HerkPFE

You are correct about the different languages between the different military services, different countries.

Then you throw in the fact that some of the US Navy Pilots and FE\'s came from or went to the P-3\'s. Now talk about two totally different designed and thought process aircraft. Even though the engines were basically the same, and I have been to Field Maintenance school at the Allison (Detroit Diesel or RR) Factory in Indianapolis for the -10W/-14 engines and have been back to Intermediate Maintenance school for the -15/-16 engines, same parts or components are called anywhere from 2 to 4 different names.

And fuel governing for the A-10W is 103.8% to 106.0% and the A-14 is 103.9% to 106.4%. Bottom line is that the main purpose for the fuel control to start control engine RPM in those ranges are to ensure the Propeller Pitchlock Regulator has ported the propeller controlling fluid (by 103.5%) to pitchlock the propeller.

Motar,

Did you know an FE named Roy Williams or a Load named Bill Hicks? How about a pilot with the call sign Satan, he was an FE that went aviation LDO and came back to 6.

Interesting reading.

http://www.statewatch.org/cia/documents/working-doc-no-8-nov-06.pdf

Bob Woods wrote:

If it was the maintenance people, or fellow FE\'s I would maybe think they were talking about the fuel topping governor and doing the fuel topping test during an engine run.

Its been too many years for me, you have sprung lose a memory in my old mind. However the term \"Fuel Limiting\" comes to mind.

Are you talking about the three stages of the TD system? Start Limiting, Temp Limiting and Temp Controlling?

Motarbait,

What years were you down on the ice?

Dan Wilson wrote:

If your talking about the fuel control fuel topping (103%) it is far from a myth.

From the Lockheed Engine training manual (-7, B model book)

\"A flyweight governor, in the fuel control, limits engine speed to 104.5 to 105.5 percent RPM. The governor works on the principle of spring force opposing engine speed (as sensed by flyweights). As engine speed increases, the flyweights move outward and push a rod. This rod is attached to the governor spring. As the governor spring is compressed, the rod contacts the servo bleed in the end of the metering piston. This causes the fuel flow to decrease, controlling the engine overspeed.\"

Interesting that they say fuel topping doesn\'t start until 104.5-105.5

So as primary RPM control you have the prop but should that fail then the fuel control can interact and \"try\" to limit the overspeed. This is referred to as \"fuel topping\"

Dan

Dan,

The reason that the fuel topping governor is set between 104.5 and 105.5 is to insure that the pitchlock regulator has dumped it\'s fluid and the prop is pitchlocked. if you have a malfunction to the point that the fuel control is controlling the rpm via the Fuel Topping governor the last thing you want to do it have the propeller come out of pitchlock and try to control rpm.

It can mean two different things to me if someone said fuel topping to me.

If it were pilots or operations people I would think it was like Bob said...topping off the tanks via the over wing reciprocals after the SPR had shut off.

If it was the maintenance people, or fellow FE\'s I would maybe think they were talking about the fuel topping governor and doing the fuel topping test during an engine run.

Dave,

I was in the Navy with the Herk...and really do not know what a OTI is but we had a one-time inspection (AFB) to insure that the door pins were all the push pin style. Even the inner doors.

Sorry could not help more then that.

Yea, your right...I remember our Loads marrying up to three pallets. I also remember the Loads going through a lot of pallets to find ones that were not warped.

Jim Farrar wrote:

We have already been there and done that. Ask any of the Viet Nam era loads

Are you talking about what is called \"Freight Training\" the pallets?

Greg

\"I can\'t count the number of times I started engines while the pilots were programming the INS -- or was it the other way around; were they starting the engines while I was programming the INS?

Don R.

It was standard procedure in the Navy for the FE to start the outboard engines during taxi. We use to kid everyone that it took two pilots and a FE to start the inboard engines...but one person to start the outboards.

