C-130 Hercules News
Posts posted by US Herk
I remember that incident as well - not sure on the tail number.
0282 did 'bounce' off the desert floor in AFG in '02-03 timeframe, I think. Altimeter error that went unrecognized until last minute - pilot saved their bacon, but aircraft go banged up a little.
I remember the "...buff out..." markings. ;)
TRIADS - TRIwall Aerial Delivery System
RWR - Radar Warning Receiver
ADS - Aerial Delivery System
What about all your airdrops & terminal area stuff - you know, where we make our money??
HSLLADS - High Speed Low-Level Aerial Delivery System
LAPES - Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System
CDS - Container Delivery System
CRS - Container Release System
CRL - Container Ramp Load
GRADS - Ground Release Airdrop System
LCLA - Low Cost Low Altitude airdrop
GPES - Ground Proximity Extraction System
PLADS - Parachute Low Altitude Delivery System
CARP - Computed Air Release Point
HARP - High Altitude Release Point
PI - Point of Impact
CEP - Circular Error Probability
FARP - Forward Area Refuel Point
FARRP - Forward Area Rearm and Refuel Point
ALARP - Air-Landed Arming and Refueling Point (UK Herk)
RGR - Rapid Ground Refueling
SCA - Self-Contained Approach
TF - Terrain Following
TA - Terrain Avoidance
ARA - Airborne Radar Approach
STOL - Short Take-Off and Landing
NVIS - Night Vision Imaging System
NVD - Night Vision Device
IDS - Infrared Detection Set
VG - Vertical Gyro
RCR - Reverse Current Relay
MFD - Mutli-Function Display
MC- Mission Computer
CDC - Control Display Computer
LORAN - LOng RAnge Navigation
TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation
VOR - Visual Omni Range
ADF - Automatic Direction Finder
SKE - Station Keeping
HF - High Frequency
UHF - Ultra-High Frequency
VHF - Very High Frequency
SCNS - Self Contained Navigation System
INS - Inertial Navigation System
IRS - Inertial Reference System
RNAV - aRea NAVigation
AMC - Air Mission Commander
DMC - Deputy Mission Commander
I can certainly agree with the upgrades helping out alot, but don't think the performance will approach the J...at least, not very closely.
Return on Investment wouldn't even be close...RR claims the 3.5 engine pays for itself in 4-5 years. Better hot/high/heavy takeoff performance, higher cruise, lower fuel flow - what's not to like?
Don't get me wrong - I support the J - just don't think it's currently viable. That may change soon as most of the L382G time out their wings. Only Lynden is doing CWB replacement right now...nobody else is commercially.
Know they've been out of Leadville - highest in US. ;)
Bose are unit purchased, typically with EOY fallout money...
Any part time positions?
You're probably right, Bob! I have heard both one and two, so never knew which to believe. I believe their planes are modified with the glass cockpit like LAC & Tepper.
When you rotate a Herk at Vto, you are airborne nearly instantly. It's nothing like a jet where you sit there for a second. The blown lift changes the whole equation.
@Ronc: Do you rotate at charted VTO? If so, you may exceed your charted takeoff distances. According to the 1-1, rotation should occur at VTO - 5 knots.For a normal takeoff it does say to start rotating 5 knots before takeoff speed in the USAF book.
That whole concept is a jet-ism. In a Herk, if you rotate at Vto-5, you're flying at Vto-5. Yes, you will continue to accelerate (assuming you don't over-rotate) and go through Vto likely as the mains come off, but you're flying before you're supposed to. This is the challenge when trying to put a one-size-fits-all definition into books...
The Herk will fly much, much slower than even Vmeto...buyer beware.
I think Tepper Aviation has also replaced their CWB's, as has Prescott Support. There are 3 others operating 3 L-100-30's that Lockheed says were never built. I can't recall the msn's right now. I don't know what their CWB status is though.
I think your point, though, is that Lynden is the last actual US commercial airline to operate the L-100. Just had to pick that nit.
I'm not sure Tepper has...I can find out easily enough, I think. Prescott might've done their one plane...and there is a linkage. I know the other 'major' commercial operators like Safair and Transafrik haven't and aren't. Lynden is certainly the only part 121 operator and as such, keeps their planes very well maintained.I know it would be expensive for the certification on a L-100J, but it was done once already. 70 airframes is 3 years of production and a 21% increase in total orders for the J, based on the current order book of 330. With the belt-tightening in the defense sector, it seems like a good hedge.
