Crog

Mrrr...

Long Range: How can I go the farthest with the gas I have on board. Though not perfectly applicable to a C-130, this is what you hear referred to in other aircraft as L/Dmax. There are variances in how aerodynamic experts look at the blown wing, but for the purpose of this discussion, close enough. Example: You are low on fuel and trying to make it to a destination - you would slow to Maximum Specific Range Speed (the "peak" of the appropriate chart, max distance per pound fuel) Maximum Endurance: How can I stay in the air for the longest time. Again, not a perfectly applicable to a C-130, but close to what is referred to in other aircraft as Vx Max. This is the point at which I am using the minimal required power to stay in the air (Maximum excess power available). Example: The airfield I am going to is on a remote island that's fogged in and I need to stay in the air longer while the weather improves. So, on a C-130, Maximum range is slower than normal cruise, and maximum endurance is slower than maximum range speed.

So, you're saying just those particular CG models have a placard that says 165? I have personally seen the 168 placard on a 96 model H3. If 168 is a B-model number, why did the USAF change it in the books to 165? Do any other users adhere to 168 vs. 165 as an Ops Limit?

OK, I'm stumped: USAF users are told the landing gear extension/retraction limit is 165 KIAS. So why does the placard behind the yoke say 168 KIAS?

Lived NW of the base - Woodlake. Loved it as a single guy, but with kids I might look into Southern Pines/Pinehurst

S9-BAT is no more. Don't know how many hours she had on that last landing, but she's done flying. Pictures of her demise will undoubtedly make it on the internet over the next few days.

My favorite: During taxi in LSGI. One knob up, then all to ground idle. Feel the growl!

Muff, LCLA is not the "Christmas Drop". For the record, there may be some fossils who've done both!

Are you talking about the black/white striped area forward of the escape hatch and under the "stars and bars" - about 3' long? If so, that is the NVG compatible formation strip lighting. I believe this originally was a request from AFSOC for the MC/HC, but LMCO made it standard in the late 90's on all Herks - just about the time the last H3's/first J's are rolling out. It's on both sides of the aircraft and the tail. Although the black stripe might look like a shadow, these lights are flush with the aircraft skin.

Don, Read about LAIRCM here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/laircm.htm The fairings are on each side between the paratroop doors and the stab (about where the "stars and bars" are). There are also some added "horns" over the cockpit and beaver tail. Found these photos using The Google: http://www.440aw.afrc.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=692

Is this the first non-combat loss of a J?

mongo wrote: Why not? OK, this might seem like a stretch, but.... Part of the AF safety process is protecting the investigation and those investigate through the concept of privilege. Simply, this is supposed to encourage those involved to \"fess up\" vs. \"clam up\", so we can thoroughly and quickly find out what happened and prevent the next accident. I have seen the process from the USAF and NTSB sides, and can tell you that the military process, though not perfect and far from \"The Guys in the White Hats\" they advertise, is a much faster, generally lawyer-free process with the mission in mind. So, you\'re a smart guy with military furnished C-130 training. Hypothetically: An airplane lands gear up at Little Rock, and a someone shoots a cell phone video of the flight deck and drops it on the internet. You see the video, see the gear handle is up, and make on-line comments and conclusions, based on the fact that you are a military trained C-130 expert. Now, the guy who dropped the video on the internet violated privilege, but you have also contributed to the intent of this violation by furnishing expert information indicating the crew error. I love talking about accidents. I think it\'s a smart and healthy way to learn and prevent mistakes. I\'m looking forward to the report on this one especially, but I don\'t want to contribute to the on-line banter for two reasons: 1) What I may or may not know could violate the above, and 2) I hate to look stupid when my on-line conclusions turn out to be dead wrong.

Puredrenalin wrote: I\'m a 100% you\'re wrong. Your choices are AFRC or AD at Pope, not ANG....and, I\'d be hesitant to go public on \"90% sure\" discussing anything about this incident.

Don, I noticed that too! I heard a rumor from a guy that knows a guy whose sister went to elementary school with a guy who was at the ops desk that leaving the battery on pretty much ended the FE\'s career. My source assured me that even though the investigation gave the FE a \"pat on the back\", that person is most definitely no longer an FE.;)

AMPTestFE wrote: Sorry to tell you, your \"little bird\" has it dead wrong. I heard it different from a \"big bird\", and I can tell you that is absolutely untrue (in your defense, you did state the info was \"third hand\"). IIRC, the incident occurred at ~1930L, which was the height of the evening \"push\" at MSP. If there was any external pressure to adjust the landing time, it appears the crew completely disregarded it. I also believe the FAA had to divert/delay commercial flights until they could ensure the crossing runways were safe.