Jump to content

Center Wing Box


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

The availability of new center wing boxes from Lockheed seems to have the fate of many good airplanes in question. I really don\'t think that Lockheed actually builds the center wing box(maybe AVCO-Nashville), but rather, has a casting made by one supplier (to the Lockheed specification, naturally); and then Lockheed may do the machining, ie, drilling holes, grinding or milling surface areas; or they may even sub the machining out to their approved suppliers.

The delivery rate is probably set to help control the cost--minimum premium time on the fabrication; standard delivery vs. expedited delivery of materials, etc.

In a nutshell, the almighty dollar, controlling cost on the new wing box assemblies, will force many existing C-130s to the boneyard with a lot of life left in the platform--except for the availability of the replacement of the center wing box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe both Boeing & Snow bid on the CWB replacement contract providing a spectrum of options from refurb to redesign...

If what you say is true (Lockheed contracts out the casting & only does final machining), it\'s even more criminal that Lockheed has what amounts to an exclusive contract & is strangling the production rate for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes it even more interesting is I hear they use the SAME FRIGGIN CWB on the J model. What the hell are they doing, getting read for Z model sales or something? If that is true make you think how much of the production is diverted to building the new planes as they sure as hell don\'t have any interest in keeping the old ones around.

smileywars1gi0.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was before the \"DADTA\" (Damage and Deterioration Tolerance Assessment) studies and calculations. Several studies have been done, and the numbers seem to get worse each time.

The calculation provides a factor to de-rate (multiply) the hours logged on the airplane, based on the mission type, ie, low-level, heavyweight, etc, and the environmental conditions (corrosive atmosphere) where the airplane has been operated/assigned.

Some airplanes now can only fly one-fourth their original projected life. For people, early retirement sounds good; but for airplanes, it doesn\'t seem right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AS I have said for years, Lockgreed is out for the almighty dollar, only,

It shows in both the C-5 and the C-130 Engines that do not live to expected life, outer wings that crack, center wing boxes that are crap and known about for 40 years. What a scam.

RZ Hill:angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ohmy:

Glad to hear you made it over to HerkyBirds. Its always good to hear your side even when it\'s not what we expect to hear. But then again, like the air force, everything makes full circle. The center wing box issues are making their way back to the forfront. Hopefully we aren\'t buying the same ol problem to plague future maintainers.

Engine Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say here, that I really, really believe that there are many improvements designed into the new center wing box.

However, even if the center wing box was a solid block of titanum (or even \"un-obtanium\"), C-130 missions and crews would find a way to impose fatigue into the structure---nothing is perfect (except this web site--thanks, Casey).

As soon as the earlier signs of fatigue were showing up, a program could have been implemented to improve the design, and replace the defective center wing boxes as necessary. Instead, a program of deferred maintenance and band-aids has led to the current situation. How could a responsible Gov\'t depot maintenance organization let the stock level of replacement components dwindle down to nothing?

Now that the monster has raised it\'s ugly head, cost is the actual driving factor in how soon more center wing boxes can be obtained. Suppliers/manufacturers will respond to accelerated programs, but the cost goes way up...a cost the Gov\'t doesn\'t want to pay.

Sooo, just say \"goodnight sweetheart\" to the older airframes. We can\'t have the logistics planners and chiefs with more egg on their faces than on their hats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TalonOneTF wrote:

I have to say here, that I really, really believe that there are many improvements designed into the new center wing box.

You are right. There have been a few production changes. The latest was in \'92 for the H3 - same wing as on the J-model.

TalonOneTF wrote:

However, even if the center wing box was a solid block of titanum (or even \"un-obtanium\"), C-130 missions and crews would find a way to impose fatigue into the structure---nothing is perfect

You are right again. Fatigue & stress are what causes metal (any metal) to fail. The SOF CWB is significantly stronger than the production CWB, but it weighs over 1000lbs more. The SOF CWB isn\'t indestructable though, it\'s extra strength just means it flies longer before replacement. You could probably build a CWB that would not be subject to stress or fatigue and outlive the rest of the plane, but it would likely be so heavy as to preclude actually putting anything in the back of the plane. Aircraft design is always a compromise...

