US Herk

There's somethin pretty cool about a 250' AGL/240kt drop after you've been in slicks....dang, I shoulda gone to AFSOC!

Yes. I very much enjoyed HSLLADS 250'/250kts - IMC regardless of terrain. ;)

Does anyone have the contact info for the C-130 flying hour pins? I know it's been discussed here before, but I was unlucky with the search function...

TIA

Don't worry, Dan, most kids these days don't even use the rudder!

When I showed up at the 50th in Feb '93, everyone was still wearing TAS patches, but supply was handing out both. After I got back from the schoolhouse in July or so, everyone was wearing the AS patches. I've got both, but that's what made me put it at that timeframe. The patch changes happened in late '94...or at least was implemented around then.

TAS to AS was during the McPeak era, probably '92-93 when he was busy changing all the patches and renumbering squadrons.

I remember this well. I was deployed to Khobar at the time. About a week or two after this crash, we had a turbine come apart on us. At the time, nobody was certain what caused Sumit 38's turbine failure, so we were wondering if there was a rash of bad 2-3 turbine bearing spacers out there...

RIP to the crew of Sumit 38. Not forgotten.

I think all of them...and others.

No where near enough complexity involved.

I should've known better! ;)

How 'bout removing the light bulb for the light in question...

I think most folks still call it the 'whiskey'...

There are official names and there are unofficial official names - F16 Fighting Falcon = Viper, A10 Thunderbolt II = Hog, B52 Stratofortress = BUFF, C17 Globemaster III = Moose, etc. It may have been Combat Spear, but everyone called it the Wombat. It may have been Dragon Spear, but everyone called it Whiskey, and I think Stinger, while historically significant (AC-119K) doesn't have the pizazz for crew dogs. My money says it remains unofficially officially the Whiskey.

YMMV

Is the same Otto Feather from 50TAS early '90s??

(you could still see the shape of the Hump on the top of the fuselage)

...and hence the nickname changed from "humpy" to "scarback" ;)

I saw no sign of 7786 at Moody in Lars' book.

You're right - home now & checked the logbook - several 77xx at Moody, but not 7786.

That Vrot is a bunch of crap foisted on us by 141 engineers...

If you do that in a Herk, you fly. When you're ready to fly, you rotate in a Herk. Unlike in a Jet, where you have to set takeoff attitude and fly off the ground, the Herk is flying as soon as you rotate. It's a load of crap and needs to be removed from our books.

Normally operate above w/300fpm restriction

Was 7786 at Moody with the 52nd back in the mid-90s? It seems like a familiar tail for some reason, but I don't have my logbook with me.

As long as we get rid of the crap analog engine indicators, I don't care what the flight deck ends up looking like. Not my problem.

Upgrading the prop to NP2000, now that I can agree would be awesome.

Having flown with both analog and digital engine stacks, I can tell you it's all in the execution. The right digital engine stack would be nice, a poor one will be worse than the analog. Just converting to digital is not the answer - converting to digital needs to be an improvement, not just a conversion.

Agree - the new 8-bladed props and digital valve housings would be money well spent for the performance & maintenance gains. And please, please, please do this so AFSOC can get them - AFSOC can't afford to go it alone on the new props/synchros...

C-130s do not have a MATT receiver. Try the boneyard...the PaveLow had 'em.

I state this experiance because I know many would disagree with me when I say that the "Rudder Fin Stall" was a design deficiency in the C-130 that could not be corrected. Lockheed was still working on the problem when the Test Bird crashed in the Hospital Parking lot at Dobbins AFB around 1991 or 92. They were testing modifications to the rudder on that flight, that day.

The HTTB crash was trying to determine Vmcg, not fin stall. If you were flying Herks in the late '80s - early '90s, you'll recall that there was a TO Safety Sup to the -1-1 that advised us to add 25kts to Vmcg because they didn't know what the number was, they just new it was higher. This was due to the change in the prop governor that made the blade go flat quicker in the event of certain types of failures. The HTTB was a highly modified aircraft used to test all sorts of things on the C-130. No doubt that fin stall area may have been one of those regimes, but it was not the purpose of that test and it most assuredly did not crash as a result of it. But it crashed trying to research Vmcg.

When I went through C-130 training at Little Rock in 1974 we were not supposed to do two engine out approaches, yet the IP on one local training flight did just that and we nearly lost that aircraft before recovering. Two engines out on the same side and the student pilot could not hold the rudder. The G force of the sudden turn pinned me to the FE seat. I never flew with that IP again and soon went back to C-141's. We were not supposed to do no-flap takeoffs at that time either, but the IP's did that also at the base I was stationed at the time. I came to the conclusion that the C-130 was a great plane, but the pilots I flew with on it were hot doggers and were frustrated fighter pilot wannabes

We continued to do 2-engine out approaches until the Evansville crash in '89 or so. After that, only ACs or higher did single engine out go-arounds. Elmendorf kept their CPs doing engine-out go-arounds for a short period, but eventually caved to pressure from AMC. So CPs no longer do engine out approaches and ACs no longer do 2-engine out approaches in AMC - except in the sim. Of course, now they do EVERYTHING in the sim...a bad idea, but not germane to this discussion.

