bischoffm Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 If you were concerned about the ops sec of this issue look at this article! http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/03/ap_c130_inspections_030509/ It even list the J's. It dosen't list exact numbers which is good!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmac_Project Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 OpSec is somethng that has gone away since everone has a camera phone and has to tell someone when something goes on. It seems since we only have terrorist to deal with instead of a global superpower to oppose, little information like mission reliability isn't an issue........ WRONG If the bad guys know we don't have aircraft availability then it allows them to step up their activity. Information leaks hurt our people not the bad guys. Guess all those briefings about OPSEC when I was on active duty have gone away with the new kinder Air Force, probably replace with more gym time so people can go and work out more. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoedog Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Opsec...hahaha whats that. I had the pleasure of finding examples of the good and bad barrel nuts so the wing king here at little rock could do an interview with the local news. here is the link to the story and video http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0309/601442.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest USCGC130J Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 When the inspection came through Thursday we saw it for the legacy c-130 but we figured we would look at our planes to make sure that we did not have them. We looked on 3 planes were good and the last one that we had check had the tapered barrel nuts. So we found it on a J and had Lockheed come take pictures so they grounded the J's as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZHill Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Heard from a good source today that it might be 48 weeks before all defective nuts are replaced. Lockgreed ought to do this for free on the "j" acft as they were equiped "from the factory" with these defective nuts. RZ Hill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest USCGC130J Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Heard from a good source today that it might be 48 weeks before all defective nuts are replaced. Lockgreed ought to do this for free on the "j" acft as they were equiped "from the factory" with these defective nuts. RZ Hill We have already replaced the barrel nuts that were bad on the one plane that had the incorrect ones. Luckly we had 16 on hand and Airstation Kodiak had an extra 10 for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyChief Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 From what the SPO has told us, the barrel nuts in question were supposed to have met the spec for that application. The issue is that the manufacturer evidently scewed the pooch during the manufacturing process that leaves these nuts suceptible to "embrittlement". I would not characterize that Lockheed or the SPO installed "incorrect" nuts, just nuts that came from a manufacturer that didn't have the right quality controls in-place to ensure they produced a quality product comensurate with the application. I do believe there should be enough blame to go around with the agencies that are supposed to be looking out for our best interest when buying aircraft parts. We just went through a similar issue with the truss mount and external tank mount bolts about 6-8 months ago. That was due to bolts being introduced into the system from an umknown source with suspect bolt head stamps. I still haven't heard what came from that investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZHill Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You won't RZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATOPS1 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyChief Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Not bad as in cracked...bad as in that type barrel nut from that manufacturer is supect. What started this all of was 5 "bad" barrel nuts that were cracked on a Pope C-130H. I haven't heard if they've found any more cracked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Any word on why they're only inspecting the top nuts? I mean, if it's a material problem, they should be inspecting the bottom nuts as well, shouldn't they? I haven't seen the actual TCTO, but I saw the message traffic that outlined the work & only saw Top Nuts... Unless the slide-rule engineers believe the failures to be caused by shock loading during landing (unloading of the wings) vs fatigue or general stress (in that case, bottom nuts would be more critical for inflight). But if it's an embrittlement issue, that's materiel, and all nuts should be inspected/replaced, no?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyclark Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I'm just a dumb-ass pointy head, but as I learned it from giving limited help to my APG brethren, the bottom bolts and nuts are a different thread size. The top are .750", the same as the bottom engine bolts and the rear eye bolt of the refueling pod. The bad .750" nuts in question were machined with squared surfaces in the locking part of the nut. I believe the bottom bolts in the rainbow fittings are a different size, I'm guessing .625", but I don't have the book in front of me. I would think the top engine mount bolts are probably larger. But again, there aren't any wires running to them, so that limits my ability to comprehend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaprad Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 This was in the paper today in these parts. http://www.macon.com/197/story/648777.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cobra935o Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) Didnt we have this same issue with the wing attachment barrel nuts about 16-17 years ago? I remember doing some inspections back then for the same damn thing, and back then it also seemed we only did the top nuts! I also liked how they wrote in the article "legacy" 130's which are all 130s now except it seems the J models. Edited March 15, 2009 by cobra935o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 “Actual flight loads are not that much of a problem,” May said. “It’s the shock of landing that tends to be the issue. Of course operating on unimproved runways is also a concern.” OK...guess that answered my question. May be different nuts too as pointed out by Tiny...I just assumed they were all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest USCGC130J Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 As far as i know that is what i heard as well 5 nuts on one a/c were bad. As for what i have heard about the coast guard is that all of them will be replaced and untill they are the a/c is grounded. Our a/c are back up(J's in E-city) not sure about the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATOPS1 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyclark Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Actually, the bottoms are .875", not .750". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.