Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited



  • First Name
  • Last Name


  • core_pfield_11
    In the Air Force from 80-84, started out at Sembach AB in Germany working OV-10's then went to Dyess working on the C-130's.
  • core_pfield_12
    Upstate NY
  • Occupation
    Aircraft manager at an MRO currently on C-130E's

signman130's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. The corrosin is mostly enviromental due to no preventive maint. We have repalced LH 517 and 528 beams, RH 517,528 and 597 beams, Lh flightdeck chine plate, RH aft chine plate in cargo area and MANY other repairs. the a/c is designed realy well to hold up to all the damage this one had.
  2. This a/c ,3925, has the -2 outer cap, although the IPC states it is a -4. After recieving the drawing, it seems the -2 outer cap was installed on 3915 thru 4083. The reenforcment plate were installed by the previous owners due to cracks in the outer caps. This was done sometime around 1979. We have the new inner and outer caps installed without and other discrepancies. This is the 5th beam we have replaced due to sever corrosion.
  3. I believe you have the Ailerons from the a/c we are working. They were originally from LN3940. The ailerons from 3925 we good, but now have a home on 3940. Lucky me,I get the headaches from the other a/c. Thanks for repairing them.
  4. This may be what your looking for, from the -25-1, fig 3A, Item 395. 390 3317805-137 98897 . . PANEL, FLIGHT DECK AE 1 -395 MS51861-34 96906 . . SCREW (AP)
  5. This a/c is a nightmare. The problem now is the sta.597 vert. beem is corroded beyond limits and has to be changed. When we matched up the new beem to the old, the new is .130 narrower at the bottom than the old one. this is causing a problem for edge distance for the fasteners.I believe we have the 7843161 reinforcement plate installed from and old repair.SRM 53-199-00 AG. Does the 597 beem require a reinforcement plate as the 517 does? All illustrations in the manuals do not show one being installed.
  6. We found the problem, seems we have hybrid ailerons now. the original skin was .016 and the new skins are .032, which added the extra weight, plus the repairs. This is according to the engineers. we had to send them out to be overhauled and hopefully not scraped. These are from 63-3940 and came in under-balanced.
  7. The srm 57-10 states that the tolerances are +2 to -48. I find this impossible. If using the Alt method and multiplying the net weight reading by the arm, there can never be a negative number. I can only conclude that the SRM has a misprint and the correct tolerance should be +2 to +48, otherwise we are in big trouble. both ailerons have had massive repairs done to them, skin replacements,frame repairs and such. If the SRM is misprinted is there anywhere that this is stated? The MRO that I work at does not have access to LockHeed.
  • Create New...