AFSOC never stopped. We continue to do 2-engine approaches to this day (and our CP do engine-out approaches & go-arounds). There is very little risk if flown at the proper speed and certain allowances are made. To make may point more dramatically, the RAF not only do 2-engine approaches, they do 2-engine out GO AROUNDS. I did them while I was there and there are some assumptions made (you can get your gear up, so you haven't lost both on the left side - even if you simulate that side for turns) and some precautions taken (you raise your minimums), but it is not only do-able, but relatively safe. It requires relatively accurate flying, but it can be done easily with a modicum of practice.

I cannot speak to your "fighter pilot wannabe" pilots on the C-130 during that time period. I can tell you that most of our strat airlift guys have a difficult time adjusting to tac airlift...or at least, it takes them a little bit longer sometimes. Some of my most cautious crew members are former strat airlift guys and some of my best crew members are former strat airlift guys - and those two "labels" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. But even AMC slick guys can take some time adjusting to AFSOC. I'm sure we're viewed as cowboys to many, but it was AFSOC who formalized ORM. We used to be very good in its application, but we're succumbing to big blue-itis.

For a risk to be taken, it must justify the benefit. If it does, then control measures need to be put in place to mitigate that risk. You cannot eliminate risk unless you avoid it completely. But if you eliminate the risk, you lose the benefit and then you may decrease capability. The worst way to discover that is when you need that capability. Once you're less capable, then you turn down missions. Once you begin turning down missions, you fail the user. When you fail the user, you fail - period.

Back to the original topic - fin stall. It is not unique to the C-130, but there are design features of the C-130 that make it more challenging to recover from. However, to get into the regime of a fin stall requires effort - bad effort. If you're doing these types of things - on purpose - you're probably doing something terribly wrong. It is not a design deficiency or flaw. It is a flight characteristic that exists in a regime we don't operate in...routinely.

The plane does not have a payload. Only a skeleton crew and the conditions are normal (low wind etc.). Is that enough? I currently have it talking off at 200 mph but that is a wild guess.

Thanks for any information you can give.

Again, what's the context? That's the conditions. Are they in a hurry, being chased/shot at? - is it a suspenseful part? Or is a leisurely takeoff, re-positioning the plane for a future mission? You could get off the ground at very low speed max-performing the plane in a time-critical or runway-restricted manner, or you could take off at a normal speed on a normal runway with no hurry.

200mph is way, way too high...that's a cruise speed

The plane tells you it exceeded the bank angle then puts in in the record for maintenance to find!!

Good for that then. Now an AC can't deny things like that. How about hard landings? Is that recorded as well. After going through a lot of assault landings in training I had a good idea on what a hard landing would be. In the 16th had a student prang one in pretty good. Felt the nose gear strut poking at my seat! Wrote up a hard landing and maintenance was sure pissed, but.....

I don't know if the current ones do it, but the early British ones wouldn't let you crank engines until the info was downloaded into the MX computer for analysis if something was exceeded. I know they wanted to change that...

First thing, where are his gloves,? looks like he missed a few safety meetimgs, not so smart!!!!

Can't speak for all MAJCOM, but currently gloves are only required for takeoff/landing/combat...

D I noticed the bank angles,too, and at one point it almost looked to me like he rolled the thing. I had a few rather wild rides, but never anything like that. I wonder if our old early 60's models "E"s could have done that??? at least and stayed together for very long.....

Yes, they can...and have

Question on current Herc operations. A question was raised on another forum on the Herc's operating weight. Last time I flew an E/H model was '85. I seem to recall that the operating weight at the time was around 79k. If it's not OPSEC what's the approx OW on the current E/H's? I guessed it to be around 82k now with all the new electronics added. Probably a lot more than that for the MC's. Thanks.

I recall slick E-models in the early '90s coming back from depot about 4-6K lighter once they removed old wiring...memory says it was low 80K range. MC fitted for combat can top 100K...

They don't do no flaps in the stretch J (in the sim only). A 50% flap landing is like a 0% flap in and regular herk. Most of the landings in the J are all 100% flap landings.

Guess they plan on never having any kind of flap system failure.

Brits don't do no-flap in stretch either (K or J). They do no-flap approaches and go-around at 100ft or so. They focus on flying an accurate final, establishing parameters, and then talk through the rest. They do them in the sim, of course. However, the will do sim 2-engine go-arounds in the plane (K-model too)...

The J-model can now take off from places it can't land...which is a little bit comforting. I've been tasked into places and had different loads than originally planned for that made takeoff...interesting.

I've done a no-flap T/O...two IPs in the seats (imagine that)...thankfully on a big long runway...

100% T/O 3 times...first two as a CP, but last one as the IP...on a short strip w/trees at the end! (Grafenwhoer)

Every time, distraction was the reason....a whole front end getting distracted. Some extenuating circumstances on each of them, but no excuse for not getting checklists done. I use each of these as teaching points for the young bucks...

