Couple days later my boss says we are to see the TAC LG. I'm thinking what did I muck up this time. Once in the LGs office he tells us co-locating sqs. not going to happen and why. At LR there was an air division headed up be a one button. AWADS was his baby and the only way he would give it up was over his dead body. End of story. Early 75 tactical airlift is transfered to MAC. My job transfered to Scott. Made several TDYs to Scott to help in the transfer. One of my recommendations was concerning AWADS sqds. Some months later met the Air Lift Center CC who told me the effort might be successful. The air division by that time had gone away. As we all know all this was overcome by the grand plan that sent an AWADS sqd. to USAFE. I often wondered how this worked out with AWADS sqds. now several thousand miles apart and two commands involved.

Tusker, The word is "buddy" start. If you have an engine with an inop. starter, after removing the starter you taxi your acft. to a position close behind a buddy acft. This acft. then throttles up. The prop wash will then cause the subject engine on your acft. to rotate and upon achieving ignition/fuel flow and with continuing prop wash the engine will reach ground idle. We used this procedure a lot in RVN. Especially in places you didn't want to be hung up overnite. The down side was when you got the acft. home and did an eng. intake inspect. you often discovered FOD, especially if the buddy start was accomplished on unprepared surface. If memory serves, seem to remember the prop of the engine to be started would be placed in flt. idle. Am sure the old FEs can provide details. Of course the above procedure can be used if the GTC is inop.

Don't think anyone would disagree with you Steve. Especially me. Conversly AF mx. are not allowed to implement LM/civ. procedures. Any attempt to compare AF mx. with civilian mx is like comparing apples and oranges. The same can be said for AF and civ. tech data.

It's doubtfull this issue can be resolved on this forum because it requires an engineering decision. I believe the drawing Tiny submitted details the proper procedure. It appears the sealant requirement was penciled in as part of a revision. The problem is squadron maintenance doesn't do maintenance based on assembly drawings. What do you say to the Sgt you told to apply sealant when he comes back to you and says he can't find the procedure in the TO? In a previous thread it was stated installation procedure required application of grease. And says to not remove excess. Am sure todays sealants are much better than in my day, however, I remember that when sealant or adhesive was called out one of the most important steps was to ensure the affected area was thoroughly cleaned. It might get someone off top dead center at WR-ALC if someone from the field sent a message asking what the requirement really is. If sealant is required the procedure must be placed in the appropriate TOs/JGs. The QEC beam is a seperate issue and must be attacked on its own merits. The kit was managed many moons ago by WR-ALC. Keep in mind when reading my posts my frame of reference is far from current. Partly because spent the last eight years on F-111s and the fact have been out 23 years. :)

Forty years+ and truss mounts are still a pain in mx. butt. I guess some things never change. Seems to me this problem requires someone in program management engineering to do some research and make a decision. For those field units receiving acft. from PDM with sealant installed suggest you query WRALC what TO they are using for authority.

Bob, No intent to criticize, just my attempt at humour.

Bob, If you were to use the term "greaser" in todays air force you would most likely be required to have a friendly chat with the wing political correctness police. They would then schedule you for sensativity school. After which you would be required to display a large decal on your car identifiying you as a racist. Oh my God. :rolleyes:

OK, gotta know. What's the purpose of the small protrusions, one just forward of the left emerg. escape hatch and the other aft of FS 757. Think there is a matching set on the right side also. Was hoping if I hung around long enough some other dummy would ask. But guess I'm that dummy. Keep in mind a new acft. for me a 74.

Oh yea, I remember well. I was a B-47 crew chief and used to ride to work with my neighbor, a KC-97 engine tech. When we would return home in the afternoon I would look pretty much as I did when we went to work. My neighbor, on the other hand, looked as though he had just energed from a barrel of oil. We repeatly tried to explain this his wife but were unsuccessful. Sure was glad I was a jet mech. So was my wife.