Then again, the Navy allow their FE\'s and certain senior enlisted taxi the aircraft...Forgot about that back in the early 90\'s at LR when the load and I taxied our Herk over to the transit parking. Ya would have thought I was stealing the freekin thing. I got clearance from the tower, told the host CC what we were doing and as soon as I started to taxi the CC figured out it was two enlisted in the cockpit and called the AP\'s. Took a while to get that figured out...took a call from my C.O. to some Col. to get me out of hot water.

We use to use Avgas (115/145) to clean everything from wheel bearings to exhaust trails...in fact we use to mix avgas and PD680 to cleen the tough areas...with out a problem at all. But then again we chewed on lead paint cribs also without killing us :laugh:

joe.dawson wrote:

The 97W on the T-29\'s had the standard exhaust pipes while the 99W had the ceramic covered exhaust pipes on the C-131\'s. The C-118\'s that I worked on had 52W version of the 2800 engine. As for the BMEP versus the Torgue gauges, I can only remember that the 118\'s one type and the Convairs had the other. I think the Covairs had the torgue while the 118\'s had the BMEP. It was 36 years ago for my memory

Joe,

You are correct, the C-118 had BMEP gauges. I have my Recip FE certificate and studied the C-118 because the company I worked for was going to wake their two C-118\'s up and bring them in from the mini-bone yard. I also flew their KC-97 which was set-up for fire fighting.

We also had 2800 on our PB-4Y and did they sound cool with short stacks Sounded like a Harley at idle. [img size=640]http://herkybirds.com/images/fbfiles/images/PB4Y_pic.jpg

Lockheed placed the auto-pilot control panel right in front of the FE on both the P-3 and C-130...so my tactic for over 25 years when one of the pilots would reach up and mess with my panels was to just reach up and turn the A/P off.

After the pilots jumping and getting the aircraft trimmed and A/P back on, if it was the Plane Commander I would politely tell him to ask me to \"fix\" something on my panels and I would if it needed to be \"fixed\". If it was the co-pilot I would just tell him not to touch my freekin panels and I would stop messing with his A/P

The one thing I disliked was a Nav that would jump in my seat if I went to do a walk around in flight, what I hated was a Nav that jumped in my seat and moved switches...even if it was to warm it up some.

SEFEGeorge wrote:

Automatically pulling the power on the symmetrical engine may be good for directional control, but that being the case, \"crash straight ahead\". That extra power may be what\'s keeping the bird in the air until the situation can be controlled. That\'s what 2 hard-pushing feet on the rudder pedal is for.

The only \"auto\" system that I thought was useful was the auto-father system on the old Convairs (T-29, C-131). Engine quits on take-off, it\'s auto feathered to reduce drag from a wind-milling prop.

All models of the P-3 and C/E-2 also had auto-feather...it was a nice feature, in over 5000 hours in P-3\'s I had three auto-feather events. One actual engine failure (tossed the turbine out the back) and the other two were auto-feather control box failures.

The input was from the Thrust Sensitive Switch that was part of the gearbox...not to be confused with he NTS bracket/plunger. It worked like the NTS system by sensing the torgue on the sun gear in the Gearbox and comparing it to the other three gearboxes.

The one of the very first auto-feathering systems was applied to the Grumman S-2 which had R1820-82B recips and it had air pressure sensors on top of the wing just aft of the engine nacelles. It was supposed to measure the airflow/prop wash off each propeller, compare it and if there was a specific (can\'t remember what it was)difference it would shutdown the respective engine and feather the prop. This theory was good...except first off who wants to lose and engine at the end of a cat shot as most recips do not just flame out as a turbine...and a little bit of thrust is better then none. Secondly, as the S-2\'s got older, they cut back on Cat shots and let them do deck run takeoffs. This caused problems because the wind whipping around the island of the carrier causes a crosswind effect and the prop wash pressure would be different and in the last 150\' of the carrier deck the R/H engine would cage and feather the prop. Wacky systems...

