Steve1300

It depends on which part number power brake control valve your aircraft uses. Some military planes used the original valve which limits pressure, but some models use the dash-one version which provides full system pressure. I am not certain, but there is evidence that the original limitation on pressure was because of the brake assembly used on the aircraft. At one time, if the pressure to the brakes exceeded 2100 PSI, we were required to disasseble and inspect the discs for damage.

Our friends at Lockheed told us in thier Service News Magazine not to turn it backwards as it would possible put the timing out of sequence. However, I have inadvertainly done so in the past with no damage noted. Does that means it can be done backwards safely? I wouldn't bet on it. There are lots of little possible glitches in our systems that can arise, but we find they only step up to slap us in the face when we don't expect it.

That is not an uncommon problem. Various aircraft may have some drooping in the ramp if left alone for a period of time. Most of those drooping ramps take days to go from the airdrop position to the ground. The bad ones do it quickly. There are only three problem areas that I personally have found. If there are others, I'd appreciate those of you who know to share the information. The ramp and door maniforld control valve (stack valve) can allow the fluid to move and the ramp to go down under its own weight. That is the most rare of the three. The other two have been the actuators themselves. If fluid can get past one of the two ramp actuator piston seals, then the fluid that should actually lock the actuators in position will bypass the seal on one side or the other and allow the ramp to drop due to gravity. Most often, the bypassing actuator has been the cause of the problem.

Works for me, but with these new versions of windows, there are a few layers of permissions to deal with to get there. Thanks.

Thanks, Tiny. I wasn't paying attention, I suppose. I had actually expected the TCTO to be older than that, but it ain't the first time my estimate has been wrong. I'd love to have access to the library that you can get to. I miss those days.

Part of my depot field team trip around the U.S. was replacing wings; the other part was for putting repairs into outboard dry bays on those which had riser cracks. If anyone has access, please look up the official TCTO 1039 and tell us the date. I'm sure the revisions are out there, but the original date is what I'd like to know.

Since none of our maintenance information gives us any limits on such gages at this temp range, as long as nothing is inop or reading max, I'd reserve any complaints until I have engines running. Most often, when the crew is in the seat awaiting clearance to start, they have a lot of time to ponder such wonders. The reality of it is that none of it counts until the aircraft is operating.

I see that my reference to "1039 wings" can be misleading. There have been different versions of wings installed by that TCTO. I sure wish we could get the newer wings with the externally mounted fuel probes on all of our planes. Unfortunately, vendors want to be paid for them! Thanks for the info, Tiny.

Yeah, going by the information you have, I'd think that all the 1039 wings had external probes, too. It also seems to suggest that the wing with externally-mounted fuel probes came out around 1983 (but in order to be on that year model, they could have come out after 1983), but that is only speculated by their statement. If I was able to check the date of the ORIGINAL TCTO 1039, I would see if those "1039 wings" were changed from the ones I installed in the 80's to those with external probes. Thanks for the info, Tiny, that leaves me scratching in places are would not be acceptable in public. We need a Lockheed and Warner Robins historian on this site.

Dsnake, I was trying to figure out the cause of your statement. If I close the oil tank shutoff vavles, my prop does not go to feather. I first pull the "emergency feather" circuit breakers before I pull the "T" handles. That prevents the props from going to feather while the oil tank shutoff valves close. While the oil tankshutoff valves are closed,I pull out the "oil" curcuit breakers. I push the "T" handles back in and - THEN - I push the emergency feather breakers back in. Nobody will be attempting to start any engines with the props in feather.

Tiny, I can tell you that by 1989, there were no externally mounted fuel probes on the wings I installed. If that changed after that, I am not aware of it. (We are speaking of a few years ago, since it has been 21 years since I installed wings.) I had actually thought that TCTO 1039 was complete by that time, but it is tough keeping up wth TCTO actions in the civilian world.

What you say is true, skier, but I would like to modify your statement just a bit. Thermocouples cannot give you the correct TIT if they are not at the right point of the flame. If the fuel nozzles are not putting the flame in the right place while running (or air flow/fuel mixture/etc is messing it up during start) the thermocouple cannot give you an accurate TIT. Also, a "defective" thermocouple is totally different from one which has it's temp sensing element burned off. The TIT change from a "defective" thermocouple may not be noticeable by itself. I takes several to see a TIT loss. Throttle knob alignment requirements exist above crossover and the limit is plus/minor 1/2 knob.

When I worked at the depot in Warner Robins in the 80's, I went out with a team replacing outer wings for TCTO 1039. Two easily visible changes we made were to locate the landing lights into the leading edge (if they were not there already) and to move the tie-down rings right into the front spar location farther out on the wing. (The old wings had the tie downs aft the aft trailing edge.) Also, the wings we replaced did not have the dry bay drain tube that was external and went from the aft nacelle area to the external scupper on the inboard side of the outboard engines. From my point of view, if you have those three things and DON'T HAVE externally mounted fuel probes, then you have the "1039 wing.)