Many years ago I was a hotshot A/2c B-47 crew chief. The acft. had a honey bucket much like a C-130. Connected to the bucket were 3/8th rubber hoses going to each crew station, pilot, copilot and nav. This permitted urination without getting out of the seat. On the end of the hose was a plastic funnel attached with an adel clamp. Over time the hose end at the funnel would crack and begin to seep when used. This problem would then be written up in the 781A. Corrective action would be trimmed a couple of inches of hose. After a couple of trimmings the hose would become too short. This would really piss the crew off in more ways than one. So one day my acft. returns from flight with the squawk, "pilots relief tube too short". My corrective action - "Suggest pilot grow longer penis". This remark got me in big trouble because at that time all maintenance data collection was entered in the right column of the 781A. The data was then key punched into the big computer in the sky. This was done by, as I so painfully learned, by a very proper older lady. Shortly thereafter the flt. chief pulls up to my acft. and tells me to get in the truck the line chief wants to see me. In those days when the chief requested your presence it wasn't to give you an atta-boy. After what seemed hours of severe butt thrashing the chief took me by the scruff of the neck to the key punch lady to whom I humbly and profusely apologized. Needless to say that was the last time I ever wrote anything smart ass in the 781.

While I was no longer in the 130 busness when my then unit converted to JP-8 in the 81/82 time frame, the conversion occured with no problems. The TF-30-P100A engine burned JP-8 without a hiccup. JP-8 is cheaper primarily because it is jet A-1 with a couple of additives. Believe one was to prevent icing and the other was for microbes. Not surprising the Air Force spends more on fuel than any other DOD component. In an effort to reduce fuel costs and get off oil from our arab friends:mad:the Air Force is spending big bucks developing synthetic fuel. Currently several MDSs have been certified to burn this fuel. Now it's a matter of getting the cost down. The Air Force had contracted with a refining company to build a syn fuel refinery at Malstrom, but the deal fell through. So, in the years to come, the young troops out there will most likely be fueling something other than JP-8.

True story. SR-71 crew chief goes out to his acft. early morning. Start cart will not start. Opens cover, discovers one of the engines is missing. Sometime during the night someone removed the engine and made off with it. This caused a veerry big flap as the SR-71 ramp was, except for WSAs, one of the most secure areas anywhere. Not surprised to see chrome valve covers. There was never any shortage of money in the 9th SRW. At one time they spent about 80% of SAC's TDY budget. An F150 wasn't good enough, they used El Camenos to chase down U-2 outriggers. Later traded them on Cameros.

. My advice would be to know who the decision makers are, both up the MAJCOM and at the Depot. Communicate with them, particularly the depot Specialist, so they are clear on what you are trying to get across. Actually, a good one will seek you out and explain why he or she is rejecting the proposal or ask you to clarify.

Again, it seems, we have a situation where the experts have been unable to write the guidance so as to take out all judgement.:rolleyes:Is there any thing that would be damaged/harmed buy running engines missing the mlg door? Don't think so. If the JG stated don't operate engines with mlg door missing you would have your answer. This is a situation that calls for good judgement based on experience.

It seems clarification on my part is in order. First let me say the time frame I'm refering to is early to late sixtys. I think we are all aware how much tech data changes over a period of 45+ years. There was no mention in the TO concerning closing the oil tank sov so as to permit oil service beyond the specified 15 minutes after engine shutdown. It was an informal procedure known to flt. line troops. Additionally, there was no requirement to visably check the valve after closing the cbs. And, in my day to day crew chief duties I didn't do it every time my act. flew. Further, engine oil service was not required after every sortie. On many post flights would have a recovery crew assigned to help. This took care of the 15 minute problem. With regard to what Dan Wilson said about this issue I couldn't agree more. When putting external power on so as the begin the -6 pre flt one of the first things I would look at was oil quanity. If there was one signifiantly lower than the other three would start or motor the engine. Generally would know there was a problem as I approached the acft. as there would be lots of oil on the ramp beneath the affected engine. When my acft. developed a leakdown engine, as soon as time permitted got it fixed. Had enough to worry about without this kind of problem which was easily cured.