AMPTestFE

Holding my breath.....not!

WTF is a C130J helicopter turbofan engine?

The Reno airplanes are now retired...at least the ones we had (0475, 0476) We have 0324 for a little longer...but not much.

We (MTANG) have been approved for the prop & eng upgrades...finally. But it will be a couple of years before these are done. I keep looking for info on the AMP increments, but all I find is a deep black hole.

Not that I'm aware of. AFSOC's decision to pull out of the AMP game is a big reason the whole thing fell apart as we knew it. Lower number of airplanes to modify only increased the per-tail cost. Some guy with AFSOC called me a few years ago wondering what AMCs plans were for the 5 at LRF....mentioned interest from AFSOC in grabbing those for whatever reason. That really set me off in a bad mood!

Wasn't 0012 the one that had two separate incidences of runaway elevator trim?

Ok, so I'm out at base X flying our 4 '74 models and notice a trend. After climbing up to our cruise ceiling, we can't true out until an hour or two later....so I started running some other charts. I first would watch our TAS until we just hit 300, then took a snapshot of average torque, gross weight, OAT, alt, etc. I would then run the IAS for 300TAS chart, which might have come out with something like 12,000 in lbs, before the drag correction. On page 2 (drag correction), I would correct for our advertised ~+20 index, and would come up with a value much less than what it just took us to creep up to 300 TAS. So then, I would come in backwards with my average actual torque on the left, then intersect with the charted value from the bottom. For each of our 4 airplanes, the result varied from a +70 to +60 drag index. On subsequent flights, I would calculate our cruise ceiling with this new value. When we'd get to top of climb, guess what...we'd true out almost exactly at 300. I know some will ask about engine performance, but this method takes that out of the equation. Torque is torque, regardless of engine performance values. And no, we didn't forget the flaps.... So....has anyone else noticed the H being too draggy like this? I'm wondering if the engineers mis-calculated the drag value of LAIRCM or something.

Thanks Tiny...was wondering if anyone would know a real answer.

With no fwd cargo door seams, my guess is an E.

Carry a 164,000lb payload? Wow, that J sure is an upgrade!

I don't know currently, been in theater lately. I heard it's been chilly there.

Can anyone tell me why our USAF H1's are wired so that you can only see the SCNS mode advisory lights if you turn the nav instrument lighting rheostat up? It turns out that these lights are wired into the dimmer rheostat. So if you were flying during daylight, and you wanted to see the SCNS status lights, you'd have to turn the instrument lights on. This seems wrong to me, especially since the pilot/copilot advisory lights are not wired this way.

Not all tinyclark. Dual brakes in small GA planes were not standard back in the day. I used to fly a '68 Piper that only had brakes on the left.

Oldest in the inventory? Really....74-1671 just logged two combat missions yesterday, bringing it's airframe hours to around 24,440. I don't think those H2's at Maxwell are older.

Bob, I think the 50th closed down last year. The 714th TRS is an administrative only squadron, there to deal with the AETC students. The old phase 1 & 2 training is still around, it's just not as prevalent as it used to be. As far as H training...There are so few phase 1 only students now, so the norm is the full training. The pilots actually get their phase 1 checkride in the sim, without ever flying the airplane. Since I left the Rock in 2014, the H academics have changed dramatically as well.

Are the Js being built with RNP compliance?

There is a note in the USAF flight manual that addresses this.

Hell, if this had happened just a few years earlier, and I somehow knew the AD was gonna get rid of the legacy Herc, I would have seriously thought about it.

The forward cargo door hyd pump was also used to hydraulically extend the nose landing gear in case of utility failure, that's why we always checked the fluid level, even though the door had been sealed for decades. I'm not sure when the alternate NLG extension system was changed (maybe with the '62 series?), but I could see them deleting the door prior to redesigning that system. I was always told the reservoir didn't hold enough to get the nose gear extended fully, that you had to have a can or two handy.

If you have time, why not. However, you have both the friction washer AND the MLG gearbox brakes there to hold those mains down...assuming everything mechanically is still connected.

Thick tape....and the the back lights turned off. Unfortunately, this is what we still have to live with since the AF didn't want their AMP.

Pffft, I tried to get these guys to let a few of us rent it for FAA checkrides...no such luck.

No, those props eventually were taken off, then used for the AF testing at Edwards...according to what I was told.

I was just at the Frankfurt airport last month....nothing much left on that side of the runways.

ugh...hard to see 62st in place of the mighty 61st...sorry, I know everyone makes typos Green Hornets!