Jump to content
Aero Precision provides OEM part support for military aircraft operators across more than 20 aircraft

118th AES Retired

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by 118th AES Retired

  1. 62-1860 also an Aeromed trainer but inside a building at Brooks. This would be correct. Or it was when Brooks was still open back in 1991. I attended the School of Aerospace Medicine, Aeromedical Evacuation Technician/Flight Nurse Course there in November/December 91'. It was used to demonstrate enplaning/deplaning of patients, and also for use as a trainer for the location of emergency exits. MSgt. James L. Reynolds 118th AES USAF (Ret)
  2. "The plane is owned and operated by Trans Afrique of Ghana, he said. National Air Cargo is a customer, he said. National Air Cargo received reports "that the plane was on the radar and then it wasn't," Murray said. An ISAF statement said the plane was not an ISAF aircraft, and Lt. Col. John Dorrian, ISAF spokesman, said the aircraft was from Uganda. "Early reports indicate the plane is an L-100 Hercules aircraft, the civilian equivalent of a military C-130," the statement said. ISAF said the airport is expected to remain open." Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/10/12/afghanistan.plane.crash/index.html?hpt=Sbin
  3. Okay, so far we've had some pretty good ones. Keep them coming! In my book though, the "Echo Check" with the video has to be the best so far. Closely followed by the "Radar Check"
  4. I don't know the answer to the question at hand. But, I do have a comment. You might have spent time at Ramstein if........ "If you know the way to the Firehouse restaurant that serves the best authentic German food around."
  5. Well guys, it's been a couple of weeks since I've logged on and commented on the original post and follow up comments here. Let me make it very clear, that as the one who started the thread, "my" intent was never to "bash the C-130". I flew them for twenty years and logged primary time in the A, B, E, H-2, and the J model, as well as a couple of other models along the way. The bird is a good bird. I do have some "issues" with the "J" and I won't go there. My main focus was on the lack of focus and R&D of Lockheed (or as some are calling it, "Lackheed") over the last quarter century. Basically, when it comes to cargo aircraft, the bottom line is the Lockheed has all its' eggs in one basket with the "J" model. My point is that I do believe that the Airbus A-400 poses competition to the C-130 as well as the Embrarer KC-390 project. The C-27J is taking "some" of the work away from the C-130 also. There was a time when America was the world leader in deveopment of all types of military and commercial aircraft. As we have evolved into this so-called "global economy" we've seen more and more of that go overseas. The bottom line here is that as an investor, and as one who watches this industry closely, I just don't see a lot that impresses me with Lockheed's initiative in the R&D area as to military transports over the past 25 years or so. I have no problem with Lockheed venturing into other areas, and someday, they may be the world leader in big ole' remote controlled airplanes (UAVs), but I just don't see them surviving as a major manufacturer of military cargo transports when the demand for the "J" runs out or is replaced by other products. As to the AMP program, let's hope that it survives, but it is hard to run a program like that when the pentagon changes the rules from day to day. I've enjoyed ALL of the posts and comments thus far and respect the opinions of all who have posted.
  6. Here's one to play on the journeyman electrician: send him to get a "U Tube Bender" What in the hell is a "U Tube Bender"? Well, it's kind of like a conduit bender. Only, the purpose of the "U Tube Bender" is to bend a straight flourescent light bulb to fit the U shape to fit into the U shape fixtures. Okay, so he looks at you like you're joking.....explain that you put the straight flourscent bulb into a heater just as you do for PVC conduit and heat it. Once heated, you use the "U tube bender" to bend it into shape..... You'd be surprised at how many fall for it!
  7. I managed rental property for my parents when they were in Europe doing missionary work in the Lakenheath/Mildenhal area in the 1980s. One of the girls who rented from me knew that I always changed my own oil and took care of my vehicle. She bought her first brand new car, and she was really wanting to take care of it. So, she proceeded to have me show her how to change the oil, etc. She asked if there was anymore "preventive maintenance" I could recommend. I told her about rotating and balancing tires, etc. AND, I told her that she needed to "change the air in the tires every time she changed the oil". I "explained" to her that the air gets stale and causes "dry rot" inside of the tire and causes the rubber to break down. I proceeded to show her how to use a valve stem removal tool as well. We had a local truck stop that had "free" air on the truck side. So, I advised her to go to the truck stop to change the air so she didn't have to "pay" for the air. Sure enough, she left and headed toward the truck stop. And sure enough, I parked at a distance and laughed my ass off as this blonde got out and proceeded to let all of the air out of her tires and then "replace" it. I never told her any differently..........
