Hercules Military and civy differences.

[fastener]

Can anyone list the main differences between the military and civy versions of the mighty Hercky bird? Why did they never appear on the G-reg?

[Nippon1]

Two main reasons why the C-130 was never accepted on the UK register....First it did not have a stick shaker and second it only had 2 fire bottles....CAA required one bottle per engine

[411A]

Two main reasons why the C-130 was never accepted on the UK register....First it did not have a stick shaker and second it only had 2 fire bottles....CAA required one bottle per engine



One quite possible other consideration...wing box carry-through structure...not ideal, from a civil standpoint.

UKCAA...right on this one.:}

[fastener]

Many thanks guys.

[Kerosene Kraut]

Brits had Belfasts.

[Siguarda al fine]

I believe that the Hyd system on the C 130 has no redundancy.......................a very dangerous machine all round. I loved jumping from them though during many nite time ops.

[Lowrider2]

Neither does the 747 but still a very safe machine as is the Herc.
Not a better airplane in the world for what it does.

[Trojan1981]

I believe that the Hyd system on the C 130 has no redundancy
True, a couple of years ago I was an AD on a RAAF H model departing Richmond when we suffered a burst hydraulic line shortly after t/o. The pilots turned 180 Deg and landed on the same runway. Total time airbourne was less than a minute but shortly after touchdown control of all hydraulic control surfaces was lost.(so one of the pilots told me):eek:

[Kengineer-130]

I believe that the Hyd system on the C 130 has no redundancy.......................a very dangerous machine all round. I loved jumping from them though during many nite time ops.


That is possibly the most stupid comment I have ever heard :ugh::mad:... I have been working and flying on Hercs for the last 9 years, If anything has system redundancy the Hercules has... 2 completely seperate duel hydrualic systems for the primary flying controls, then manual reversion, the utility system has full mechanical over-ride should the electrics fail, so you can still get the flaps and gear down, and also have manual wind-down for the flaps and landing gear. If it STILL dosn't work you can free fall the gear, and if it STILL dosn't work you can disconnect the screwjacks and allow the gear to fall under it's own weight....

The aircraft can fly on one engine at a push, and will work with zero power, as the engines are fully mechanical. So I think I would rarther be on a Herc than any other aircraft in dire straights.

[fastener]

Hydraulic system sounds similar to the L-188 Electra. Hey, Dire Straights.....that would be a good name for a rock band.

[JammedStab]

That is possibly the most stupid comment I have ever heard :ugh::mad:... I have been working and flying on Hercs for the last 9 years, If anything has system redundancy the Hercules has... 2 completely seperate duel hydrualic systems for the primary flying controls, then manual reversion, the utility system has full mechanical over-ride should the electrics fail, so you can still get the flaps and gear down, and also have manual wind-down for the flaps and landing gear. If it STILL dosn't work you can free fall the gear, and if it STILL dosn't work you can disconnect the screwjacks and allow the gear to fall under it's own weight....

The aircraft can fly on one engine at a push, and will work with zero power, as the engines are fully mechanical. So I think I would rarther be on a Herc than any other aircraft in dire straights.

Perhaps your Herc's are different than the civil ones I flew. Manual reversion? Our books said never to simulate loss of hydraulic boost assistance as it could result in "an unusual attitude and requirements for high manual forces to move the flight controls". Also, "Greatly increased forces will be required to move a control for which hydraulic assistance has been turned off"(such as after a booster assembly having failed in a hardover).

These examples are where you still have the hydraulic fluid in the lines but little or no hydraulic power available. When parked, try moving the flight controls on the ground with only the hydraulic suction boost pumps on and then with no hydraulic power at all. The first is not easy, the second is extremely difficult at best. Now imagine trying to do that with airflow over the flight controls...good luck.

