AMPTestFE

Its a shame the USG decided to throw so many taxes on the Boeing AMP for the foreign AFs. Priced the Swedes right out of it. Taxes shouldn't be as much as the mod itself.

Well I think you have to start your baseline qualification criteria on your lowest common denominator, which would be folks like the EC-130Hs, where they aren't qualified to put those on the zone. Sure, the airplane is just as capable, but there's no need for them to do it, so they are your basic qualification crews.

If the starter is sheared (reason for the limitation) you will get a start valve open light as the air must travel the same route to exit the starter. The starter will be free to rotate so the limit of five secs was placed to prevent the starter from exceeding maximum speed.

I'm thinking the start valve light won't come on with a sheared starter, although I never had one of these on an H. If it only takes 2psi to actuate the pressure switch, I would think that with a sheared starter, without the load & resistance of turning the RGB & engine, the air would just free-flow out the back end of the starter. Anyone here had a sheared starter shaft on an H to verify this?

When he hits the switch. The same limit applies to the light. I have no idea, but if the starter had been sheared, there's a chance there may not be enough back pressure to activate the start valve open light. You wouldn't want that going on for very long.

948 has been grounded for some time...as in many, many years. I think when we brought her back from the '93 desert rote, inspections found many wing cracks.

Doesn't quite add up, does it?

Well, I don't wanna hear any more crap about the AMP being expensive.

To push the button is the same as energizing the solenoid, you'd get high rudder boost.

At the time of C-130X (mid-late '90s), there were hundreds of E-models still in the inventory and only a small handful of active duty units with H-models of any variety (Dyess, Elmendorf, & 50th)

I have heard the rumor that the MCs might get the 8-bladed prop and EVH, but also hear the gunships would get them first. I've also heard that the expense for these things keeps getting in the way of MC-J, so who knows if it will ever happen. At one point, I heard only AC & MC-H would get them. But those sorts of rumors change from week to week - and I haven't heard anything on this front for at least a year...probably won't happen, which is ashame. A huge portion of the resistance comes from folks who think high Vmca speeds are bad....

I know that at least the MC-Ws are getting the EVH. Was told by someone who knows about THAT program....were'nt getting the 8 blades because of supply issues. You can't really pull up to the FBO in Kenya & find a nice new bent composite prop....they got lots of straight metal ones though.

Well one of the reasons back in the day besides the GATM compliance deal was they wanted all USAF slick C-130's to be common. With the current fiasco, C-130E, C-130H1, C-130H2 (1979-1984), C-130H-2+ (1984-1990, C-130H2.5(1990-1991) and C-130H-3 (1992-1996)... A crew member from an H1 cannot fly a C-130H-3 unless he has training, and vise versa. The main deal for the AMP upgrade was that all C-130's would be common with parts, maintenance, and Air Crew qualification. At the start of the Upgrade back in the late 1990's the AMP was just suppose to bring all of the Herks up to the 1996 model C-130H-3 level. And I wish that would have happened... All they had to do is keep the H-3 line going at Lockgreed and everything would have been ok...

The C-130X was supposed to make the airframes common...not the AMP. The main goal of AMP is to allow worldwide navigation and communication capability, as well as enhancing maintainability.

I too loved the H3; for an FE, it was the peak of the C-130 design.

Adding the 8-bladed props will have to be started by the ANG. AMC simply does not have the money to throw at a system like that. While it will pay forr itself in less than a decade in fuel & maintenance savings, the up front price it too large. You gotta remember, it's not just replacing the props on each plane. Think about all your prop shops, supply system, spares, tech pubs, training.....etc. If we can get a few more ANG units to upgrade, then others might follow suit...eventually AMC will have no other choice.

I worked C-5 Avionics 34 years. I was involved with all the major C-5 Avionics mods, from the Air Force side, to include C-5 AMP from it's inception. In my personal view, C-5 AMP had no more problems than any of the other upgrades we incorporated over the years. Keeping in mind AMP tore out and replaced virtually all Avionic systems (Comm, Nav, RADAR, MADARS, Autoflight Controls) and added a number new. A/C 84-0059 was hitting short of the Base as I was driving into my office parking space. The AIB setup beside our office and we help provide them flight and archival data on 4059. There was actually an LMAS Avionics engineer on the flight deck that morning.

I was interested in your statement because, while I do have a "dog in the fight" so to speak I also have a copy of the AIB's Executive Summary of the incident and I can not find anywhere where the AMP mod is suspect or even criticized.

If the C-130 AMP is coming under the gun it's all about the money and the program's own performance. Maybe it hasn't gone as well as C-5 AMP afterall?

It was my understanding that the switch from tape to round gages was found to be a player. How much, I don't know.

Taken from someone who was first-hand involved with the C-5AMP (at a fairly high gov't level), the C-130AMP was at least a couple years ahead of where the C-5AMP was at the same timeline. I think the high-ups are just very sensitive since the C-5 program issues. I wonder...if Nunn/McCurdy was in force back around the B-1 timeframe, how many programs would have gotten the same attention?