My point earlier was that there is also no competition for an L-100J - nothing else out there can do that mission. But Embraer is partnering with Boeing and plans to offer a stretch civilian model of the KC-390, which is sized EXACTLY to compete with the C-130. Now is the time for LM to undercut them by getting to market first. Just my two cents.
The challenge isn't just the cost of the certification and planes, it's the viability of squeezing any money out in the supplemental part 121 world and making them pay for themselves. The most expensive plane in the world is viable if the market supports the costs, and while there is money to be made in the niche airlift world, even the supplemental part 121 portion of that market (which is tiny indeed), it requires relatively low overhead. Lynden paid a ridiculously low price for the last plane they purchased, N407LC. I know they owner has talked with Lockheed about the J-model extensively, but the margin just isn't there right now. Who knows what tomorrow brings.
As for performance, the 3.5 engines, EVH, & 8-bladed props, if they can ever get STCed, will provide performance very close to that of the J for a tiny fraction of the price while saving fuel. I think Lynden would go that route over a J, as would most operators. It's all about keeping the overhead costs low.
All that said, if you had a company and could ink the correct long-term contract, a J might be a wise investment...I'm just not certain the performance difference justifies the cost difference right now. The flip side is there are few L100s in good enough shape to pursue any real business with, so perhaps that's the angle for the J. Just hope they don't price themselves out of the market...
I'm also eager to see if anyone buys the commercial J. I think the market is out there but will the price tag be reasonable and the operating expenses favorable? Time will tell.
Currently, the price tag doesn't make this a viable option...that and certification issues.
As for the civil J, that has been discussed since the J program started. The original J was FAA certified but that configuration was never produced. With all the changes and upgrades over the years, it will be a significant effort to update the cert. Then again, the L-100s in service are going to need to be replaced at some point and there isn't really another airframe out there with the same capabilities, until Embraer's KC-390 comes along. LM has to decide if the market is there to justify the cost.
Lynden is going to be the last L100/L382 operator - they're the only ones replacing CWB. Lockheed approached Lynden a few years ago about the J, but the price wasn't going to be viable. Lynden has also looked into C17. When it comes to niche transport, Lynden is about as varied as it gets. Lynden International is about 25 different transport companies from trucking, rail, hovercraft, specialized shipping, littoral, etc.
Well, here I go hijacking a thread again.
You mentioned the weights were in kilos. Were the fuel gauges in kilos, too? The reason I ask is that Transafrik had a 727 with the fuel gauges in kilos. It was a real panic attack when you'd look down at the gauges and momentarily think you were almost out of gas!
OK, back to the original thread.
Yep, fuel gauges in kilos. That was relatively knew on the fleet when I showed up in '00. Going from kilos to pounds was easy, (KGx2 + 10%), but the other way was slightly trickier. Had that same momentary panic attack too...that and the gauges didn't move as quickly, so I often wondered if they were stuck or broken.
I was referring to their K-model books, but no doubt their J-model books are the same. It was just really starting to be used in '00-01 when I was there. 24 SQ was just starting to do operational route flying (airland trashhaul) - there was no tac being done outside of the their test squadron at the time.US Herk, I'm familiar with the RAF tech pubs - completely different from all other operators. They have their own Aircrew Manual (-1 of sorts) and Operating Data Manuals (ODM) for performance. Since the RAF was the launch customer for the J, they levied a requirement that it be FAA/JAA certified. That explains a lot of the civil limits and procedures in the books.
As I recall, the C Mk3 is a stretch H, so it has that in common with the J-30 (or C Mk4 in RAF jargon). The RAF birds have always been a little different. Maybe their engineering organization cleared the Mk3 beyond Lockheed's limits...
I considered them stretched Super-Es - most were '68 vintage. My point was they were cleared to the same basic weight limits as the J-30. However, they didn't use a dash-1 for guidance like the majority of Air Forces do, they wrote their own guidance based primarily on the FAA type certificate for the L100/L382...which meant they were often more restrictive. Make no mistake, they picked and chose which things to use in their book, but it was decidedly a mish-mash between T.O. and FAA Type Certificate standards.
Is not using defueled fuel USAF policy? In my day defueled JP was subjected to the same standard as it was the first time it came from the hydrant and routinely uploaded in the next acft.