  8. Congratulations to Boeing. Not only does it fly, but the 787 lands! The 787 is leading the way in composite large airplanes. Of course, there are a lot of things yet to be learned, and developments yet to come about. Just imagine someday, a C-130 that is mostly composite and think of the possibilities: Increased Speed; Higher Lifting Capacity; Fuel Efficiency; etc. Will Boeing make the next C-130? Or will Lackheed learn?
  9. It flies! My son and I just watched history in the making as the Boeing 787 took to the air for the first time. Congratulations Boeing. When will Lockheed (aka Lackheed) take to the air with a new heavy lifter? Or even a light lifter for that matter? Well, Airbus may have the A400-M, but Boeing has the 787 which also shows promise. Now, if the Pentagon just makes the right decision and goes with the Boeing tanker vs. the Airbus.......
  10. Was it just us, or did any of you guys ever send the new troop over to supply to pick up some "prop wash"?
  11. Contol: 'AF1733, You are on an eight mile final for 27R. You have a UH-1 three miles ahead of you on final; reduce speed to 130 knots.' Pilot: 'Rogo', Frankfurt. We're bringing this big bird back to one-hundred and thirty knots fer ya.' Cont: (a few moments later): 'AF33, helicopter traffic at 90 knots now11/2 miles ahead of you; reduce speed further to 110 knots.' Pilot: 'AF thirty-three reining this here bird back further to 110 knots' Cont: 'AF33, you are three miles to touchdown, helicopter traffic now 1 mile ahead of you; reduce speed to 90 knots' Pilot (a little miffed): 'Sir, do you know what the stall speed of this here C-130 is?' Cont: 'No, but if you ask your co-pilot, he can probably tell you.'
  12. Amen Brother! This is a message that ALL AMERICANS need to hear!
  13. There have been some good discussions posted in this thread, and I'm glad to see so many folks here point out their observations and experiences. We all have our various opinions, and these forums are a great place to discuss those and to present observations and experiences. As has been pointed out, the C-130 has played an important role over the years. Those of us who have flown this airframe know what it is and what it is not capable of. The C-130 certainly has its' place. My original point in beginning the discussion however remains. In my opinion, I believe that Lockheed's days are numbered. If Lockheed fails, then the C-130 program eventually fails. I just wonder why Lockheed (or as someone noted "Lackheed") has failed to remain competitive in the area of R&D for the past quarter century or so. Why doesn't Lockheed have a (current/future) product to complement the C-130 in various sizes? Sure, the C-5 and the C-141 were compliments, but the C-141 is gone, having been replaced by Boeing's C-17. What about the Transall C-160? Where was Lockheed when the C-160 was developed to meet a specific requirement? What about a replacement for the C-123? Where was Lockheed with a replacement? What about the C-27J? Why is it that Lockheed didn't put forth a true R&D effort to meet the need for this specification, other than to offer its' C-130J? It has also been noted that the Airbus A400-M has been met with huge cost overruns. But in all fairness, isn't that true of virtually all new developments? What about the C-17? What about the C-141 & C-5? What about the B-1B? And is the same not true of the F-22 and F-35? So, the issue of cost overruns is somewhat of a moot point. In the end, my point is simply that Lockheed, the once and great world leader in the production of military cargo aircraft has lagged behind in R&D for years and years. Sure, the C-130 is still a great airframe, and there is still LOTS of room for improvement. My point is that Lockheed cannot put all of its' eggs in one basket and expect to survive.