I'm pretty sure that this "anticipation check"is the return-to-null time check. If it is not, then I guess I need to know the answer to this as well.

Actually, our Take-Off TIT check on the 501D22A engines reads: "Take-off TIT is 1061°C to 1077°C." Our TD amps are set for 1071.

It would probably be a good thing to keep in mind that Lockheed's methods don't always have to be the same as WR/ALC's methods. Technicians in the civilian Herk world are not permitted to follow methods designed by engineers at WR/ALC. When in doubt, protect the aircraft.

Since we are not permitted to use any metal objects to scrape sealant, we use micarta or phenolic, there is no damage to speak of. Our sealant is there for corrosion protection, it is not used as safetywire. Its not the first time that military manuals did not agree with the civilian ones.

Well, I don't have a copy of the military structural manual, but I do have the civilian one. It says in Chapter 54-30 : © Reposition the truss on the wing using the locating template and install all fasteners as shown in figure 54-30-06. Install the 376176-1 diagonal tube and remove the locating template. (d) Completely seal over the fastener heads and collars, around the upper tang, and around the edges of the fiange, except as shown in figure 54-30-06, with Pro-Seal 870, B-2 sealant. Injection seal the cavity located approximately 2-1/2 inches below the top of the trusses of the inboard nacetle with Pro-Seal 870, B-2 sealant. Allow the sealant to cure until the sealant is rubbery. I think I'd have to seal the fastener heads.

Half of your fleet is experiencing it? All the starts are within time limits? The fuel control will control your fuel flow in order to achieve the start. I am guessing that the concern is because of the warning given by Allison about downstream burning damaging the turbine. I would seriously doubt that half your fleet is suffering from this malfunction. If you suspect that your engines are suffering from this, have someone watch at an angle up the tailpipe during start and see if the turbine starts glowing. If it is really downstream burning, it will be visible from the rear. As said already, check to see where your TD valve Null Orifice is set to. Also, you really should do your troubleshooting of start TIT problems with the TD system turned OFF first. You might have room to adjust the TD valves up to get your starts between 750 to 810. (I know that our books says that 780 to 810 is desired.) You could very well be putting out a whole lot of effort trying to repair a problem that does not exist.

That depends on which part number of Dual Brake Control valves that your aircraft have. One of them does reduce the available pressure to the brakes,and another one allows you to have 3000 PSI for the brakes.

Actually, when we have weight and CG limits to deal with, we can't just drive a 10k tug up to 245 and call it good. Ballast weights hanging off the fuselage jack fittings don't add weight to the aircraft that loads up aircraft structure, but it does keep the engine and prop removals from taking the CG too far to the tail. It has been done for many years at depot. It is nothing new.

Be innovative. Design your own. They need only to be able to fit around the fuselage jacks without hitting them or touching the airframe. You will need to be able to install them and remove them without damaging the aircraft. If you get the weight of both sides together to be about 3000 pounds, you'll be covered for pretty much anything.

Actually, I would like to see it done. I've seen the time when we ended up off the concrete at the edge of the runway, and at full power; we could not get over the lip of the concrete back onto the runway. It sure laid some doubt in my mind if it is even possible to "jump" a real set of chalks, much less "run chalks." The concrete edge above ground level was less than eight inches high, and I had to use whatever I could find to build a ramp up for the tires before we could bet back onto the runway. I've never met anyone who ever jumped chalks either, but I am aware of the fun of doing power runs on ice. That is amusing!

Yes, I can see that people just can't find the time to cover every eventuality in maintenance manuals. What a shame, leaving such decisions to the technicians to decide! We'll just have to write more manuals, I guess. Sometimes, while I miss the people I had working with me in the Air Force, I like the military maintenance manuals which are more complete in providing data, but I am glad that I no longer have to deal with all the garbage that come with it. The AF does not trust its people, so they write a ton of regulations. I guess, you are stuck asking the blessings of the QA guy, who may have been hired from AGE or the wash rack. IF you are really lucky, it may be a guy who actually knows something and you can be amazed that this supervisor let him go to QA when he needed him on the line. I wish you luck.

Rules are not written for use by those with common sense. Rules are written as if nobody has any common sense or mechanical aptitude. Those who are working in Quality Assurance (or QC for us old guys) are not necessarily selected to work there because they have any common sense either. Unfortunately, those with authority are not necessarily those with knowledge or skills. Nobody that I am aware of ever wrote that the engines can be run with landing gear doors off. The writers may have figured that, since they cannot make a rule for every possible condition, we can figure some things out for ourselves. In the case of flying, we are allowed to fly with the landing gear doors removed up to 171 knots. I'd say that, since we are allowed to takeoff without them, we had better be allowed to run engines with out them. Do you think QA can figure their way through that train of thought? I wish you luck, though.