I accept that loss of some oil does not necessarily result in a loss of pressure, but a total loss of oil must result in a loss of oil pressure. Also, loss of oil quantity can most certainly show up as an increase in oil temperature, just as loss of coolant will result in an increase in coolant temperature in liquid cooled engines.
Not true.
I can tell you that I've experienced both; complete oil loss, as well as complete coolant loss. Lose the coolant, all of it, from an engine block, and you generally won't see a coolant temperature rise, but a fall...because there is no coolant passing the temperature probe to indicate a rise. Likewise, I've seen oil temperature drop to zero and remain the same with oil loss. Both are possible, and both do happen. Furthermore, if one waits until one is seeing an oil temperature increase, depending on the nature of the problem, the system, probe placement and condition, etc, then it may be far too late to worry about the loss; one may have other issues with which to content.
I accept that loss of some oil does not necessarily result in a loss of pressure, but a total loss of oil must result in a loss of oil pressure.
Not necessarily the case either, for a number of possible reasons. In the case previously cited in the Garrett (and the reason for introducing it into the conversation in the first place) was to provide an example of a situation involving oil loss with no accompanying indication beyond the failure to provide torque. In that situation, I fuel chopped the motor after the aircraft came to a rest, and at that time there was no elevated oil temperature (given that there was no oil remaining). There was no evidence of oil loss of pressure loss until the torque failed to respond. Oil pressure was adequate up until that time, though there was no more oil to scavenge off the failed bearing seal.
Further, there was no core lock or seizure resulting from that loss, and the manufacturer indicated that the engine could be expected to continue running for a half hour without oil.
The indication of oil loss wasn't quantity, as it didn't exist. The indication of pressure loss wasn't the oil pressure gauge, which continued to read oil pressure. It was the loss of torque.
Guppy, You have not been reluctant to "put down" aerobat77 as being a troll.
Call a spade a spade. In this particular case, the poster not only admitted to such, but told us that he or she is at peace with the fact. No surprise there at all.
I also note that you choose to not respond to my comments regarding reduction gearbox lubrication on C130 and P3/Electra aircraft.
I addressed the gearbox lubrication in the T56 several times, though perhaps you missed it. However, since you brought it up, let's do it again.
The reduction gear box on both, however, is most certainly lubricated using engine oil (MIL-L-7808) which is supplied from the same oil tank as the engine.
The T56 powerplant, using the Hamilton Standard 54H60 propeller assembly as an integral part of the powerplant, utilizes an entirely separate pressurized sump for the propeller and gearbox. The propeller assembly is designed for, and uses H-5606 hydraulic fluid.
For the past 25 years or so, the USAF has used different fluids, under approval. H-83282 H-87257 are also in use: these fluids are newer specs for H5606. All three are hydrocarbon-based hydraulic fluid, the latter two are synthetic base. I operated A models and can tell you with absolute certainty that the sumps were separate, pressurized, and utilized H-5606.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...FILE/A39CE.pdf
You'll note, specifically, per the TCDS (A39CE), the propeller oil called out. You'll note that this isn't a 30 year old revision, either, but a current TCDS, with current specifications. Therefore, while one might cite the age of the airplane and suggest that once upon a time 5606 was used, the fact is that it's still called out, and still in use, in a separate lubrication and supply system to the engine oil. The propeller is a separate assembly, mechanically and physically attached, made by a different manufacturer, using a separate, dedicated pressurized sump and separate pump and lubrication/actuation system.
Propeller Oil
(1) Hamilton Standard, propeller - MIL-H-5606B
(2) Aero Products, Propeller -Penola Aviation Instrument Oil, Government No. 1191X, Manufactured by ESSO Standard Oil Company, Type P-Q Rust Preventative No. 107, Government No. 6603X, manufactured by American Oil Company or Government No. 3106 or 3106X manufactured by Humble Oil and Refining Company, FSN 9150-473-9849
Would that be the specification to which you're referring that doesn't use 5606 for operation of the Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propeller installation on the T56 in the C-130? The one that calls for H5606? Now, given that the same specification calls out Mil-7808 for the engine oil, and given that one really shouldn't mix H5606 and Mil-7808, why do you suppose the manufacturer (and FAA) call for two different fluids for the engine and propeller, if indeed they share a common sump and lubrication system? They do not.
The Oil quantity, Oil temperature, Engine Oil Pressure, Reduction Gearbox Oil Pressure and Oil Cooler Flap position were all provided with indicators as well as a "Eng Oil Low Quantity" annunciator which could be triggered by any of the four engines.
Seeing as you mentioned it, a shutdown isn't warranted with a low oil indication in the C-130 unless it has secondary indications, such as fluctuating RPM or one can actually see the leak and verify the loss. Further, the T-56 is not typical of the other powerplants under discussion, in that an engine oil loss doesn't directly impact propeller operation, and the propeller has additional safeguards built-in for protection. Further, an engine oil loss won't cause the propeller to feather, though one can certainly expect catastrophic damage to the T56 if the oil goes.
Inappropriate engine in-flight engine shutdowns for oil propeller oil quantity indications are a known issue in the airplane, and I've seen and shut down the motors for actual hydraulic issues involving incorrect propeller overservice action, and failure to secure the lid on the pressurized sump (the ham standard assembly on the T56 uses an atmospheric, and pressurized sump...neither of which are not part of the engine lubrication system).
Guppy, is this the NTSB report for your engine failure?
No, it is not. The NTSB was not involved in my incident, classed by the investigators (OAS/OAM, not NTSB) as an "Incident With Potential". I was operating a Pratt powered Dromader (M18T-45R) on the day that incident occurred, but I was in Nevada. I flew some fires out of Burns later that season in an AT-802 (PT-6-67AG). I have, however flown the airplane in question, the one in the report you cited. It used a TPE-331-11 motor, rather than the -10 motor that failed in my incident.
None of us are infallible sir.
Very good (and entirely irrelevant), as no one here has made any such claim.