  14. Dan: Thanks. Some good points you mention. But still, Lockheed (and other U.S. manufacturers) have lagged behind in R&D and will eventually obselete themselves out of business should the trend continue. Just go back and look at Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation and look at all of the "has been" manufacturers of aircraft in America, and then look at what we have now. Look at the competition around the world and the R&D going on elsewhere. Yes, America will someday be a "has been" in aviation manufacture, and I personally believe Lockheed will be the next "has been" to go. And to those who say Lockheed should have kept the H-2 line open....I agree 100%
  15. True, we don't. My point is though, that with the lack of innovation at Lockheed and other U.S. companies, we may end up having no choice. Let's see, we're importing the C-27J now. The Army's latest helicopter is European. The new presidential helicopter is European. There was a time with the U.S. was the undisputed world leader in commercial and civilian aviation manufacturing. The tide is changing. Let's just hope that the pentagon has enough sense to stick with Boeing's proven tanker. It's time that Lockheed either get with the program or go ahead and sell out to someone else. Thank goodness we still have Boeing in Research and Development and production.
  16. Best wishes from 118th AES Retired. Glad you caught it early!
  17. Source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ajacs-load-us-begins-another-nextgen-tactical-transport-project-03230/#more-3230 AJACS Load: US Begins (Another) Next-Gen Tactical Transport Effort 22-Oct-2009 14:04 EDT The AJACS Program: Intent and Issues The USA has been here before, however, with the 1980s Advanced Medium STOL Transport competition that produced the Boeing YC-14 and McDonnell Douglas YC-15. Both planes were produced, both made extensive use of new technologies, both met all tests. The program ended up canceled. ACAA lays the foundation for a second go-round, if the USAF wishes. Airbus’ new A400M medium-heavy transport will make extensive use of composite structures, and so will Embraer’s KC-390 medium tactical transport. If any future American military airlifter expects to offer competitive performance and costs, the ability to use similar technologies effectively will make a big difference to project risk, project timelines, and aircraft performance. Ultimately, however, the Advanced Joint Air Combat System (AJACS, formerly AMC-X) requirements are likely to be considerably more ambitious than ACAA’s. A 2004 Air Force Magazine piece had this to say: “Afghanistan and Iraq have underscored the need for a new tactical transport that would fulfill a variety of airlift and special operations roles, Air Force officials reported. The new aircraft – dubbed Advanced Mobility Concept, or AMC-X – would have about the same cargo capacity as a C-130 but be able to fly higher and faster, while operating from 2,000-foot runways. Moreover, the AMC-X would be stealthy. “We’re talking about … airliner speed,†close to Mach 1, said Col. Marshall K. Sabol, Air Mobility Command’s deputy director of plans and programs. The C-130’s average speed is 345 mph. AMC also wants an airplane that can fly at the altitudes used by airliners, with greater range and greater survivability, he said. Paramount for the new transport will be its ability to operate at austere locations and carry outsize cargo, said Sabol. Moreover, the next tactical airlifter will have to be able to operate in blackout conditions at low level, perform paratrooper and equipment airdrop, operate in all weather, and be capable of accomplishing “autoland†– automatic, virtually hands-off landing, guided only by the runway and onboard navigation systems. Such requirements are “not the future,†said Sabol, adding, “it’s where we operate†today. AMC is also working with Air Force Research Labs and the Army to make sure that the tactical transport is compatible with the Army’s new Stryker vehicle. The Stryker was designed to be transportable on C-130s, but the vehicle’s weight has continued to grow.†X-48B in wind tunnel (click to view full)According to Jane’s, potential competitors for the AJACS program could include Lockheed Martin’s MACK concept sketched out in response to Special Forces requirements, a modified Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, or a Boeing concept based on the company’s experimental X-48B blended wing body (BWB) design that offers higher lift, higher capacity in a given footprint, and even noise reduction. Whatever the eventual platform looks like, in order to accommodate a Stryker vehicle in combat condition, as well as currently contemplated US and foreign armored personnel carrier designs with enough armor to be survivable on modern battlefields, a cargo capacity increase of at least 50% over the current C-130J (21.7 tons – 30-35 tons) would almost certainly be required.