I know it'll fly much slower than any charted speeds...

I want to say VMETO for 155K used to be under 100 (95 rings a bell, but it's been too long since I flew the old airspeed systems and used that tab data).

At least one Herk operator will hold the yoke back until the plane flies (usually in the mid-upper 70s) and then lowers the nose in ground effect. I know another Herk operator will routinely unstick them in the low-mid 80s at training weights...for training. Vmca be damned.

I once had a TOLD card that said, "EORPU" - when I queried the engineer he said, "End of Runway, Pull Up" !!

I sent a message on the museums facebook, here's what I got back.

"Great question Paul! The concept behind the YMC-130--strap rockets to a C-130 so it could land and take off in a soccer stadium--was gutsy and innovative. However, the project never moved beyond testing. The museum's aircraft, tail #74-1686, never used the rocket system in flight (see Jerry L. Thigpen, The Praetorian Starship, p. 246, available online). Instead of restoring the YMC-130, we're focusing our very limited resources on preserving aircraft that actually flew the missions they were designed to do."

I don't think I'll be visiting the museum much anymore if they spend all their time and money restoring aircraft that are all over the place, but ignore a one of a kind. Whether it flew it's intended mission or not. To me that's like letting the shuttle Enterprise rust out back because it never really flew in space.

I used to work for Ken Emory and I contacted him about this acft about 3 months ago. He told me that since it was only modified for the mission but never actually flew or did the training with the rockets etc, that it had no historical significance. Due to the size and resource constraints at the MOA, he had contacted the AF Museum and told them it was up for grabs...any other museum that wanted it could have it as the MOA at Robins did not want it. What a shame, the best place in the world to accomplish a first class restoration to such an aircraft and they can't do it!

Museum's answer to the YMC-130 question:

Our museum collections team debated for many months about bringing in C-130E 63-7868. We looked hard at what it would take to move and preserve the aircraft and balanced that against the fact that the E-models are retiring and 63-7868 has a terrific history. It has been well maintained, giving us much needed time before a new coat of paint will be required. Every museum has to make tough choices about what to preserve and that is why we have chosen to "turn-in" the Credible Sport aircraft to the National Museum of the USAF. Our resources are very limited, and we welcome volunteer and financial support to help preserve the museum's aircraft. As far as the Credible Sport program goes, the museum's C-130H, 74-1686, did little, really. It was modified to test a daring concept, but it never actually used the rocket system in flight (see Jerry L. Thigpen, The Praetorian Starship, pp. 245-246, available online). After Credible Sport was cancelled, 1686 was the testbed for the Talon II program but it never flew again as an airlifter. When it arrived at the museum in 1988, it was a stripped-out hulk, inside and out. C-130E 63-7868, on the other hand, is complete aircraft. It also flew tactical airlift in combat in Africa, all over Southeast Asia, and finally in Southwest Asia during a remarkable 47-year career.

Their answer with regard to the AC-130:

The museum is repainting the outside aircraft on a 5-year cycle. The AC-130 is scheduled for 2013. In the last few years, we have focused on painting smaller aircraft and moving them into our three hangars where they will be preserved out of the weather. Our restoration folks have done a great job with this work. This effort has meant holding off on painting many of our outside aircraft. We must do better, and we're working hard to catch up. We can always use help and we welcome volunteers from the base and the community who would like to work with our restoration crew. A representative from the Museum of Aviation Foundation will also happily talk to anyone who would like to make a financial donation to help preserve the aircraft. I don't buy this as I've been here 5 years and this acft hasn't been touched.

I'm up for donating some of my crumbs and also my personal time.

The Credible Sport aircraft is historically significant regardless of whether or not that aircraft ever actually flew, or if any of them ever actually accomplished their intended goal. Why do they keep all sorts of one-off aircraft like the XB-70 Valkyrie or some of those goofy helicopter experiments? Because they furthered the USAF mission one way or another. Credible Sport was a daring answer to an incredible challenge, one we didn't have the political backbone for. The crash was tragic, but from the ashes of Eagle Claw/Desert One, and everything that went into it, to include the Credible Sport program, rose the phoenix of SOCOM and AFSOC. Had that not happened, where would we be today in The War Against Terror? How could we quickly respond? Where would we have been in Haiti when STS controllers worked more aircraft into Port Au Prince than Miami International all on a card table and walkie talkie? Where would we have been in any of our recent conflicts? Who would have led the Apaches in on night one of Desert Storm? Who would've taken out Bin Laden?

No, Credible Sport is more historically significant for what it did not accomplish than a "dime a dozen" aircraft any day...

I never trust the AIB results 100%, too many times the reports are just wrong, there is a whole list of things I could go on about specifically on the AIB for the Gunship that went down off Kenya.

I think that's true of just about any SIB/AIB, Dan. Those who were in the unit, knew the folks, and knew the facts will almost always tell you there are inaccuracies in the reports - some minor, but many times, major. Sadly, we'll often never know the real truth.

...and I remember those chapters in 55-130! One was LAPES the other was SOLL and Chapter 22(?) was kept in the safe!