Then there is the loss of all hydraulic fluid from your two independent hydraulic systems that power each flight control system for redundency. Unlikely situation perhaps, but there have been several Hercs that have thrown props that went in one side of the fuselage and out the other damaging other engines and hydraulic systems. As well, military operations increase the risk of this situation occuring. I am not aware of any mechanical backup to operate the flight controls(manual reversion).

So what to do? According to the book, use your electrically operated trim tabs and engine power with inboard engines(that blow air over the tail) for pitch control and outboards for speed control. Worked somewhat well in the sim on the several attempts that I tried it.....for a while, after finally gaining control. Usually I could get set up on approach. But at some point, each time I tried it, control would eventually be lost and I crashed. Perhaps this particular sim is different than other sims and for sure the airplane flies much better in real life but I sure wouldn't want to try landing after a complete hydraulic loss.

Personally, I thought Lockheed's hydraulic system design was poor. The gear, flaps, nosewheel steering and normal braking system(the one with anti-skid) are on the same hydraulic system(utility) which was run by engines 1 and 2. So when these two engines fail(and they always seemed to in the sim), you lose all these functions. So the gear has to be manually extended which may take a long time, the flaps have to be manually cranked down into the airflow with muscle power if you decide to use them and not more than 50%(That will probably take a long time as well but I have never talked to anyone who has done it). If you are fortunate and not too heavy and your second shutdown on the left wing gives you enough time, you can extend the gear and some flap while you still have that hydraulic system available. In the sim, we were always fortunate in terms of weight, altitude, temperature, runway length availability and time availability before shutting down the second engine. We would only extend the flaps to 20% allowing some flap with minimal drag plus increased rudder boost. So now we are landing with hardly any flap, high approach speed, no reverse capability(due to asymmetry) and no anti-skid. Why didn't they put at least one of these systems on the other(Booster) hydraulic system. Lockheed logic we called it.

On a separate subject but speaking about the main gear, there is no guarantee as far as I know that a gear will extend on their own, as preferred during a manual extension. Perhaps the screwjacks are dirtier than they should be and that is not unusual for typical herc ops. Or something such as a rag could be the problem, after all, that is what maintenance cleaned the screwjacks with so your gear would hopefully extend by themselves after pulling the big handle to release them. The alternative, 600 turns of the crank if a full manual extension is required. How much fuel did you say we have left?

So now you find out that you need to do an emergency gear extension on one of the main gears by disconnecting the screwjacks because the gear is so jammed. Special tools in a metal box riveted shut(so the tools don't mysteriously disappear on you over the yaers) are required. Somehow you have to smash the box open then spend however long it takes to disconnect the the screwjacks so the gear will freefall down. Remember to disconnect the bolts in the proper order or you may lose your hands in the process. And you won't be able to even attempt this if you have a heavy piece of cargo right near the gear area that doesn't allow access to the panels to do all this. After all, the plane was designed among other things, to carry cargo. As you can see in this C-130 gear up landing report, it took 30 minutes for the F/E and loadmaster to undo only two nuts in their failed emergency extension attempt.

200000618 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2000/AAIR/aair200000618.aspx)

Easily flying on one engine? Depends on a lot of things I'm sure.


As 411A mentioned, no stick shaker. In fact no artificial stall warning at all, however there was plenty of natural stall warning buffet. But no certification in the U.K.because it didn't have one fire bottle per engine? Neither does a 727.

[cpnkirk59]

First of all the airplane won't fly on one engine, unless it is almost totally empty. Second, the C-130 has been flown by every "free nation" in the world (verbage "free world" as of the 1990's) and by the 90's had one of the best safety records of any aircraft. Second, it has three hydraulic systems; two of which (utility and booster) power the flight controls separately. Yes, you train in the simulator with a totally failed hydraulics; but, it is a confidence manuever , designed to show you the airplane is stable and will land if you don't over control and follow "instructions". Just because the Britts don't certify it for passenger operations; doesn't mean squat! The last C-130 out of South Viet Nam, had 400 people crammed in it (it's parked at the front gate of Little Rock AFB, Arkansas), and was probably getting shot at as it left. It's basically a 250 kt, straight wing cessna! It doesn't need a stick shaker, as you'd have to be doing something stupid to stall it, even in the terminal approach area.