  18. The project began as the Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) group, set up in 1982 by Aerospatiale, British Aerospace, Lockheed, and MBB to develop a replacement for the C-130 Hercules and Transall C-160.[2] Varying requirements and the complications of international politics caused slow progress. In 1989 Lockheed left the grouping and went on to develop an upgraded Hercules, the C-130J Super Hercules. With the addition of Alenia and CASA the FIMA group became Euroflag. Originally the SNECMA M138 turboprop (based on the M88 core) was selected to power the A400M. Airbus Military issued a new Request for Proposal in April 2002 which Pratt & Whitney Canada with the PW180 and Europrop International answered; the latter was a new design. Airbus Military preferred the Pratt and Whitney engine, but political interference resulted in the selection of the Europrop TP400-D6 in May 2003.[6] The partner nations, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Belgium, and Luxembourg, signed an agreement in May 2003 to buy 212 aircraft. These nations decided to charge OCCAR with the management of the acquisition of the A400M. Following the withdrawal of Italy and revision of procurement totals the revised requirement was for 180 aircraft, with first flight in 2008 and first delivery in 2009. On 28 April 2005, South Africa joined the partnership programme with the state owned Denel Aerospace Systems receiving a contract for fuselage components. The Airbus A400M will increase the airlift capacity and range compared with the aircraft it was originally set to replace, the older versions of the Hercules and Transall. Cargo capacity is expected to double over existing aircraft, both in payload and volume, and range is increased substantially as well. The cargo box dimensions are: Length, excluding ramp 17.71 m; ramp length 5.40 m; width 4.00 m; height 3.85 m; height, aft of wing 4.00 m. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M
  19. If I were CEO of Boeing, here's what I would do..... I'd recognize that America has fallen behind in the last 25 years in the innovation of new military aircraft. I'd learn from Lockheed and build on Boeing's success with the C-17. I'd also look at the changing needs of not only our military, but the needs of our allies and current users of "American" military aircraft, especially in the cargo area. The U.S. military needs a "smaller" version of the C-130. So, they are using the C-27J for that purpose, but in limited numbers so far. Okay, what say we take the C-17, and "dwarf" it to the size of the C-27 and make it a composite? The Airbus A400-M is bigger than the C-130, but the C-130 size is still just right for some roles. The problem with the C-130 is the inability to haul the increased weight of today's armored vehicles. So, why not "dwarf" the C-17 to the size of the C-130 and make a composite C-17 the same size of the C-130? Then, the C-17 is "just right" for its current role. Leave it as is, except maybe look at the next generation C-17 being a composite. Now, about that C-5. Yes, eventually, those C-5's are gonna need replaced. The current AMP will carry them for sometime. However, why not "super size" the C-17, again into a composite airframe as a replacement for the C-5 eventually? This is the kind of "thinking outside the box" that Lockheed has failed to do. In my opinion, this the kind of "thinking outside of the box" that Boeing needs to be doing right now to survive in the future! (25 years down the road) By using the C-17 basic design and "dwarfing" or "super sizing" it, many of the components can remain interchangable, thus saving in design costs and maintenance. It is possible! Just look at the evolution of computers and capabilities over the years. The C-130 is an old Tandy TRS-80 and the newer computers are the latest "off the shelf" models with super capability packed into a smaller package. That's the way that the airplane manufacturers have to think in regard to the research and development of new airplanes. That's where Lockheed has failed in my opinion.
  20. I agree that the C-130 program has been one of the most successful in the world up until currently. I've flown the A,B,E,H, & J models, as well as a couple of Romanian C-130s. It's a great airplane. I also agree that Lockheed should have kept the 'H' line open until they at least had the bugs worked out of the 'J' model and they put all their eggs in one basket. The military has been required to 'dumb down' specifications and capabilities to keep the 'J' model going and to justify keeping Lockheed on. My point is that the military role has changed and equipment has changed. The mission of the C-130 is still basically the same, but the equipment such as the newer armored vehicles require that the C-130 do more weightlifting, which it cannot. Therein lies the problem. Lockheed should have begun a program years ago to use the existing airframe model, but to convert it to a composite airframe as opposed to a metal airframe in an effort to lighten the gross weight and to make the C-130 more efficient and to be able to handle the heavier loads. Lockheed failed to take the initiative to do that. In the big scheme of things, it's not just Lockheed's failure to re-develop the C-130, but its failure in innovation of replacements for the C-141 and C-5. They haven't built a commercial bird since the L-1011. How long has it been since they build a trainer or fighter? Lockheed cannot, and will not survive as an aircraft manufacturer (other than it's remote control airplanes) without innovation and new products. They will be a "component supplier" and "maintainer" for their previous products.
