Question for the C130J types

[clicker]

Can someone settle an argument for me please.

If carrying no payload could a c-130J make it up to FL430?

The only details I can find all quote around FL310 with a payload.

Thanks clicker

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

OVERALL CLASS RECORDS - TURBOPROP ENGINE
Grob/E-Systems Egrett-1 - Altitude without payload (53,574 ft)
Grob/E-Systems Egrett-1 - Altitude with 1,000 kg payload (51,023 ft)
Grob/E-Systems Egrett-1 - Altitude in horizontal flight (53,276)


So feasible i would think looking at turboprop figures.

Pressurisation is the problem without going onto Oxygen.

Actually probably not.

http://www.c-130j.ca/index.php?page=worldrecords&lang_id=1&page_id=36#world_alt

Can't see the zero payload height on that page for the J

NEW RECORD Country USA Altitude 40,386 feet Aircraft Lockheed Martin C-130J Date 5/14/99 Details ESTABLISHES these records:
Absolute altitude with following payloads: 0 kg; 1,000 kg; 2,000 kg; 5,000 kg; 10,000 k


Not sure if that is the zero payload height.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Turning the underfloor heating up to "Medium-Well" should give you an extra couple of hundred feet...:E

[clicker]

Thanks Gents,

Sounds like I'll have to cough up a pint ot two.

Oh wel,l I'll make sure to have a few myself.

clicker

[cockanelli]

Approximately how many hours a month on average are you guys getting? I realise it comes in feast or famine but I'm just looking for a rough guess.

[lurkposition]

On a trial (Hercules C1) in 1982 we cruised at FL450- not much on board.
Main problem,in addition to the pressurisation, was gearbox oil pressures believe it or not!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

And it's been going slowly but surely down hill ever since Lurker :E

[Safeware]

Crikey, that's some endurance :)

sw

[Sinjmajeep]

Just think in 25 years time you will then be able to say On a Hercules C1 in 2007 we cruised at FL200- not much on board.

[TheInquisitor]

In the days Pre-RVSM, I took a K (Mk 1 IIRC) up to FL370. Empty, not alot of gas, and it was 'kin cold all the way up. It was also a particularly airtight 'frame, so I just kept going up until we hit max diff at a cabin alt of 8,000ft. It was late night / early morning, so no traffic to get in the way of.

Shame the J is limited to FL280 by not having enough / correctly reporting altimeters. It goes up like a rocket and then hits an administrative glass ceiling!

[Sinjmajeep]

Shame the J is limited to FL280Not in non RVSM airspace it isn't.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

And they're off...............:E

[TheInquisitor]

Shame the J is limited to FL280 by not having enough / correctly reporting altimeters.

T'was what I was told by a J driver. Apparently one of the altimeters has too low a 'reporting resolution' or some such. They cured the problem on th VC10 by fitting a 3rd altimeter, I'm led to believe.

[120class]

RVSM Trials were successfully completed over Strumble HMU last year using revised ADCs that incorpated new PE data. I guess that RVSM clearance for the C130J is just probably lower down the IPT's priority list right at the moment.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

TI, not sure if it was fitted with a 3rd, was it not just a replacement of the primary with one of greater accuracy? IIRC all the components of your ADS/Autopilot have to be capable of +/- 100 (or is it 50?) ft at the correct range of FL's?

[TheInquisitor]

May well have been just that. We had a similar problem on the K when TCAS was fitted - the solution being to replace the primary altimeter and the RADALT.

Not related to RVSM though, as under normal circumstances the K is never going to get anywhere near RVSM airspace - although that limitation is more down to lack of a pax oxy system than a performance issue!

[BEagle]

The VC10 has always had 3 altimeters. Plus another for the navigator and, in some marks, another for the air engineer.

To be compliant with RVSM requirements, the original main altimeter system was replaced with one of greater accuracy. Fleet compliance was granted for the C1K after a few HMU runs; however, every single VC10K had to do its own HMU run as the first few aircraft showed unacceptable scatter of results.

The programme also introduced the GPS/FMS/LINS system to meet MNPS requirements after Omega died.