Best Wishes,

Dan,

\"In an unprecedented advance in the field of aircraft maintenance, Nepal Airlines fixed an unspecified technical problem that had grounded one of its two Boeing 757 jets by sacrificing two goats to appease the Hindu sky god, Akash Bhairab.

It apparently worked.

The goats were killed in front of the malfunctioning plane on the tarmac at Kathmandu\'s Tribhuvan International Airport in accordance with Hindu traditions, said Raju K.C., a spokesman for the national carrier.

\"The snag in the plane has now been fixed,\" he said, \"and the aircraft has resumed its flights.\"

I tried the sacrificing routine a couple times with no joy...but we used co-pilots instead of goats. Maybe the Gods like goats better than co-pilots??? :S

Now back to the problem at hand. As long as the aircraft is at a stand still the only way for a anti-skid can get a signal to release a brake is through the test box on the flight deck. And it should cycle the green light for that brake.

If everything checks out that way...and the test box does not cycle the light...I would start looking at the brake system. How about the brake shuttle valve porting fluid to the emergency side...you stated that it happening with the aux pump running. The system is pretty simple. Do you have the Mark II or III system?

I am digging in the books for you...and having the wife corral a goat just in case!!!

good Luck

Dan Wilson wrote:

FO = Flight Officer? Pilot?

Just curious

Dan

Yea, in the civilian world they do not use the word co-pilot...they use the term First Officer.

Has to do with the Captain, First Officer and Second Officer terms.

Just thought I would pass this along...a previous student of mine is one of their senior FE\'s and loves flying for them.

Lynden Air Cargo is looking for 2 Herc FOs and 2 FEs. Also positions posted for Herc mechanics. Gateway is ANC. Contact Adonna Anderson (HR) for application. [email protected]

Just heard that they are accepting applications through Jan. 18th...you can download the application from their website, or you can email Adonna and she will forward you one.

We called it \"R2D2\" unit as it looked like an upside down R2D2 unit from Star Wars...and kind moved and bleeped like it also.

Bob,

The Brunswick squadron is going to NAS Jacksonville (along with the P-3\'s). The placement of the Willow Grove squadron is undecided as of the moment!

Bob,

Got a phone call in to get the answer for you. I have a feeling but do not want to put out bum info..so i am going straight to the source...the Wing.

Casey wrote:

I haven\'t heard from them. I will follow up.

Thanks Casey!!!

Dan Wilson wrote:

Baby bottles? Really?

Wow, never hear that before!

Thanks

Dan

Dan,

The hot water/coffee jugs used by the civilian fleet during the \'50 and \'60\'s had the twist plug in the top so that glass baby bottles could be warmed. I verified this thru my Dad, who is a retired Pan Am Captain 48 to 76 as I brought home a lid from one of the coffee jugs and asked him if he knew what it was for.

I was told by a Lockheed Tech rep that Lockheed bought a load of these as surplus in the very early 60\'s because the airlines were going away from the coffee jugs and replacing them with the coffee makers.

I was a P-3 FE and a C-130 FE and the coffee jugs were interchangeable ...also with the C141 and C5. Some of the newer ones I saw, built in the mid 1960\'s, had the twist plug in the top embossed with the words Glass only, no plastic bottles.

Ya learn something everyday...and as a Instructor FE, we always loved to sit around and play \"Stump the Dummy\".

Take Care,

Greg

Dan, Dan, Dan...there goes your 4.0 Checkride

\"And the covered hole in the center of the hot jug is for dry ice in case you have something you want to keep cold, you know, like those cheap kidneys you can buy in Kenya for resale on the black market in the states or ur-up\"

Every old Fart knows that those were there to warm baby bottles...

Greg

Being an old instructor type FE, we always asked our young FE\'s during a check ride, what the plastic cover and the tube in the lid was for.

I know it is about as stupid as the question concerning the rigging of the main entrance door and how many degrees the center tube can rotate...

Happy New Years to all!!

Greg