Really? That's interesting. I fly the H1s and I haven't seen a 241 yet, only on the H3.

That was based on information I had...not firsthand. I guess this would be the first case where the simulators were modified before the airplane, huh?

I got this from one of the guys at Boeing. There are 13 Reserve sqdns (only 2 with J's) soon to be 23 ANG UE Sqdns (only 3 with J's). They all will be out of business after 2020 without AMP. AF will never buy enough replacement J's. AMP may be ridiculously over priced, my opinion, but without it goodby ARF.

From Boeing:

Below is an article that came out in the Defense News. The title is misleading as the C-130 AMP Phase I (221 C-130H2/2.5/3 aircraft) continues to march forward. Two (2) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft are at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) having AMP installed, one (1) Development Test & Evaluation (DT&E) AMP2 (H2.5) aircraft is at Little Rock AFB, AR preparing for Initial Operating Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) and its two (2) brothers AMP1 (H2) & AMP 3 (H3) aircraft are finishing up some TCTO & Software updates in California and then will join those two (2) DT&E aircraft at Little Rock to prepare for IOT&E. IOT&E commences in January 2012. Maintenance & Flight Crew Training continues at Little Rock. Furthermore, LRIP 3 & 4 aircraft will be inducted to WR-ALC in August & September 2011.

You have to read the whole article as it pertains to only Phase II of AMP – (102 H1/EC/LC/MC/AC-130 aircraft). The February 11 FY12 PB did fund Phase I of the program but left out the previously Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) 2 Phase II Program. Boeing has not received any official termination of the Phase II program – just not funded is all we have been told and have known for months.

Bob, that makes the most sense to me as well. Most everyone is not aware of the different phases of the program. We knew awhile back in '06 or '07 when AFSOC pulled out that phase 2 was on thin ice. Their puchasing the MC-130J just reinforces that thought. Too bad AFSOC was involved from the start...they drove many of the requirements that were responsible for the cost increases. We paid Boeing to design the AMP for all variants, and they did...most don't know this. They just attribute the cost to the slicks.

Overpriced? Who really knows. I do know that while 8 or 9 mil won't even buy many whole airplanes, it also isn't enough to just maintain a single large one over a few years. Just remember..even the mighty J isn't capable of flying a GPS approach here in the good 'ole USA. I can do that in a beat up old Cessna 172 with a current database. The J's block 7 upgrade is coming to fix issues like this, and they're using AMP components too. What do you think something that "small" costs per plane? Bottom line...you want to fly airplanes anywhere in the world, you better be ready to spend some money.

I had an interesting discussion this morning. An older FE was bashing the J (and AMP) on how they're hard broke if a computer goes down. My comeback was...isn't an H1 hard broke as well if you lose an oil pressure gage? His concern was our overreliance on a computer. My point was that we reley pretty damn heavily on a single analog gage too. (that's 70 years old in design) Ok, off the soap box...

AMP3 was supposed to stay at Edwards for awhile though...not sure how long. AMP1 is scheduled to arrive at The Rock on May 18th. It's getting its "ACF" preflight & engine runs today.

I find your statement regarding C-5 AMP interesting. So did you work C-5 AMP and are talking about the 3 April 2006 crash of 84-0059?

That is the crash I'm referring to, yes. No, I did not work that program at all.

I think maybe "directly" may be abit harsh. The accident board did find both those as causes though.

The H1s at Little Rock are getting modified now...have been.

John, you're about the smartest guy I've ever met...

Well, not that things make much sense in this world, but....

If the C-5 AMP program went through...even with a class A mishap directly related to the AMP design/training...

And the AF is bidding up an AMP mod to the KC-10...

Why in the world would you consider cancelling the one AMP program that so far, has gone better than the C-5??

I was having the same problems Jansen...seems every year some new "news" pops up that we're cancelled again. I was initially thinking that since the funding is a year behind (we're using funds from FY 10 for FY 11), that the funding peeps were just making an adjustment somewhere. I think that when congress directs the DOD to proceed, that should have been the end of it.

We knew several years ago the special mission fleet wasn't going to be funded...at least we figured as much. But, when you include the "C" as a special mission fleet, that's confusing.

What's the source of this article?

Ok, I saw 1851 on the news link, plus an H1, so that makes sense. 1806 must be the busted wing?

Yep, saw some aircraft that weren't healthy looking. At least one wing is busted, with fuel everywhere.

Was hit last night with a tornado. I do know some flight line buildings were torn up, but haven't heard about any aircraft yet.

Some homes in base housing were destroyed too, but no reports of deaths or injuries yet. Let's hope not.

Thanks for the info...I was looking through the LSN volumes, but may have quit before I hit 1999.

Well, I wasn't sure. Although, the 50th's aren't the first H3s. Cheyenne has those, but the Red Devil's are a close second.

Can anyone tell me when/what tail # the APN-241 was first delivered on the plane from the factory to the USAF?

In the weather was also the plan...

I'll back tenten up on that, but I'm not sure of any book reference....maybe allison??