Randall "RP" Bancroft
Former Marine/Air National Guard C-130 Instructor/Pilot

[Old Fella]

Geez I must have been fortunate. I spent eight years as a F/E on Hercules (A-E & H models) and never, and I mean never, suffered double assymetric engine failure, total loss of hydraulic or electrical systems etc etc. Sure, the C130 hydraulic systems are not perfect, however they are generally reliable, and the flight controls may be moved manually, albiet with great effort required. The biggest problem the Brits had was they used Vickers engine driven pumps. As for no redundancy, that statement is just plain wrong. Two individual systems supply flight control boost pressure, they being the Utility system and the Booster System. The Hercules has been in service for more than 50 years and is still in production in the latest variant. No aircraft I am aware of has the capacity to perform the variety of tasks which the Hercules has done over the years. The C130 surely is a "Legend in it's own lifetime".

[billynospares]

There is a whole lot of rubbish on this thread from people who have obviously have never been near albert ! I have worked on them for 15 years and covered most of the planet. The hyd systems (all 3) are fine you have old fashioned flying control cables so you can fly without them ! The CAA dont like no stick shaker and lack of anti icing all the way up the fin as far as i know. As for differences between civvy and military that depends on what model really. Civvy hercs do not have para doors other wise not a lot. By the way the J model has a stick shaker and de icer boot on the fin. Long live Albert

[Dengue_Dude]

I believe one of the key differences is that fewer people shoot at the civvy one.

Could be wrong though . . . (all the guys on Safair no doubt are shouting - YOU ARE!)

Military ones are also painted more interesting colours:

RAF in mid 70's, two tone brown and black underneath - operating in Western Europe tactically.

Aha lets paint them grey and green - yes you guessed, now send them into the Gulf (again).

Operating in desert environment so let's paint them light blue or even dark green (all over). Logic appears to be, you've got to give the locals SOMETHING to aim at, like the 'shoot me here' white crosses in Ethiopia (bullet just missed LOX converter).

See what I mean? - Now you can see why there's no Government Surplus paint available anymore - it's all in Cambridge!

[CargoMatatu]

ABSOLUTELY wrong! And not just the SAFAIR guys!:cool:

[ScudRunner08]

Two main reasons why the C-130 was never accepted on the UK register....First it did not have a stick shaker and second it only had 2 fire bottles....CAA required one bottle per engine



So the 727 was never aloud on the UK register either?? (2 Bottles 3 Engine)

[John1984]

The L-188 Electra doesn't have a stick shaker either. There are six of them flying on the UK register.

There's a piece of recent cockpit video on youtube that shows why one isn't needed! Sorry - don't have the link though.

J

[Northern Hero]

I saw an all white Herc early yesterday afternoon at about 8 to 10,000 ft heading south above West Sussex. I got the bins out as I did'nt know what the wonderful noise was coming from. Presumably it was a civvie one ?

[polcat]

The L-100 doesn't have the pilots' kick windows. Minor, but it's a difference. As a herk pilot, the plane is awesome, although it's getting old. The plane is very safe and rugged.

[BelArgUSA]

Dan Air (UK) operated 727-100s under G- registry... despite 2 fire bottles for 3 engines.
Never heard that a 727 had more fire bottes as per said CAA standards.
xxx
For the 747s (Classic) both P&W and RR engine airplanes had 2 fire bottles per engine. However for the 747 with GE engines, most have only 2 fire bottles per wing so for the RH wing, as an example, the 2 fire bottles can be selected to nº 3 or nº 4 engine. I understand that "2 fire bottles per engine" was offered as an option to some 747/GE powered customers.
xxx
Boeing is a champion in "differences and customer options" - need tons of notes to remember them all.
xxx
I admit that CAA requirements go often a step further than FAA airworthiness requirements. But in that case, why did they approve the suppression of doors L-3 and R-3 (overwing) during the early 1980s, on the 747 Classics operated by BA...?
xxx
:confused:
Happy contrails

[Zaherk]

Some diff's between Civ and Mil Herc's:

1.Low oil press warning lights for GB+Eng.
2.Beta warning lights to show when in the ground range.
3.Recycling cans to prevent fuel draining overboard on Eng shutdown.
4.Civ version of the T56= Allison 501-D22A Eng's.

