PerfManJ

Series 3.5, 8-bladed props, and EPCS will get you most of the way to J takeoff performance, but without the important safety systems on the J (stick pusher, side-slip warning, ATCS). Series 3.5 won't get all the way down to J fuel consumption. Then again, if you can get to 80% of a J at 20% of the cost, it's worth exploring.

FedEx? I heard they were interested in LM's recent attempt to convert C-5As for civil use (L-500). While the airframe may still have a current cert, its more than software that has changed since the full 382J cert in ~1998. A lot of hardware on the flight deck and engines has changed in 15 years. And they probably have to strip it down to at least match the takeoff and landing performance of the 382G with the same payload.

Hello all, Since joining earlier this year, I have made visits to the forums a part of my daily routine and contributed when I could. There is a lot of knowledge in this community and I learn something new every time I visit. For the past few months, I have been working on a few projects for my employer (Elite Electronic Engineering, Inc.) that I think will be very beneficial to the C-130 community. Specifically, I've been developing a Windows-based TOLD calculator and a TOLD training course for C-130J pilots. The initial offerings are specific to the C-130J, but I plan to develop similar offerings for the C-130E/H community in the future. Please visit our website for more information. My direct contact information is included on the website as well as some information on my C-130 background. You can also contact me by private message. I encourage you to send me any questions or feedback you may have since both projects are in the prototype phase and I want to make them as complete and useful as possible. I will also be attending the annual Hercules Operators Council (HOC) in Atlanta in a few weeks. I look forward to reading your comments! -Kevin

I suppose if the Herc was made of wood and only had to fly in ground effect... Awesome model of Credible Sport, Bill. It even has the extended dorsal and "horsals."

The empty weight was probably too high due to the boat hull and extra strengthening, which would have diminished the payload capacity. There was another amphibious C-130 design more recently that simply added floats to the existing airframe. I remember seeing some pictures of a wind tunnel model, but I think it suffered from the same issues: too much weight and drag.

I recall reading some L-400 design reports while at LM, but as far as I know none were ever built or tested. Credible Sport II, on the other hand, was a real aircraft which was used to test various STOL modifications on the C-130H. The program was a follow-on to Credible Sport without the rocket-assisted takeoff (RATO) and landing retro rockets in an attempt to make an operational STOL aircraft. Modifications included an additional flap segment (essentially making a double-slotted flap), extended chord control surfaces, and additional control augmentation. The STOL mods were very effective at lowering the takeoff and landing speeds and distances and allowing power-on landing approaches. Low-speed controllability was the main problem. LM had big plans for more modifications to be included in the Combat Talon II configuration, but they never happened. However, many of the STOL mods made their way on to Lockheed's High Technology Test Bed (HTTB) in one form or another.

Any more details on this mishap, or is it still being classified as a "hard landing"? The RAF did the same thing with a Mk 4 (C-130J-30) in Iraq in 2007...with a much larger explosion. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/2008/09/video-how-to-destroy-your-down.html

I found a few more interesting tidbits on the C-130J program that I thought I would add to the thread. The first is a video presentation on some of the technical challenges encountered during the J test program, given by LM Chief Test Pilot for Airlift Programs, Wayne Roberts. The second is a video of Mr. Roberts performing the C-130J air show routine, both in and out of the cockpit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3xkaqE3cS4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYH0j71Qr_k

As long as you are correcting CFL and takeoff distances for a rotation speed increase of 5 knots, then you're good to go. The definition of Vto is the speed when the aircraft becomes airborne (i.e. when the mains come off) which is the basis for the performance manual ground distances (brake release to liftoff). The Herk has a lot of powered lift, but it still has to be rotated to increase the angle-of-attack and achieve takeoff attitude to fly. Raising the nosewheel takes time, which adds speed and distance between rotation and liftoff. At 100 KGS, it only takes 1 second to eat up nearly 200 ft of runway.

@C-130 pilot: The definitions you posted are accurate in the civil world, but the military rules are a bit different, especially on the Herk. The biggest difference is that the "continued takeoff" distance (accel-go) is computed from brake release to liftoff, not to 35 ft (civil) or 50 ft (mil). Balanced and unbalanced field lengths are determined by comparing accel-go (distance to accel to a given speed, lose the critical engine, then continue to liftoff) and accel-stop (distance to accel to a given speed, lose the critical engine, and stop). The "balanced" condition occurs when accel-go = accel-stop and the "unbalanced" condition occurs when the engine failure speed is constrained by some other limit speed, such as VMCG or VROT. For the Herk, CFL is the greater of balanced and unbalanced field length. Balanced field length is defined as the distance required to accelerate to VCEF on all engines, experience a critical engine failure (#1) and continue to liftoff or stop IN THE SAME DISTANCE. This "balanced" condition occurs when accel-go = accel-stop and VCEF is unconstrained. Unbalanced field length is the distance required to accelerate to VCEF on all engines, experience a critical engine failure (#1) and continue to liftoff or stop. This "unbalanced" condition occurs when VCEF must be increased due to another limit speed, such as VMCG or VROT. See attached "scissor chart" for a visual explanation and similar thread (http://www.c-130hercules.net/showthread.php?t=1731) @Ronc: Do you rotate at charted VTO? If so, you may exceed your charted takeoff distances. According to the 1-1, rotation should occur at VTO - 5 knots. [ATTACH=CONFIG]3503[/ATTACH]

I toured one of the Channel Islands J's with MAFFS II installed when it stopped by the plant in Marietta a few years ago. Pretty cool setup with the nozzle protruding from the paratroop door. Did the someone buy the plans for the MAFFS II system when Aero Union went under? According to the auction notice all the intellectual property was up for sale.

