AMPTestFE

Snow Aviation\'s data is from an aircraft that has been aerodynamically modified. It\'s not useable. Ditto for the Hawkeyes. There may be some difference on the LC-130, but not nearly as much. Not sure about any other tests. Yes, it took a week to get an engine through the standard AF supply system. Channel Islands doesn\'t have C-130Hs, therefore, we can\'t get an engine from them. Point Magu is Navy; the AF supply system doesn\'t work that way. The torque doesn\'t change, it\'s the efficiency in which the prop utilizes the same torque value. Any other questions?

This is a National Guard program. We\'re here to support. Until AMC comes up with the desire and the funds, it\'s their (ANG) show.

The reason we\'re being so quick with the testing is the airplane has to go back to WY to deploy.

This is one of those systems questions from back in the day. When the crew performs a ground egress, why don\'t the props all go all the way to feather? Well, in some cases(like this one), they don\'t have the APU running. So when that 4th generator goes off-line, there\'s nothing to finish the feathering process. That\'s why they aren\'t all the way in feather.

The performance results we\'re coming up with at this time do not seem to be even close to Hamilton Sundstrand\'s 25% guarantee. Next week we\'re de-modifying the aircraft & hopefully perform some of the same tests so that we can objectively compare numbers. Performance aside, I love the way this aircraft feels. The noise & vibration levels are reduced in a big way. Maintenance would benefit as well. There shouldn\'t be much of a reason to ever change the prop anymore until you have to pull the motor, due to the ability to change individual blades & the demonstrated reliability. Anyway, I wish I could make the call, but I can\'t. We\'ll see.

64-0541 to be exact. The GTC door actuator failed open in McChord, so I got my one chance to to that particular \"hostile\" repair.

There are inverters available for this. The AMP will come with one to power the maintenance laptop. Plugs right in to the old 28V plugs up front to give you household power.

Delivered that bad boy myself in either 2002 or 2003. Wonder what will happen to it when those guys move to Elmendorf...they are still moving, right?

Ok, the EPCS can be a stand-alone mod to operate with the 54H60, but is required if you want the NP2000 props. We haven\'t collected actually performance numbers yet, too early. These new props are in fact mounted on the existing -15 motors that the airplane came to us with, with the exception of #3, which is heavily instrumented to record the differences in stresses due to the new prop. I was told the mod could be done in around a month.

Dan Wilson wrote: The last time I saw, there were only 4 MC-Es at March. The idea is that the 711th cannot/will not keep all the MC-Es. This is purely a funding/PAA issue. Secondly, even if they did store them at Duke instead of March, what happens to the airplanes they can\'t crew-up for hurri-vacs? They just don\'t have the man-power anymore since the 8th switched to that funny-lookin thing & moved. Pete

Ok, obviously there\'re a few of you guys.

Boomhauer....is this the Boomhauer who just got promoted?

I would highly recommend the new EPCS (electronic propeller control system), if not the whole NP2000 prop package. The EPCS by itself makes for an extremely stable prop in about any condition. Initially, the NP2000 really quiets the plane down & reduces vibration. There is some power increase, but we haven\'t gotten to the stage of documenting specifics. We\'re almost finished performing the power-of & on stalls. No big surprises there. A maintenance benefit is the ability to change out blades without changing the whole prop. If you want some navigation accuracy & communications enhancments, Boeing is working on an AMP lite that won\'t cost as much. My two cents.

I remember adding 15kts to VMCG, but not 25. The investigation findings really slammed Lockheed for conducting flight test without putting trained flight test crew members on the plane. The main blame was centered on the pilot\'s rudder inputs, if I remember the report correctly.

Little bird who was present at the ops desk that day in Minn told me the pilots were talked into coming back right away. This was to avoid impacting the Northwest schedules. Whether or not this effected the outcome, who knows. Seems the advisors were all NW pilots on the side....or C-130 pilots on the side. Either way, that\'s 3rd hand, so take it as much.

Word is an 86 model. That kinda narrows it down, if that\'s accurate.

I sure like that radome better...too bad that plane isn\'t still around. BTW, I wonder what it was like to hop on top of that beast on a hot sunny day & do any kind of work?

The tests are being done on a Cheyenne H3....standard Herc. Vibration seems to be significantly reduced. I can\'t give you any kinds of numbers, as we are way early in test phases. I really want to get some cruise numbers to see how more efficient they are. More to come...

Just flew the 8-bladed props yesterday...wow! The noise & vibration levels were way down; you could take your headset off up on the flight deck & have a conversation without yelling. We performed full stalls at 0, 20, 50, 70 & 100% flap settings. There was no hint of the nasty wing-over tendency from the J-model. This was the second flight so far, no problems whatsoever with the entire prop system.

In reference to \"Normal brakes\", it implies fully operational anti-skid. So, when you turn off the anti-skid, it\'s no longer a \"normal\" system. The only difference between the normal brakes & emergency brakes is essentially then only the system supplying the pressure. Yes, the intent is you leave the brake select switch in normal unless you have reason to believe there\'s a problem with the utility hydraulic system. Just turn the anti-skid switch off. Pete

You were getting close to the answer in your first post. Loss, or partial loss of the ESS AC bus could cause problems with the Anti Skid system. It\'s been found that in a couple of instances, faulty power caused the Anti Skid to act as though there was a skid on all the wheels, thus causing loss of normal brakes. I\'m not sure which flight manual you\'re using, but it should include the step of turning the Anti Skid off in the corrective action, like ours does.

HStech wrote: Who is \"We\"?

Of course, the answer is right in front of you! The flight performance manual is flawed! Seriously, I can\'t tell you I\'ve ever noticed that. How was Vegas?

Your guess is as good as anybody\'s with regard to AFSOC. I think the H-1 is back in the hunt! I\'ve even heard that a select FEW E-models are being considered. I know of at least one at LRANG (the first E-model) that has very few hours.

That was probably a Marine tanker.