Perhaps it was the downward extension of RVSM airspace, as well as its extension across most of the Northern Hemisphere, which caught the Hercules people by surprise?

[TheInquisitor]

Indeed it seems it was. The J was designed for cruise in the low-to-mid 30s, where it has outrageous fuel efficiency and TAS (at least that's how it was sold to the RAF). It gets from 0-FL280 very rapidly, where it sits burning fuel at a rate not that much less than the K, severely limiting the range that can be achieved in a crew day.
Yet another thing that shows up poor planning in procurement - they could have anticipated requiring RVSM clearance alot sooner. It's not as if major modification is required. Sad that, 8 years on from introduction, we are only now approaching where we should have been from the start.
The J procurement and introduction to service should be made into a case study of how not to do it - there's no doubt the aircraft is a massive leap forward in capability, sadly hamstrung initially by piss-poor back-office support.

Incidentally, what are the requirements for MNPS? Does the '10 have 3 nav systems?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"Sad that, 8 years on from introduction, we are only now approaching where we should have been from the start."

I wonder how long it will take to shake out the bugs from the A400M when it eventually comes into service. With our woeful record on the procurement front one can only wonder how the corporate lawyers are chuckling with anticipation as yet another "pup" has been sold to an unsuspecting buyer :rolleyes:

[Kengineer-130]

Well Seldom,
i take it you have heard they are pulling the same stunt with the A400M's that they did with the J's. I.e turning down the std fit roller flip floor to keep our old manual role equiptment to save a few £££ :ugh::rolleyes:.... Obviouisly 10 minuites of the loadies time to press a few buttons to re-role the aircraft is much too easy, what you really need is a 4 hour role and a team of 5-6 lineys and a truck full of heavy battered old roller conveyer that dosn't fit very well :ugh:

[Kengineer-130]

sure about that??? So by the time you have sent someone to get it, put it onto the aircraft, tidy up afterwards etc etc? :ugh:

[TheInquisitor]

It takes alot longer than that to dismantle all the seats and put them away before you can lay the roller - assuming they were down. Role changes are ALWAYS a major ball-ache.

it is part of the aircraft role fit and remains on-board permanently
Er....no it doesn't!

[TheInquisitor]

So where does it go when you're in 19A 2-39 (or 34 if you're a Mk1 / 5) or 13C?

I've flown plenty of 'frames that have not had roller onboard anywhere.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Despite your handle you don't seem to be all that inquisitive, in fact you seem to be down right confused :rolleyes:

The roller on the J model is part of the basic fit, is accounted for in the -9
is included in the basic weight and index calculation and remains on the aircraft at all times.

When not on the floor it is stacked up to 3 high on top of the permanently fitted -4a side guidance system and as AIDU states it takes about 5-10 minutes for a couples of guys to lay or take up.

So your statement "I've flown plenty of 'frames that have not had roller on board anywhere" is actually pants and I would humbly suggest a couple of sessions with the latest copy of Jane's to help you sort out your recognition issues :rolleyes:

[Wycombe]

Never ever saw the "front-enders" helping with a re-role in my time (not that I'm saying I'd expect them to).

Plenty of times when the Muppets got on with it (esp. down-route) whilst the LM kept them fed and watered, and concentrated on "paperwork" :ok:

[TheInquisitor]

Guess I'm getting some J / K confusion here then - I'm fairly certain that the same doesn't apply to the K, as I have on more than one occasion had no roller on board when I could really have done with it.

Never ever saw the "front-enders" helping with a re-role in my time
Really? You need to kick your front-ender's arses then - I've helped out with plenty of re-roles and they're a major ball-ache. It takes at least 30 mins to go from full side & centre seats to full roller, with EVERYBODY mucking in - but again, this might only be applicable to the K.

