Lkuest

Yeah, that Boeing C-130J bit was a joke to highlight the equally embarrasing P & W T56 reference. Just want you guys who took this seriously to know that I\'m not a moron.

Someone can correct me if I\'m wrong but I believe they are: 61-2361,61-2371,62-1790,62-1795,62-1812,63-7768,63-7813,63-7838, and 64-17680 Some others that are floating around Sheppard are: 57-0471,57-0486,62-1807,63-7779,63-7849, and 72-1298.

Ah, the good old Pratt & Whitney T56-A-7B/15 that got us to where we are today. They had their time, but now that we have our Boeing C-130J we can do so much more!

The EBH is a best guess of airworthyness based on years of tests to predict wing fatigue. If a wing is fatigued enough, it will fall apart. You are correct when you say airplanes have been retired without any known serious problems, but it\'s the unknown problems that ground the aircraft. It is uneconomical to do an NDI inspection on every square inch of the wing structure, especially when a wing hits 45,000 EBH. It\'s probably more cost effective to just change a wing out. There was an aircraft with 48,000 EBH that was taken apart to test the EBH limits, and it was found that the wings had cracks everywhere, so they are just being safe, but in a good way.

The Accutach isn\'t allowed any error, but maintainers are the ones that calibrate it. It\'s only as accurate as you program it to be, but if it is set right, it will read right off the tach generator.

There is a rumor at Little Rock that it will indeed become an AMC base, but there are other things going on. The Guard unit is rumored to be picking up the trianing missions for the AMP aircraft, and also the the powers are talking about setting up a training mission for C-27J\'s, since it won the JCA contract. Despite having two training units instead of three, the number of training missions in the AETC side haven\'t gone down much, (but may in the future.) Couple that with all the C-130 specific training facilities at Little Rock that make it the \"C-130 Center of Excellence\", and it\'s hard to make a case to turn the base over to AMC just because it has a couple more flying squadrons. I\'m not against the conversion to AMC by any means. It\'s almost always easier for an operational command to secure funding for base projects than it is for AETC, so I believe it would be a big win for LRAFB if it went AMC. I really hope it happens.

If all the rumors are true they\'ll be flying E\'s. I don\'t know where the aircraft are coming from as all the 53rd\'s E\'s are to be absorbed by the 62nd.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020211-0 That\'s all I\'ve found on it. I would highly doubt that the engines decoupled during takeoff. The engine indications would be similar to a flameout, except for the actual flaming out part. The engines were designed to decouple due to excessive negative torque. The only way that could happen on takeoff is if the engine flamed out in the first place and the engine started windmilling like crazy due to airspeed. If they did decouple without flaming out, there is a good chance of recoupling if the engine is still running. Sorry I don\'t know any good facts about this particular incident, only that two engines failed at a critical stage of flight, and I doubt that simply decoupling was the root cause of the problem. Edit- This website keeps adding _ in certain locations of a weblink, making it not work. To use the link, just highlight the link, copy and paste it to your browser, then delete all the _\'s in the link and it will take you right to the aviation-safety.net database for this incident. :laugh: It\'s doing it again. Can you say website BUG? Edited by Casey www.aviation-safety.net I just typed it in and it worked. --Casey

All I know about this subject is what I read in the BAR report on the King 56 mishap, which crashed into the water due to all four engines flaming out. There were tests done on both the synchrophaser and TD Amp. The tests included many things, and one of the tests was to see how the synchrophaser and TD amp reacts to an interrupted power supply, both DC and AC voltage. What they found was surprising. After power being interrupted to the sync, it pretty much did nothing, or went dead. The TD Amp on the other hand did indeed start to take a lot of fuel, so it is technically possible for a TD Amp to cause a rollback, although I have never seen any issues with this. The sync is another matter though. If it just goes limp with an AC power interruption, you\'re more likely to get a rollback with the sync fully powered than you are with an interrupted AC power supply. Even if it does rollback on torque, it\'s only going to do so with a maximum of 4% RPM. There are physical stops in the valvehousing that prevent the sync from going any higher than 104% or lower than 94%, so I wouldn\'t worry about losing all four engines to a synchrophaser. Edit- I had a brain fart. The sync can\'t go above 106% or below 96%, depending on what the valvehousing is set at, so there is a +6%, -4% rpm mechanical stops for the sync input in the valvehousing.

Actually, you\'re right. If I remember correctly, they said there was an engine failure, then blamed the U.S. for not supplying the parts to keep their fleet airworthy. If they\'re not airworthy, why are they still flying them? I\'m sure Russia would be happy to supply them with some An-24\'s or IL-76\'s, especially with all the oil money they\'re making.

Everywhere you go is going to have a different answer. I saw a Canada C-130 pamphlet that stated they reduced x% of all prop low oil lights by simply running the prop through two times and checking ATMOSPHERIC ONLY? Some people check the pressurized sump only because it tells you exactly how much to put in. From my personal experience, the pressurized sump is inaccurate. You can put in exactly how much it tells you to, and you can still come up with one quart low. Others you put how much it tells you and you end up overservicing it. The funny thing is that any time you have anything in the atmospheric, you in effect have the pressurized overserviced. One question is why do we even check the atmospheric if you have no idea how much to put in? The answer I believe is that you are supposed to service the prop 5 oz of fluid at a time until you show a good indication on the atmospheric. You could burn up a pump doing that. However, looking at the 61JG for advice, it just says if you\'re low, check the pressurized sump. In fact, it says to check the pressurized sump for verification of the atmospheric sump anyway regardless. Somebody remind my why we are even checking atmospheric if it\'s reading means nothing according to the jobguide. In my opinion, the pressurized sump should be the one to check because the float switch is in the pressurized sump, however, you could make a case to check the atmospheric because you check it when the propeller is actually pressurized, and thus better able to simulate actual conditions when the prop is running. I\'ve heard rumors of averaging the two indications, but nobody has explained yet how that works. I\'ve also seen the standby filter blamed on the low oil light if the atmospheric level is high and pressurized is low, but there\'s all kinds of internal filters, screens, and bypassing o-rings that could cause a wierd reading like that. I\'d say, just follow your tech data, whatever it says this week. Regardless of how the system is supposed to work, every propeller is different. That being said, prop low oil lights will happen. You can experiment all day long on how to increase your accuracy, but at the end of the day you can\'t eliminate all of them. If you follow your tech data, nobody can blame you if you still get one. The only sure say to solve the problem is either redesign the propeller, replace the idiot light with a level indicator and check the level prior to shutdown, or clip the wires to the float switch and just rely on a propeller RPM flux for low fluid indication. Not that I would advocate such a thing.:P

I guess the goat lives to see another sunrise! :)

You got a stock number? :lol: :lol:

With already changing the prop and verifying the fuel toppings, you already eliminated pretty much everything involved. There is one question though. You mentioned it would overspeed. Is that overspeeding with a throttle burst, or is it when you advance to a certain power setting and let it stabilize before you hit the switches? Many times I have to advance to maximum power before I even hit the switches. If you don\'t see an rpm increase just from hitting the pitchlock switches, there is a wiring problem (since valvehousing was eliminated.) If you already did that and it checked good, I would suggest you may have a bad propeller from your supply which happens to be bad in a similar way that the old one was. Just to verify, I\'d remove the prop from the engine and put it on a test stand (if that\'s possible.) Possibly whoever installed the prop forgot a seal or cut one on the way on. We also had some crazy problems from the pitchlock regulator either not being installed correctly, or having the externally threaded ring back off. It sounds like something in the prop, since the engine is doing its simple job by overspeeding. Good luck.