herky130fe Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 pictures show j's with and without external tanks. Are these removable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATOPS1 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Yes as are the Older versions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herky130fe Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 Funny in 9 years of flying the "E" I never saw one without external tanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbob Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Funny in 9 years of flying the "E" I never saw one without external tanks. You mean you never saw an "E" without externals or never saw a "J" without externals? If I remember correctly no externals was one of the "J" selling points. However with Keesler getting the 1st "J's" the Hurricane "J" did not have the range to fly their missions so they had to add the externals to the WC-Js. Is this what everyone one else remembers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkuest Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 As far as I know, All J's are capable of having externals, but it is not as economical when they are installed, so they just leave them removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry myers Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 When I arrived CCK Jan. 71 many of the assigned acft. wing tanks were stored in the tank farm. Shortly thereafter senior leadership decided that all acft. would have tanks installed. What a goat rope that turned out to be. After setting in the tank farm for god knows how long getting the tanks hung was the easy part. Getting them to function, not so easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlg6016 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 My last couple of weeks in the Marines we had a couple of Navy Q models come through on their way to AMARC. We where supposed to can the external tanks off them and we had a bitch of a time just breaking torque on the pylon bolts to drop them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railrunner130 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I'm pretty sure all Herks have the mountings for four externals. Whether or not they are plumbed and wired is a different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimH Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 When I was at CCK in 1968, most (if not all) of the E models there didn't have externals installed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You burn approx 2/3 the fuel IN the tanks to be able to even CARRY the fuel. So, yes, you ca go farther with externals than without, but you can fly far more efficiently without them than with.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalbasher Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You burn approx 2/3 the fuel IN the tanks to be able to even CARRY the fuel. So, yes, you ca go farther with externals than without, but you can fly far more efficiently without them than with.... It's my understanding that only special mission requirements dictate the external tanks on J models. The increased fuel efficiency with the J model engines/props provides for enough fuel to be contained within the wings...externals just increase drag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It's my understanding that only special mission requirements dictate the external tanks on J models. The increased fuel efficiency with the J model engines/props provides for enough fuel to be contained within the wings...externals just increase drag. Agreed for the most part - hence my comment that you need to burn 2/3 of it to just carry them. I could see some long-range missions where the externals might be of use.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEFEGeorge Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Agreed for the most part - hence my comment that you need to burn 2/3 of it to just carry them. I could see some long-range missions where the externals might be of use.... Since I don't have my charts anymore I'll partly agree. Without the tanks installed you'll get better efficiency because of the -18 drag index. But that being said you'll loose flying time/distance without the fuel in the externals. Would like to run the numbers for no tanks/-18 index/max wing fuel (45K) against with tanks/0 index/max fuel (63K) using all the same variables - PA, temp, operating weight, step climbs, etc. As a WAG I figured that the extra 18K of ext fuel gave us an extra 4 hours or so extra flying time but it seems like you're saying it wasn't an extra 4 hours. Been too may years for me to remember everything. Maybe someone with a set of charts can run the numbers for an exercise. Flying 10 hr overwaters out of LRF without the tanks would have been a challenge. Having flown weather recon missions out of Hickam with the TG in a B model, and then reconning 3 different recovery sites due to weather proved to provide some pucker factor fuel wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 There are long missions that require them, no doubt. My point is that most of the time, you're carrying extra weight and drag and not actually using the gas in there. Unless you're doing one of the long missions that require all 18K of fuel, you're wasting gas. My 2/3 comment is probably a bit of an exaggeration, but you do waste a lot by carrying them around... There was a study at LRF back in the early '90s and it was decided that they were going to take all the tanks off the 16th AS birds, off 2/3 of the 62nd birds and 1/3 of the 50th/61st birds. Lots of numbers run to show how/why etc. In the end, it was scuttled by MX mostly because there was no place to store the tanks - they would've had to build a new facility that complied with so much EPA crap it just wasn't economically viable. But the numbers were there to support it from a fuel savings perspective alone. Many of the commercial Herk operators put the tanks on when they need them. Otherwise, they run w/o them 80% of the time. Crossing the Pacific? Yep, you need them. Look to industry - that'll show you where the money is. Military doesn't care about that sort of thing...for the most part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railrunner130 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the reason that most Herks still have externals now has to do with extending wing life and not actually extending range. This was a philosophical change from the earlier days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyChief Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Railrunner..I believe you are talking about wing flex and how having the externals on helps as far as severity factor is concerned. The last thing I remember is that SPO engineering did not have the engineering model to accurately reflect external pods off and for refueling pods (Sargent Fletcher or MCARS) on or off. I believe they just took the weight of the pods and counted that as fuel weight at that wing station. That's 3 years ago, maybe someone on here has updated information on that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEFEGeorge Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I can see the argument on both sides of the issue. Extra weight and drag with them on, less mission flexibility with them off. Hard to have a rapid deployable bird without the extenals. But I guess that's one of the reasons to remove some of the externals, but not all of them. Sure don't need them for PPs, low levels, and continental-US missions (except for trips from AK to some places in the lower 48 and HI). Flying B models from CONUS to HI could be a challenge at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3_Super_Bee Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 On "J" models it depends on the customer/mission of the aircraft. Supposedly the selling point is a -30 without tanks can fly more cargo(duh, bigger aircraft) higher, faster, further, than a legacy short model. Don't know for sure. To lazy to look up stats... Externals Installed at factory: Air Force -30 - no HC/MC/KC - yes Norway - yes (standard -30. Three of them were built as 44J's (USAF slick -30) and redirected. Two were built as 46J's (Norway code) One crashed last year, and I think we have an order to build another, to go along with the recent redirect a month or so ago.) India - yes (supposedly a stretched HC/MC. Canada - no (standard -30) Iraq - no (standard -30) Qatar - no (standard -30) Oman - (Royal Flight - no, as for the 2 Air Force planes to be built, not sure have built one yet.) Israeli - My guess is yes, I've heard they are going to be tankers(might be confusing with another new order), but first one is in bodymate and she is a -30. They do have USARRI(right hodge podge of letters for the In Air Refuel?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyChief Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Universal Aerial Refueling Receptical Slipway Installation = UARRSI..and yes..it's a mouthful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3_Super_Bee Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Universal Aerial Refueling Receptical Slipway Installation = UARRSI..and yes..it's a mouthful That it is.... Thanks Also to add. Tunisia is getting the standard -30 with tanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamMcGowan Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Js normally come without wing tanks, but they were added to the WC-130Js to extend their range. Not sure, but the new special ops airplanes may have them as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3_Super_Bee Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Not sure, but the new special ops airplanes may have them as well. Already stated that they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ang012 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 In 1968 when I was at CCK they had a problem with wing cracks. We had a lockheed team in phase that was doing NDI inspection on the wings. They where cracking on the inboard corners of #2 & 3 dry bay. They had cracks at all four corners on the center dry bay and all around the aux tank filler caps. They were starting to take the tanks off when I left. They said the tanks were not needed in vietnam and were the cause of the cracks by hard landings on dirt strips. Later on they reskined the top of the center wing they done away with aux tank filler caps and #2 & 3 and the center drybays were round. 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.