[wz662]

The J floor ended up as Dash4a after Lockheed threw out Skydel as un- American. The movers then insisted on Dash 4 as everone else in the world had it and it was 'modern' - (it isn't, its as old as Skydel and not half as flexible) when what they really should have had was the ECHS flip up roller underfloor winch et al. Dash 4a is dangerous I can point you in the direction of accident reports where the floor design led to the loss of the aircarft and crew. Now the A400M on the otherhand is being ruined by Airbus without any assistance from anyone else - even though the users have tried to replicate the Beverley/Noratlas/C119 (it is a multinational project after all). Airbus are great at civil freighters and this is what they are making the A400M into - a two crew freighter and neither of them is a loadie. :ugh:

[TheInquisitor]

Thanks for the education!

As AIDU suggests, I think I'll stick to looking out of the front windows!

[Good Mickey]

conversation normally goes like this...

front enders - "would you like a hand with the re-role Loady?"

alm - "no thanks, we're in a rush!"

GM

[highveldtdrifter]

wx662,

Our wonderful procurement people decided to buy the J with no cargo handling system (ECHS or -4a) because they thought it would be cheaper and promote commonality if they lashed up the Skydel. When we got the ac this proved impractical (but predictable). It was nothing to do with Lockheed, we messed up all by ourselves. At that stage it was too late to fit the ECHS so we ended up with the -4a. That said, it has proved flexible and efficient, there are pros and cons with both systems, but on balance the -4a is probably better for the users.

As for the A400M, there is plenty of RAF LM input to this program and I have not heard of any serious problems relating to the role equipment.

As regards the original subject of this thread, the lack of drive to get RVSM cert prior to delivery was a major own goal, just like not getting external fuel tanks. However, we will get clearance soon - the delay was due to a software error in the (UK made) ADC. In non-RVSM areas I have often flown the ac at F330, where it sniffs the fuel and still manages a good TAS.

[US Herk]

Skydel is indeed flexible, but horribly manual-labour intensive. I too helped a re-role a time or two in my short time on exchange.

"Hey loady, need some help? Or do you want it done right?" ;):}

Another nice feature of the -4 floor is those 463L pallets that slide on also slide into the C17 w/o disassembling or floor loading or any of the other nonsense skydel required.

Strat air to tac air to user...463L pallets work well & have been doing so in USAF since Viet Nam - one common pallet system for entire AT fleet.


As for altitude reporting on the J - I'm just guessing here, but doubt the actual altimeters themselves have anything to do with it. Would likely suspect all is converted from an ADT or three & RVSM is principally a money/certification issue - could've been done by Lockheed (for a fee, no doubt).

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"Skydel is indeed flexible"..................go on then as you have got me interested now :confused:

[herkman]

Perhaps I can help with some of the confusion on the J model rollers.

The RAAF C130J's as you know are stretched.

Are so I believe are most of the RAF ones.

When the aircraft were in production at least, there was no flip over roller developed for the stretched J models. Neither the RAAF or RAF were prepared to pay the high developement costs.

End result was at build time (it may have now changed) no flip over rollers for stretched J's. However on standard length airframes the flip over rollers were available.

The RAAF apparently cooled off on flip over rollers, as experience with other aircraft (the C141 mainly) indicated they could be a high maintenace item because of dirt and sand.

However this appears to fly in the eye of the C17 experience, where their rollers appear to give little trouble.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[startermotor]

"However this appears to fly in the eye of the C17 experience, where their rollers appear to give little trouble".

I might be wrong, but i would imagine the C17 doesn't quite do the same role in theatre as the C130J/K.

[US Herk]

I might be wrong, but i would imagine the C17 doesn't quite do the same role in theatre as the C130J/K.

Perhaps 99 SQN doesn't, but the USAF C17 are doing more & more TAC AT.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what your role is, if you're in the sandbox, you get sand & grit in everything anyway.

[herkman]

On a RAAF C130A, I was detailed to fly with the Wing Commander, to see how high we could get a C130.

The A model being the lightest of the C130 models, would have weighed at 55,000lbs plus crew and fuel.

So at the top of the climb would have weighed about 65,000 lbs and at 37,000 ft, she just would not climb anymore.

The boss said well now we know and we went home. A model only had 3750HP engines, in the E model the best I ever saw was 38,000 ft.

I think the problem flying the J model high, is your speed would not suit mingling with the jets.

Regards

Col Tigwell