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

PerfManJ

Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

13 Good

core_pfieldgroups_2

  • First Name
    Kevin
  • Last Name
    Halpin

core_pfieldgroups_3

  • core_pfield_11
    Formerly worked on the C-130 program at Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA. My specialty is aerodynamic and performance analysis, and I also supported flight test activities on H and J models. If you have ever opened a Performance Data Manual (-1-1), you've seen my handiwork.
  • core_pfield_12
    Chicago, IL
  • Occupation
    Project Engineer
  1. Hurry while supplies last! I still think this is the most cost-effective drag reduction option for the Herc, and they can be installed on any variant. From what I have read, LM wasn't having much luck selling their microvane kit after all the R&D and flight testing. So they licensed the tech to Metro Aerospace and they made their own refinements. The Canadians are installing the Metro kits on their Js.
  2. Thanks for the replies everyone. From here and other folks, the APU fuel consumption appears to range between 200 and 400 pph.
  3. What is the approximate fuel consumption of the C-130 APU on the ground under load? I'm interested in data for the H3 and J, if possible, in lb/hour or gal/hour. Thanks in advance!
  4. It's drag reduction which should save a little fuel, but mostly at low speeds. They don't do anything for takeoff performance and probably have some long term effects on wing life. Plus they add weight. I reiterate my preference for the "microvanes" - they clean up the dirtiest part of the plane, aerodynamically speaking.
  5. They finally did it! My bet is that the "microvanes" tested on the aft fuselage a few years ago are more effective at drag reduction and have less structural impact. But winglets have a more powerful visual impact.
  6. NP2000 evaluation has been funded on and off for the past several years, but I believe the props have only been installed on a WYANG bird for the formal flight test and a Skibird for an operational test. The Skibirds will be the first to get them (once funding is approved) since they need the extra takeoff thrust to get off the ice in Greenland and Antarctica without JATO. The Skibirds have been the driver behind NP2000 for C-130s...but of course several other groups are interested in the extra performance as well. There is not much cruise fuel efficiency improvement with NP2000 (that's where the Series 3.5 engine really shines), but there is a major boost in low speed thrust. Plus many reliability and maintainability improvements over the 54H60.
  7. The Rolls Royce Series 3.5 engine upgrade is separate from any plans to use the NP2000 (8-blade) prop. Series 3.5 is an internal upgrade to several components of the T56 to improve fuel efficiency. Coincidentally, USAF used the same Wyoming ANG bird for the NP2000 and single-engine Series 3.5 test at Edwards. Then NOAA conducted their own 4-engine test on their P-3. Now, if USAF would combine the NP2000 and Series 3.5...that would be a sporty Herk.
  8. The OAT would have to be >90F to fall off the torque limit. For Afghanistan, that seems like a pretty benign elevation.
  9. No, I believe the extra length on the stretch J consists of an 80" plug aft of the wing, and a 100" plug in the forward fuselage.
  10. That C-130X article was from 1999...
  11. I can't find any concrete details on 5754 either. Both of the Israeli Herks (5723, 5742) are stretches (C-130J-30).
  12. Updating the cert of an old airplane is a massive pain. And Lockheed is feeling the burn again with the LM-100J. As for the AC-130J, we'll have to wait and see if any other details of these "departures" are released. I doubt it is anything new.
  13. FAA certification was a requirement of the launch customer (UK RAF) and the stick shaker would satisfy any stall warning requirements. But the stick pusher was added to prevent fully-developed stalls and the accompanying nasty roll-off.
  14. I don't recall much stall testing being done on the H-model with 8 blades. But the J stall test program was exhaustive, after the roll-off issue was identified and the stick shaker/pusher was installed.
  15. AMPTestFE is correct that all C-130's have stall roll-off, but it is more severe in the J (and the H's equipped with 8-blade props). Stall roll-off is the tendency of the aircraft to roll significantly when in a fully-developed stall. Since these characteristics were prevalent in the J, both a stick shaker and stick pusher were added to warn against and prevent fully-developed stalls. jbob, you may be on to something with banked stalls. What speed, flap setting, and bank angle is typically used in a gunship orbit?
×
×
  • Create New...