With all the wildfire activity in the past few years, has USAF looked at expanding the MAFFS mission beyond a handful of ANG units?

As the existing L-100s age, they will get more and more expensive to maintain. If the support that LM currently provides for them is any indicator, I don't think they'll be rushing to offer an L-100J anytime soon. The margins are better in the military market. I guess my point was that the L-100s are going to wear out eventually and if the operators want to continue with their business model they will need an airframe that can perform that mission. Right now, there is nothing else that can do it except the C-130. Its a niche market, but one with demand. Then again, a lot of the existing L-100s are in foreign military service. Has LM taken that into account in their market analysis? The upgrades currently available to improve performance will require time and money to get STCs. EPCS and the Series 3.5 are the most likely candidates and they will provide fuel and maintenance cost savings. The Series 3.5 can also provide more takeoff power at high-hot conditions (off the 19,600 in-lb torque limit). I think that Rolls-Royce is working on FAA certification of the Series 3.5 upgrade and plans to offer it for the P-3 as well. The NP2000 prop is a major change with some safety impacts that would require significant effort. And I don't think UTC and LM are too interested in making that happen for the civil market. Another option is the drag-reducing "micro-vanes" developed by LM which cut the drag produced by the aft fuselage.

I know it would be expensive for the certification on a L-100J, but it was done once already. 70 airframes is 3 years of production and a 21% increase in total orders for the J, based on the current order book of 330. With the belt-tightening in the defense sector, it seems like a good hedge. My point earlier was that there is also no competition for an L-100J - nothing else out there can do that mission. But Embraer is partnering with Boeing and plans to offer a stretch civilian model of the KC-390, which is sized EXACTLY to compete with the C-130. Now is the time for LM to undercut them by getting to market first. Just my two cents.

The P-8 was an interesting choice for the mission. Swept wing jets can go higher and faster, but the maritime mission is all about radius and time-on-station/loiter. A straight-wing turboprop aircraft has advantages low-and-slow. As for the civil J, that has been discussed since the J program started. The original J was FAA certified but that configuration was never produced. With all the changes and upgrades over the years, it will be a significant effort to update the cert. Then again, the L-100s in service are going to need to be replaced at some point and there isn't really another airframe out there with the same capabilities, until Embraer's KC-390 comes along. LM has to decide if the market is there to justify the cost. In the meantime, the civil version of KC-390 could pull the rug out from under them.

Awesome, thanks for posting part 2. I'm interested to see if LM can sell any of the SeaHercs. I think the P-3 is a much better platform for the Maritime/ASW mission, but you can't get a new one of those.

302 AW has been busy since last week. Flying a lot even while some of the crew members' homes were under threat of the Black Forest fire. Keep up the good work. http://www.302aw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123352564

I came across this article the other day from the May 2013 edition of Combat Aircraft magazine. It is part 1 of 2 on the C-130J program. Lots of good info on the development program and all the upgrades since then. http://www.scribd.com/doc/142174301/Kaminsi-T-May-2013-Super-Hercules-Part-One-C-130J-Development-and-USAF-Service-Combat-Aircraft-Vol-14-No-5

Bob, can't help you with the squadron timelines, but I'm curious where you get the mishap data. Recently I tried to get some stats from the Air Force Safety Center with no luck. They publish Class A mishaps data on their website, but I was looking for more minor mishaps, like Class B and C. Thanks.

US Herk, I'm familiar with the RAF tech pubs - completely different from all other operators. They have their own Aircrew Manual (-1 of sorts) and Operating Data Manuals (ODM) for performance. Since the RAF was the launch customer for the J, they levied a requirement that it be FAA/JAA certified. That explains a lot of the civil limits and procedures in the books. DC10FE, All of the fuel quantity values in the RAF J ODM are in kilos, so I assume that the gauges are also in kilos. The conversions always screwed me up but you get used to it after a while.

As I recall, the C Mk3 is a stretch H, so it has that in common with the J-30 (or C Mk4 in RAF jargon). The RAF birds have always been a little different. Maybe their engineering organization cleared the Mk3 beyond Lockheed's limits...

No problem, Bill. I never understood why the J-30 was cleared for the higher 2.5G takeoff weight limit but not the J. Both aircraft have the same overload gross weight limit (175,000 lb).

Both the J and J-30 have the same fuel tank layout and roughly the same volume as the Es and Hs (some volume is displaced by explosive suppressant foam). They both have provisions for externals, but the baseline configuration is without externals, which I assume is what the Almanac data are based on. When carrying 35,000 lb payload, the max takeoff weight limit (155,000 lb) is reached before the tanks are full on the J. However, the max takeoff weight of the J-30 is higher (164,000 lb) so it can put more fuel in the tanks with the same payload, even after accounting for the higher empty weight.

You are correct that the J-30 has a higher empty weight (about 4,000 lb), but it also has a higher max takeoff gross weight (164,000 lb vs. 155,000 lb for the J). That means about an extra 5,000 lb of fuel for the J-30 with the same payload. With no FE, the pilots do the TOLD card...if at all. TOLD calcs are done on the Mission Computer based on input for the pilots.

The article says AMC is going for the weight savings so I don't think they'll have paper backups for everything. Personally, I think it would be difficult to run the 1-1 charts on a screen; I never liked doing it on a laptop or desktop computer screen. iPads have a lot of potential and civil operators (including major airlines) already use them in place of paper pubs. Any application developed to compute TOLD, W&B, etc. would be thoroughly tested and vetted compared to the paper pubs before implementation. The J has an on-board system for computing TOLD that only requires minor mitigation. But in the end, any tool requires the right operator - you still have to understand the data and how to compute it yourself.