There are a few more, have to get the books out, never operated the Mil Herc.

[brakedust]

THE CIVIL HERC HAD AN EXTRA THROTTLE POSITION TO THE EARLIER MILITARY HERCS, NAMELY GROUND START. THE ENGINE TEMPS WERE HOTTER IN THE MILITARY T 56'S, 1080 VS 1077, ETC. A LOT OF THE CIVIL HERCS HAVE PARA DOORS EVEN ADDITIONAL ESCAPE HATCHES FWD OF THE WING. HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS ARE DUAL ON ALL FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS, IF BOTH FAIL THEN MANUAL REVERSION, 365 MANUAL TURNS TO GET THE FLAPS FULLY DOWN, NOT SO HARD IN A PANIC. THE UNDER CARRIAGE MANUAL RELEASE MAY HAVE BEEN MODDED FROM THE FOUR BOLT RELEASE TO A SIMPLER COUPLING. STILL ONE OF THE SAFEST TO FLY. :ok:

[JammedStab]

The hyd systems (all 3) are fine you have old fashioned flying control cables so you can fly without them ! The CAA dont like no stick shaker and lack of anti icing all the way up the fin as far as i know.

Well, maybe it does have some sort of old fashioned flying cable controls if you say so but the flight controls with no hydraulic power are near impossible to move on the ground. In the air, I would assume even more difficult. In the sim, using the trim tabs seemed to work fairly well.
As a comparison, using manual reversion in the sim on the 727 gives heavier than normal flight controls but more reasonable control forces.
As for anti-ice on the vertical tail, I was under the impression that it covered most of the vertical tail. The CAA was willing to certify the 727 with no anti-ice protection on any of the tail at all.

[stilton]

True, but the CAA did insist on a stick pusher for the 727

[Old Fella]

JammedStab is correct in his assertion that the C130 (at least those on which I operated) have the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer anti-iced. The Wing and Empenage Anti-ice system takes engine bleed air from the cross-wing manifold and by means of solenoid controlled/pneumatically operated valves allowing hot air to be ejected into the wing leading edges (between engines and outboard of engines #1 and #4) and to the horizontal and vertical stabilizer leading edges. The system is never used on the ground. Normal operations where icing conditions are expected to be encountered would see they system used for a short period before reaching icing conditions to ensure no moisture, which could freeze, is in the pneumatic control lines. The system is designed to be used as an Anti-ice system, not a De-ice system. The Radome and Engine Air inlets are also anti-iced using bleed air. The Props and Spinners are electrically anti-iced. Never having operated the C130B I have no argument with Renier, however I considered the C130A with T56A-11's as fitted to the RAAF C130A models was a "Sports car" compared to the C130E. The C130H is still a formidable aircraft and 50 years of operations with the RAAF without one single hull loss says much for the aircraft, the crews and the level of maintenance the RAAF enjoys.

[low n' slow]

Main question though for a civvy pilot: What do I have to do to fly one? Which companies have them and are they hiring. In case I loose the job I have now I'd like to do something more bush than I'm doing right now :}.

/LnS

[Old Fella]

Low n' Slow. I'm sure Lockheed Martin would be happy to provide a list of current civvy C130 operators.

[Dengue_Dude]

Man! You are one sad dude!

God I have been SO trying to forget all that stuff . . . BUT when it was your first aircraft, you put so much more effort into all the irrelevant stuff don't you?