TalonOneTF wrote:

As soon as the earlier signs of fatigue were showing up, a program could have been implemented to improve the design, and replace the defective center wing boxes as necessary.

I think the use of the word defective may not be accurate here. All airplanes have a planned life - I don\'t know what the C-130\'s original planned life is/was, but I\'ll bet we surpassed it a while ago with our E-models (which have all be re-winged at least once).

TalonOneTF wrote:

Instead, a program of deferred maintenance and band-aids has led to the current situation.

You are right again. I\'m sure most here can remember when we quit doing SOAP and decided to \"fly to failure\" on our engines. It\'s a cost-savings measure pure & simple.

TalonOneTF wrote:

How could a responsible Gov\'t depot maintenance organization let the stock level of replacement components dwindle down to nothing?

If you\'re referring to CWB here, they\'re made to order. They\'re too large & too expensive to have them sitting on the shelf. If you\'re referring to the many \"efficiency\" initiatives like Total Quality Management, Just In Time supply, & our latest LEAN programs, you\'re witnessing the application of commercial business models to the government. There are, of course, a few problems with this. Most commercial businesses are more efficient at the upper levels than the government & can actually make decisions relatively quickly, but more importantly, if they screw up, it only costs dollars - when the military screws up, it costs combat effectivenes, and sometimes lives.

TalonOneTF wrote:

Now that the monster has raised it\'s ugly head, cost is the actual driving factor in how soon more center wing boxes can be obtained. Suppliers/manufacturers will respond to accelerated programs, but the cost goes way up...a cost the Gov\'t doesn\'t want to pay.

Sooo, just say \"goodnight sweetheart\" to the older airframes. We can\'t have the logistics planners and chiefs with more egg on their faces than on their hats.

Hear, hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Herk wrote:

I was surfing the AIRCAT website today & saw that all wings since \'92 H3 have very slight re-design based on SOF CWB - that includes J-model. Don\'t know what the EBH limit is on these...

So does that meant that none of the P models have had any of these flight hour restrictions that the rest of AFSOC seems to be having?

I thankfully bailed before this latest abortion occurred but I do know that all of the P models already have the SOF CWB. They started changing them out our fleet in conjunction with the SOFI mod back in the early 90\'s.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan Wilson wrote:

So does that meant that none of the P models have had any of these flight hour restrictions that the rest of AFSOC seems to be having?

True - no P-models I\'m aware of have any imminently impending hours limitations.

Dan Wilson wrote:

I thankfully bailed before this latest abortion occurred but I do know that all of the P models already have the SOF CWB. They started changing them out our fleet in conjunction with the SOFI mod back in the early 90\'s.

The T2 CWB was originally supposed to be purchased in conjunction with our pods. Of course, it got stripped out as a separate line item for funding issues.

I\'ll send you a PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The J models use essentially the same CWB that\'s on your basic C-130 E\'s, H\'s, MC-30 H\'s and AC-130U\'s. There are differences, but for the purpose of CWB life, they are the same. The MC-130E\'s, P\'s and AC-130H\'s have the SOF CWB, now refferred to as ESL CWB (Extended Service Life)

If you are to believe the Lockheed sales team, ESL wings will be installed on J\'s starting in FY 10. The MC-130H\'s and AC-130U\'s are slated to recieve ESL wings. We are being told that we should expect 80K+ EBH from ESL CWBs.

I\'d love to hear form a J guy, rumor is that that a J model is already programmed to get a new wing in FY 09 or 10 because of high EBH. Not sure if that J is RAF or USAF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HeyChief wrote:

I\'d love to hear form a J guy, rumor is that that a J model is already programmed to get a new wing in FY 09 or 10 because of high EBH. Not sure if that J is RAF or USAF.

I\'m not a J-guy, nor do I play one on TV! :laugh: I find this nearly unbelievable for two main reasons: 1 - US J-models haven\'t been flying much until very recently, and little TAC at that. 2 - RAF J-models, until very, very recently, have been used nearly exclusively for airland (no low-level at all - hardly).

But you never know...

