P3_Super_Bee

211 and 212 sound more likely to be part of the USAF FMS serial to me?

You know you could be right. I looked at the banner again tonight, and the the Serial Number(customers, not LM's) block it has 5662 & 5663. Can't say that I've seen the customer S/N being the same as the C/N. Though don't know why it couldn't either.

Pretty sure it's the tail. Vaught, who makes it now, lost the contract.

My understanding is that the new EL CWB is not quite the same as the old SOF CWB.

Apparently some other improvements have been integrated into the SOF wing to become the new EL CWB. But I don't know exactly what they are and what effect they have.

Something with the Rainbow Fittings was changed, not sure what else. I'll see if I can come up with the info.

the J model not being able to support the structual demands by the guns....

You'll have to explain that one... The "J" has the same fuselage as the legacy Hercs. Not to mention an upgraded wing box was started with the first HC/MC "J", and is currently being used for all "J" models and Legacy wing replacement kits.

Tail Numbers are:

5662 is 211

5663 is 212

At least thats what's on the ID Banner on the side of the fuselage.

I think P3_Super_Bee meant from a production standpoint going through Final Assembly, since he works on the line at Marietta. I know that a lot of the HC-130J's mods were done post Final Assembly, which is why it took 5 months to go from the paint shop to delivery. Most of what you listed was installed in the mod shop.

Exactly... Thanks.

382U short bird

382V Stretch

Always remember U comes before V. You must have a short bird before you get a stretch.

Don't matter when you're only using the codes for a reference relating to Lockheed terminology. As it was brought up that 73J, 51J, 44J, whatever J, was thought to be a "contract" code, but has been determined that it is a "Version Number" I just happened to throw up the 382V referencing it as a model number that's it. No more no less to the conversation.

382U short bird

382V Stretch

Always remember U comes before V. You must have a short bird before you get a stretch.

HC-130J pretty much a vanilla J? I don't think so.

Start with a KC-130J and add ECHS, FLIR, UARRSI, 60/90, Dual Satcom, Enhanced Vision Provisions......and the list goes on. The MC's even more so.

It's like saying a Z06 is pretty much the same as a Factory Corvette.

Vanilla as in had VERY LITTLE of that put into aircraft going down the line...

That makes since. We are doing the same with the HC/MCs, actually the first two 73J01 & 02 were for the most part plane jane going down the line. 03,04,05, & 06 pretty much got all the mods as they went down the line. Also the USCG "J's were built plain jane on the line, and then modded later.

Also the terminology Lockheed uses for the numbering system:

382V is the model number.

73JXX is the version number.

Thought of something today...

I still like your latest theory on the numbering sequence.

But.... There is always on of those around LOL...

Using your theory, say they came down the line as a standard C-130J, I wonder what the version number on them was? I ask (to no one in particular) because I wouldn't think a Tanker wouldn't have been say modded from a normal USAF short C-130J. Kind of hard to imagine installing the Enhanced Cargo System to take it back out at the end of the line. (The USMC J's are the only "J" that still have the old school cargo side rails and floorboards. But then again, I can see the US Government wasting the money in doing this as well

Still trying to see if there is a listing of all "J" models with version numbers listed as well. One would think there is one somewhere.

The first two MC-130Js are now in Final Assembly, with another two right behind them. The production codes (73J) which they share with the HC-130Js are clearly visible.

LM a little slow on the photo release it seems. Come tomorrow this view will have 73J04 on the far side, and 73J05 in the near slot. Wanna say J03 is already out the door. Maybe Monday. Wondering why they haven't put up a photo of Qatar's 1st Super Herc yet. It will be out of Body Mate, here in a day or so.

MIL-PRF-83282 is classified as NOT FLAMMABLE...

Flashpoint: >205 degrees C

Fire Point: >245 degrees C

Autoignition Temperture: >345 degrees C

We carried Sig Sauer P226 9MMs, Two full clips on person with extra mags on aircraft. Also had 6 Mossberg 12 gauge shotguns on board. Obviously with the 9MM this is recent. Plus I was on P-3's

Are you refering to 168069 (5660) and 168070 (5661)? That would be #43 and #44 for the USMC.