It was like stepping back 30 years (more actually) reading the Empennage anti/de-ice stuff - I mean, who but the Yanks would USE a term like that?

Nostalgia is definitely not what it used to be . . .

Keep up the good work, it really WAS a lot of fun landing on the grass and frightening the sheep. Mind you, I wasn't being shot at then, perhaps just the odd farmer with a shotgun ;)

[Old Fella]

Not sure on what basis you believe I am 'one sad dude'. I am sorry if I have given you nightmares bringing back old stuff which you consider irrelevant, stuff I learned forty years ago. BTW, what would you call the system? I am yet to find a post made by you which does not try and 'put down' posts made by others.

[JammedStab]

Have seen an old time FE use wing anti-ice biefly on the ground. I found that a lot of guys use the system as a de-ice(after accumulation) system rather than an anti-ice system.
I thought that there were some military C-130's with beta lights.

[Dengue_Dude]

Please check your PMs.

Mixed comms I think . . .

[Old Fella]

DD. Thanks. Read and understood. Just getting a bit precious in my old age I guess. JammedStab. I know some F/E's might have used the system as a De-icer on the ground. Problem is that without airflow over the leading edges is is very easy to overheat the area. It is for that reason that Lockheed advise non ground use. Probably get away with it 99% of the time if closely monitored, but not for this guy.

[Dengue_Dude]

Must agree with Old Fella (sorry!)

Problem we had with the grenade valves that controlled the de-icing was that they weren't the most reliable in the world. It would have made me feel VERY uncomfortable trying to explain to the hierarchy why I selected it ON on the ground and the valve stuck open - indeed the Radome Anti-ice was de-activated in the RAF for this reason.

It's Catch 22 really. The more you used the system, the more reliable it became, but the hot air never did the Herc wiring a lot of good - especially as the aircraft aged.

And again, the Vickers hyd pumps were not good. When isolated they had a thermally controlled run-around circuit, so when re-instated often did not give full pressure (flow) immediately.

That's enough sensible stuff - I'm having withdrawal symptoms ;)

[JammedStab]

Military vs civilian difference. Civilian: APU allowed for ground use only.

Another Lockheed annoyance. All three forward windshields on the same electrical circuit.

[CFITtn]

Military .... JATO!!!! Whoooooo!

Civilian .... No JATO Less whooooo....

[jetdrvr]

You guys are bringing them back. I've forgotten a lot of systems stuff on the Herk, but I haven't forgotten how much I loved flying her for nine years with SAT. Someone said it's a big cub. He's right.
Used to practice total hydraulic failure ILS's into SFO. Worked like they said it would. Never had the guts to land one like that, but I flew to a quarter mile final several times. You had to push up the inboards to initiate the flair. My favorite aircraft to this very day.

[Desert185]

I flew the civil "G" model for ten years and was a check airman and DPE on the airplane. We had some aircraft with over 60,000 hours, while on the third generation wing. Properly maintained (like any aircraft) they're a winner for their task of flying outsize cargo to remote places.

Never once had to shutdown an engine inflight in almost 6,000 hours. Lost the Utility hydraulic system once and had the FE crank the gear down (it wouldn't freefall).

[JammedStab]

Hmmm, at least 10 shutdowns in 2,000 hours although most were precautionary. Three were not. Prop overspeed, prop malfunction trying to go into reverse on landing, and a mysterious flameout right at touchdown. For the last two, after consultation, they seemed to operate just fine when started up again although I believe appropriate maintenance was done later. Utility hydraulic loss twice as well.

[fr8doggie]

Many shutdowns in 2500 hours of flying the airplane. Runaway props, oil leaks, fuel leaks, broken throttle cables. Took off from Howard AFB once and started losing hydraulic fluid from 1,3 and 4! A very quick RTB found sheared pump shafts, broken lines. Would've been lots of fun if we'd been farther out.

Best airplane ever built.