  21. Herkyload1 brought up an excellent point with regard to yet another 'threat' to Lockheed and the C-130 program which is that of the KC-390 Program by Embrarer. I had already been doing some research for this for a 'white paper' that I've been working on titled "Future Threats to the U.S. Aviation Manufacturing Industry". The KC-390 may well serve as a competitor to the C-130 program for a number of reasons. One cannot overlook that in addition to research and development costs, the costs of labor have a major impact upon the cost of the final product. That having been said, the unions actually are a key factor in the potential success or failure of a manufacturer. Just look at the impact that unions have had on Boeing and the delays in Boeing's 787 Dreamliner and the 747-8 series. Even the Europeans have these kinds of problems. Likewise, the effects of the Euro vs. the Dollar have had an adverse effect on Airbus thus also contributing to cost overruns of the A-400M. The KC-390 is a new area of innovation for Embrarer which has taken the vast share of the world market for regional airliners. Yet, the key is "innovation". My point is that, in my opinion, Lockheed has lacked "innovation" in seeking new research and development and designs for the past quarter decade or so. The same can be said of other U.S. manufacturers as well. We've seen the rise and fall of Detroit and the "Big Three" automakers and the impact of imported autos in the U.S. The "Big Three" will never produce the quality of product that the Germans have produced in the Mercedes. It is my belief that just as the "Big Three" have risen and fallen, the same appears to be true with regard to the U.S. Aviation Manufacturing Sector (perhaps excluding Boeing). My belief is that in the next 25 years, Lockheed's role will be relegated to that of being a "project manager" (just as Boeing is with the 787) and Lockheed will simply be in the business of manufacturing oversized remote control airplanes (UAVs), some space products, and maintaining what used to be their bread and butter (C-130, C-5, C-141). We haven't even begun to think about developing nations such as Indonesia and China and their future impact on competition for U.S. Aircraft Manufacturers.
  22. As many folks know, I follow both the military and commercial aviation industry very closely. It is with sadness that I report my belief that as of today, with the first flight of the Airbus A400-M, Lockheed and the C-130 are now in the latter stages of their terminal illness of failure in innovation. This is of course, my personal opinion based on my own observations. The United States has a great history in the invention and the historical development of great aircraft since the Wright Brothers took that first flight. We've built the world's best general aviation aircraft, bombers, fighters, commercial airliners, etc. Through the years, we've seen great companies come and go, some merging into other companies, and some only faded memories. We've remember great names such as Douglas, Northrop, General Dynamics, Convair, Martin, Hughes, Rockwell, Fairchild, North American, and on and on the list goes disappear into oblivion or consolidation. Today, it takes considerable research to trace the 'family trees' of America's aviation history. Today, there is only one manufacturer of great commercial airliners which remains in America (Boeing) which is in stiff competition with Europe's Airbus. Today, the once great Lockheed corporation which at one time produced the C-130, C-5, and C-141 all at the same time is down to the production of only one military cargo airplane. Lockheed is out of the business of developing and producing fighters and commercial airplanes. As I have said many times before, I sincerely believe that Lockheed's days are numbered and that within the next 20 years, Lockheed is likely to fade into memory as a once great manufacturer of both military and civilian aircraft. When our military wanted a smaller transport to meet changing military needs, all Lockheed could come up with was the C-130J. In the end, the United States selected the Alenia (Italian) C-27J to fill that need, and today, the U.S. is buying a foreign cargo transport. In my opinion, Lockheed has failed miserably in the area of research and development of new military designs in the past quarter century. The C-130 is a wonderful airframe, and no doubt one of the best aircraft ever built. But Lockheed has selected to "rest on its laurels" with the C-130 and I believe that the days of the C-130 are coming to an end. Whilst Airbus has been troubled with the development of the A-400M, today they finally got the bird off the ground. The world is watching. The A-400M, if successful will meet the changing needs of militaries around the world. Already, allies who have relied on Lockheed and