fltsload Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- Members of the 418th Flight Test Squadron C-130 Hercules Wheel Brake System Improvement program here are testing the performance of carbon brakes and the new Mark IV Digital Antiskid Control Unit for the aircraft to replace the C-130's legacy brake system. Members of this test group said they know the lives of current and future C-130 crewmembers depend on them doing their job right. "My primary objective is to make sure the carbon brakes and the Mark IV are equivalent to or better than the legacy steel brakes and the Mark II Analog Antiskid system," said Colin Young, a 418th FLTS subsystems engineer. "If the tests are successful, then the brakes will be retrofitted to all C-130s, other than the C-130J (that already uses the new brakes)." Parts for the current legacy brake system are becoming scarce because they are no longer being manufactured, so the need for new brakes is significant. The testing involves max-effort braking where the pilot would apply the maximum pressure to the brakes to stop the cargo plane. Different test points include observing how the carbon brakes perform with different cargo weights and wet-runway tests to evaluate the digital antiskid system. Mr. Young said the carbon brakes are designed to have a 25-percent increase in thermal capacity when compared to the current steel brakes, which reduces potential for brake fires and locking up. The brakes also reduce stopping distance. For testing purposes, team members drilled holes into the center stator and inserted thermal probes into the brakes to obtain real-time brake temperatures during testing. Test officials said temperatures are essential to determine how hot the brakes get during maximum effort braking and to evaluate the cooling profile of the brakes. "The one thing you find with steel brakes is they cannot handle as much heat, and they certainly heat up a lot quicker than carbon brakes," said 1st. Lt. Nicole Potter, a 418th FLTS flight test engineer. "The nice thing about steel brakes is they dissipate the heat quickly, and we're finding with the carbon brakes it takes a little longer to cool, but their capacity to handle heat is a lot better." Along with better performance, the new carbon brakes are more durable and efficient. "From a logistics point of view, the old brakes can last up to 4,000 miles of landing distance," Mr. Young said. "The new brakes can last 25,000 (miles), so it's almost six times better in terms of logistics support." With C-130s doing constant missions throughout Southwest Asia, a new braking system stands to benefit cargo pilots down range and that fact is not lost on the test team. "The warfighters have had a continuous problem with the wear-out of the brakes and the turnaround time to rebuild them," said Lance Stoebling, assistant program manager. "Composite brake systems are coming out throughout the Air Force and the C-130 is next on the list." A C-130E on loan from the 19th Airlift Wing at Little Rock Air Force Base, Ark. is being used to accomplish testing and is scheduled to complete one last mission for the Air Force before it is decommissioned. WBSI testing is scheduled to conclude in July. Since testing began in March, Mr. Stoebling said the 418th FLTS has completed 100 percent of the legacy baseline brake testing and about 75 percent of the new brake system tests. "So far, it looks very promising," said Mr. Stoebling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyclark Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Since they are being used on other aircraft, I think the test is a huge waste of money, but hey, what do I know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATOPS1 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Funny we were having the same discussion here... Maybe the airplane is SO different yea thats it.... I also like the "Since testing began in March, Mr. Stoebling said the 418th FLTS has completed 100 percent of the legacy baseline brake testing". Maybe the performance manual and all the testing done for them (legacy brakes) is invalid... Good thing to know when I'm running the TOLD #'s for a 4000' strip at 142,000lbs.... @ 30C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Yougot it NATOPS1, it's the performance manual that needs to be updated. Not a waste of time. Could they have done the testing at LRF? Sure, but what happens when you shut down the main runway here....chaos! Although Edwards is very, very expensive to do anything at, there's good reason for this particular test to be done there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATOPS1 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I think you missed the point... but oh well just another bill to be paid....I've got checks so I must still have money..... Hey we can make the retirees pay more for their medical coverage..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jansen Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I think you missed the point... but oh well just another bill to be paid....I've got checks so I must still have money..... Hey we can make the retirees pay more for their medical coverage..... I'm no expert, but I think that they needed to establish a new baseline with their current testing methodology. It doesn't mean that the old data is invalid, but probably that the new methodology records more data with different variables. For example, there may be newer, more accurate sensors being used, or the holes may be drilled in different locations, or any number of things that make the new data incompatible with the old data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I think you missed the point... but oh well just another bill to be paid....I've got checks so I must still have money..... Hey we can make the retirees pay more for their medical coverage..... Yeah, I guess I did miss your point. But, I do think we spend money on worse things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATOPS1 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Agree.... A "NEW" Milk Stool comes to mind.... Jansen, you sound like an engineer.... (sliderule type) Just joking.... Your right but the J has them, they work... put them on and test to make sure they work as well or bettrer on the "new" aircraft... I can see "justification" numbers coming out of this more than anything... The numbers that matter.... stop faster and shorter, lighter weight, longer mean time between failures... They cost 1000% more but will last 300% longer..... OOPS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jansen Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Your right but the J has them, they work... put them on and test to make sure they work as well or bettrer on the "new" aircraft... I can see "justification" numbers coming out of this more than anything... The numbers that matter.... stop faster and shorter, lighter weight, longer mean time between failures... They cost 1000% more but will last 300% longer..... OOPS!!! Definitely sounds like a "Cover Your Ass" situation, but you can imagine heads will roll if something unfortunate were to happen. I think the reduced maintenance costs (manpower and parts) and inventory trail from using a single brake system throughout will be enough to justify it. Plus, the old brakes aren't being made anymore, so what are your choices really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railrunner130 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I hate to think of how many brakes we went through in the desert this time around. It's a pretty good number and this upgrade will be much welcomed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyclark Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I wouldn't hate the money being spent so much if they could get the $h!t installed in the original timeline at least one 'effing time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did I mention !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 There was a time (and several places) where things could get done on accelerated schedules. Too many senior administrators in the DoD (not just the Air Force) have done all they can to squelch this because they say it is not cost effective. "Wait ten years and save ten bucks" is their philosophy. Those types didn't have enough seat time to know the difference.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATOPS1 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Thats a no $htter.... I remember taking a "Ground to Helo" radio set(short range) , mounting it on a pallet, running electric power to it (retrofit style) pulling out aft cargo compartment windows one on each side of the aircraft, making aluminum plates to replace the windows with, mounting the antennas on the plates... All done in two days and worked like a champ... The HELOs could talk to the "other" ground guys from a much further distance as we were on station dropping flares for 6-8 hrs at a time.... Just a "hey we need" ... "can you".... "sure can"... DONE!!! 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.