Well, I've been retired for a little over a year, but during at least the overwhelming majority of my time (as long as I paid attention to such things beyond actually just flying), any fuel removed from the plane couldn't be used in a plane again - they used it for the AGE and other ground-based stuff, but not the planes. Always struck me as a little wasteful, but I understood the reasoning to some extent...
The RAF Mk.3 was the same - normal max gross weight was around 163K, but emergency wartime weight was still 175K (of course, they did it in kilos)
Many/most places don't allow the defueled fuel to be used in aircraft again. This would seem a huge waste of 21000lbs of aviation fuel...
AFSOC had them already when I retired, but at the time, they weren't allowed to connect to anything and had most of the apps disabled or removed from them - they were, effectively, expensive e-readers. Sounds like they're find a way to sort that out.
Found a pic of the newer 7th Print:
1699 - Merlin's Magic (one of my favorite planes)
0023- The Fourth Horseman
0194 - Iron Maiden (I believe this was originally 'The Dawg Pound')
0280 - The Highlander
0193 - Berserker
I don't recall 0476...it was something with a bird coming at you with Talons extended, I think...if I think of it, I'll post it up for grins.
According to Lars' book, 282 was originally assigned to the 15th SOS from 1994 to 2005. It then went to the 7th SOS in 2005. From there, it went to the 1st SOS from 2008 to 2009 and is now with the 550th SOS.
No mentiom of any artwork in his book.
OK - that makes sense. I flew them all (even the four lost) - hard to keep track of which & where. Original assignments are trickier still.arschuck72,
I found this photo of some nose art on 282. Maybe some of the old head SOS guys may recognize it.
Yeah, that was put on in '99-00 timeframe, but it was on all the 15th birds - still is on most of them, at least when I left last year. The Mildenhall birds were the only ones with unique noseart to my knowledge.Hey US Herk, I do remember 0193 & 0194 being at Mildenhall plus the other three tail #'s you listed.
Makes sense with what I remember too. 0476 was the first one delivered to Mildenhall (I said 475 in the post above, but 475 was a Hurlburt bird) and was on the squadron print long after it left. 0194 was on the latest squadron print, complete in her Iron Maiden noseart (which was removed by MX in the middle of the night after some female MX personnel complained).
To the original poster - only Mildenhall birds got noseart. There was the original five and later 280 got some after the very first tail shuffle in '04 or so. Since 282 was originally a Hurlburt bird, it never got noseart. And after the second great tail swap for EBH conservation in '06 or so, Mildenhall quit putting noseart on the planes...
The Hurlburt, 15 SOS Bat didn't start until sometime in '99-00 timeframe. The first version was too bright and showed up on NVGs, but it has since been 'darkened'. You can still see it, but not like before.
Was 282 an original Mildenhall bird? That penguin has gone swimming - I know 0023, 1699, 0475, and I can't remember the other two - was it 0193 & 0194?
The Mildenhall birds are the only ones I'm aware of that had unique nose art. 0280 got some when it went to Mildenhall, the Highlander.
I think 282 may have been a Hurlburt bird - I know 280 was an original HRT bird, as was 281...I honestly can't remember if 282 was or not - it may well have been a KAD bird.
The original ABQ birds were 0125, 0126, & 0127.
I think the big takeaway from this discussion is that VREF and VCEF are both important. In my experience, a lot of pilots only care about VREF because they don't really understand what CFL and VCEF tells them. VREF only addresses half of the problem: it tells you the maximum speed when you can stop within the runway. It doesn't tell you anything about the distance that would be required to continue the takeoff from that speed. CFL and VCEF are measures of takeoff performance that are independent of runway length and cover both sides of the takeoff problem (accel-go and accel-stop).
One thing we don't have in the Vcef / Vref discussion is Vtakeoff. Vto will always exceed Vcef, but Vref may exceed Vto. Since peacetime ops always has Vto >= Vmca, if Vref > Vto, I can always stay on the runway beyond Vto up until Vref. If I lose an engine beyond Vto, but below Vref, I can either takeoff or stop in the remaining runway. I wish I could draw a pretty chart, it'd be a lot easier to explain.
The point is, our charts give us the minimums, but do not do a lot of explaining about what happens beyond these minimums and what other factors can help or hurt us.
C-130 related acronyms
in C-130 General
Here's a DoD "Dictionary"
This is the Joint Pub on "brevity" words, not acronyms, but useful nonetheless:
And if you can find STANAG 1401, it's the NATO approved version of the above.