the C-130 are poised to replace aging C-130s with the A-400M. I'm no fan of the idea that the U.S. military would someday be a major "importer" of commercial and military aircraft. I'm especially not a fan of the idea that the U.S. military fleet might someday consist of mostly "foreign" aircraft. Yet the lack of innovation in the U.S. has lead to the eventual pathway of our military consisting of "foreign" aircraft. Congratulations to Airbus on their success today in history. Rest in Peace Lockheed. Rest in Peace C-130, and Thank You for your service for so many years. The men and women associated with this wonderful aircraft will remember the C-130 as a "Once Great Airplane" and Lockheed as a "Once Great Leader in Aviation". I predict that the Airbus A-400M is the "C-130 of the future". 118th AES Retired A400M first flight The beleaguered airlifter A400M has successfully taken off from San Pablo Airport near Seville, Spain at 10:15 local time for its 1st flight, amid talks between ministers of nations which have ordered the A400M to resolve the surging cost. The A400M's 1st flight was delayed by 10 minutes due to "some glicthes with the instrumentation", Airbus' head of flight test Fernando Alonso said. "For the time being everything is going fine, and the crew is comfortable with the aeroplane," Alonso said. The first A400M, MSN001, is scheduled to land from 12:30 local time onwards. Source: http://www.airwaysaviationnews.com/ Airbus’ A400 military transport takes to the air for the first time Posted: December 11th, 2009 | By Paul Ash It flies! At 10:15 local time this morning in Seville in Spain, the Airbus A400M military transport prototype took to the air for the first time. For the sake of prosterity, the test pilots were Chief Test Pilot Military, Edward “Ed†Strongman, 60, as captain and Experimental Test Pilot Ignacio “Nacho†Lombo, 43, in the co-pilot’s seat. There were also four engineers on board – Jean-Philippe Cottet, Eric Isorce, Didier Ronceray and Gerard Leskerpit – who will among them look after the powerplants, aircraft systems and handling qualities of the aircraft during the test program. According to the Airbus press release, the crew have logged more than 31 000 hours of flight time between them. Well, the upshot is that the aircraft has made that leap from something that had only ever flown on paper to actual flight. Too late for the South African Air Force, though, who, having seen their much-anticipated replacement for the ageing C-130s snatched from under their noses just a few weeks ago, will now have to content themselves by watching the world’s newest military freighter go through its paces. C’est la vie. Source: http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/wanderer/2009/12/11/airbus-a400-military-transport-takes-to-the-air-for-the-first-time/ New military Airbus A400-M takes inaugural flight After years of delay Airbus's A400-M military transport plane has finally taken to the skies for its inaugural flight. Chris Bockman reports. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8407641.stm For the latest from Airbus on the A400-M see: http://www.airbusmilitary.com/
  23. Bob: Sorry. I thought I did. My bad! It's on the way. And thanks for your help!!!!!!!!
  24. AMI C130 crash -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Five killed as Italian C-130J transport crashes A Lockheed Martin C-130J transport from the Italian air force’s 46th Air Brigade crashed immediately after taking off on a routine training flight from Pisa at around 14:10 local time on 23 November, killing the two pilots and three other personnel onboard. Initial eyewitness reports were contradictory, with some saying the C-130J started to roll before diving, and others reporting to have seen a fire on board immediately after take-off. Another source says an EasyJet Airbus A319 was circling Pisa airport while the C-130J climbed, with the Hercules having been seen to make a right turn before hitting the ground and catching fire. It crashed on a nearby railway line, with an oncoming train having managed to stop before reaching the point of impact. The aircraft’s wreckage was spread within an area with a radius of about 150m (490ft). No further information has been made available. The Italian air force had a fleet of 22 C-130Js, including 10 stretched-fuselage -30s, prior to the accident. DATE:23/11/09 Flightglobal.com __________________ Erwin Source: http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?p=534501#post534501
  25. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=341_1259003568 http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=98321&sid=d8102ba58dc02985cda5e4a02c94a193 http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_novembre_23/pisa-aereo-caduto_c4ab0290-d835-11de-a7cd-00144f02aabc.shtml (Italian)
×
×
  • Create New...