Yep, I posed the question last night at work in how the 43rd and 44th KC-130J is labeled 72J28 / 29 coming down the line. All seemed to scratch their heads. Most who I talked to have been on the line since the start of the J program, but none could remember the KC-130J coming down the line as something other than a 72J. This is kind of a curiosity that killed the cat thing for me, so will try to see if I can come up with the answer. Also the use of the 44J, 47J, 72J, type designations came about with the J program, so it wasn't like 20 some odd KC-130J were made then they started using the "new" numbering system vice the C/N going down the line.

e. So if the MC-130J's don't have an FE who's going to watch things inside?

There are 2 crews stations in the flight station in addition to the 2 Pilots on the MC-130J. Which reads, no bunks in the flight station either.

Are you refering to 168069 (5660) and 168070 (5661)? That would be #43 and #44 for the USMC.

So the USMC has received 30+ aircraft in last 5 years or so? That would be about half of the "J" production in those 5 years.

.

5660 & 61 are 72J28 and 29... 72J = KC, 28/29 = production number for that series.(not sure when they did that, but was under impression it started when the J's did) Maybe it's the 28th/29th plane since LM stopped using the C/N and started the 72J28 system. Who knows.

The delivery of 168068 (5647) for VMGR-352 will be the 42nd USMC KC-130J.

Huh? #28 & #29 are just now coming up the production line.

There is talk that the USMC order got bumped up to 47 because the last one will be the Fat Albert replacement for the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels flight demonstration team, which is currently a USMC KC-130T staffed by Marines.

Unless something has changed, the C-130 that is Fat Albert, is a USN aircraft, not a USMC aircraft, therefore the Navy would be ordering the replacement, not the USMC.

Yes, Fat Albert is flown by the USMC and USMC markings but it is a Navy Command.

Then the Navy will turn in its T's for J's. At least that was the plan about a year ago.

Bob

Key words being "the plan about a year ago". I believe I remember reading where the Navy has postponed replacing their T's and have move the money towards F-35. Will try to find the link.

Though with the recent Congressional look at cutting the US F-35B(UK would still get theirs) program totally, cutting the order for the US F-35A/C's in half. Who knows whats going on.

to attend a course that covers operational checks of the landing gear extension and retractions system.

Please tell me this is not a separate class, but apart of general hydraulics school and/or an aircraft fam school? Or I will be laughing my ass off at the stupidity of the Air Farce yet again....

You practically can learn something new, everyday forever. The guy who "knows everything" isn't the guy I'd want working on my aircraft.

I worked on P-3's for 20 years... Never came close to learning it all. And learned something new right up till the day I retired.

I think this question is much like the free fall of the MLG during emergency extension. An emergency extension of the MLG on a ground test may result in the gear free falling down to their stops. This is awful nice but not required by the TO. Many have come to the conclusion that they must freefall to pass the check but it is not so, but has become to be expected.

That sounds like piss poor training to me.

Yep, did it more than a few times, it didn't really pull the ramp up a whole bunch but when your pumping that sucker any little bit helps

We normally get it to come up to about a foot short of being closed. Though in saying that, the ramps and such haven't been loaded into the door yet.

Is it door weight issue?

Are the auxiliary loading ramps or other items kept on the door stowage provision play a role on this issue?

The extra weight in the door should help the issue, not hurt it.

Must be a Navy vs AF thing but what is "bagging" the tank?

Same thing as "floating the caps" , max fuel you can get in the tanks. RZ

Yep, max fuel.

Sorry about that Dan...

\

Theoretically it can stay that way forever,

Theoretically being the key word. Till you start blowing sealant out of the tanks...

One of the dumbest inspections they used to do on P-3's was Bag out the tanks, and come back the next day to see if there is any leaks. No shit sherlock.. Leaks all over the damn place that wasn't there prior to the dumbass bagging the tank and walking away for the night. And it was something that happened on EVERY airplane that was left bagged out overnight. Everyone was sure glad especially Airframes when they did away with that, retarded, serve no purpose but make work for no reason, inspection was done away with.

I am assuming it's the same as other models.

What is the max width a piece of rolling stock can be? With and without the dual rails installed. Also the max width before the wheel well.

Thanks.

Dual Rails??? Are you referring to the flip-up rails that run down the center of the cargo hold? On a "J" there is nothing to "install".

But fuselage dimensions are same as legacy aircraft.

Lockheed Martin counts them as "delivered" upon acceptance, and not necessarily when they are in country.

DCMA (the customer) is going to accept the aircraft at Marietta. Once they do that, the plane ownership changes, that's why LM counts the "delivered", because they have been(paperwork wise to the customer) Then DCMA will then transfer the aircraft to the designated operator. Be it, USAF, USMC, Canada, India, whatever.