Does anyone know if RAF uses AIRCAT?? Does Marshalls run/use a similar program (of course, it would be spelled \'programme\' over there :P )? They must do something as I know they\'re replacing wings over there (XV179 had outer wings replaced in the year before it was shot down)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We thought it was hard to believe too, but we were also told that the SF on a J is higher than a Talon 2. Those engines really beat the wing to death we are told, no matter if it\'s TAC or a straight forward log run. As I said, rumor and probably some propaganda, I\'d love to have a J-model guy give us the skinny on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cobra935o

I know the gunship I was assigned to, 6575, as a crew chief was the first H model to go under the knife, and get its CWB replaced, that was in April of 1993. It was gone almost a year before we got it back to Hurlburt (it came back with the two tone paint as well). I wonder if the Talon 1\'s or P models were done any sooner then that or not. I know we already had the SOFI mods on the H models at that point as well.

The old CWB had it made it 24 years on there, wonder if those new ones will hold up as long, I know there was some talk of those new ones having cracks already in them and such, but I didnt keep up on that as much as I had moved to U-models at that point.

Nathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

talonlm wrote:

The MC-Es had their CWBs replaced in the mid-to-late 90s, and have no hours limitations, either. It\'s probably the only reason AFSOC still allows them to fly.

It makes so much sense when you look back on it that we GAVE four MC-P\'s to the Guard for rescue and are mothballing the MC-E\'s

Just who is the idiot in charge of AFSOC these days

Dan

crapfan.gifsheep.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan Wilson wrote:

It makes so much sense when you look back on it that we GAVE four MC-P\'s to the Guard for rescue and are mothballing the MC-E\'s

Just who is the idiot in charge of AFSOC these days

Dan

The MC-Es aren\'t all headed to the boneyard just yet. Someone down at AFSOC got a clue light (or a swift kick) and the ten AFRC-funded Es got extended a little more, to at least 2011. The four MC-Es that were AFSOC funded are still in limbo at the moment.

That, of course, only treats a symptom, not the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy there are a lot of issues in this thread.

Let\'s see, first USAF decides Rescue is not as glamorous as fighters, let\'s dump that on the Guard and Reserve. Then oops we need more Rescue.

Let\'s get the planes back from the Guard. But the Guard and Reserve units are fully manned with qualified pararescue folks and the USAF is always undermanned in pararescue. Lets swap MC-130P\'s for HC-130P\'s and we can keep those qualified people. Plus the largest group in the US House are CA Represetatives and they\'ll sqwack if you cut the Guard.

Forward a few years, we lose 4 MC130H\'s and a P in a short period of time, now we are short of MC\'s again. New plan, let\'s get 12 or more H\'s from the Guard and make MC-130W\'s. See, we don\'t need MC-130P\'s.

Then there are AC-130A\'s, we have lots of money we are getting AC-130U\'s lets dump the A\'s on the Reserve. Then the AC-130A\'s are getting old, we have more gunships than we need lets dump the MC130E\'s on the Reserve and park the AC\'s, then we can buy 4 more AC-130U\'s, we\'ll get H\'s from the Guard. Besides we have more MC\'s than we need.

Next the Reserve can\'t fully man a 14 UE MC130 unit in South Alabama, so we make it an Active Associate unit. Now, the Marines are getting V-22\'s, the flying deathtrap. But the Marines can\'t fly an AF mission and H53\'s are getting old, we want our own V-22\'s. We don\'t have enough people to man all our new V-22\'s, let\'s close down the Associate unit. Now we have more MC130E\'s in AFRC than they could ever fly, lets park four of them at March. What\'s next?

It seems like things are unchanged from when I retired almost 20 years ago. \"The difference between the USAF and the Cub Scouts is that the Cub Scouts had Adult Leaders.\"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, the reverse reserve associate deal with the 8th was really about keeping the 8th open - the CV22 should have arrived by 99/00 when the reserve deal came about. AFSOC isn\'t about to let the 2nd longest continuously active squadron in the USAF shut down...

There\'s LOADS of issues, Bob! A few of them even right-minded...mainly your cub scout comment is spot on though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cobra935o

When I was looking at a Night Flyer magazine I had from 1995 the other night, it was talking about how the first CV-22\'s were supposed to arrive at Hurlburt in 1997. Only 10 years late, but whats a decade or two between friends? ;)

Nathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...