C130J Getting nowhere fast?

[Prop-Ed]

Higher, faster, further is it?……

Not anymore methinks. Anybody know the score?

[StopStart]

Tis true!

Had to come out eventually :)
The C130J is getting through turbines somewhat quicker than it should :oh: Basically they are being run too hot. We cruise at a detented power setting of MCP (max continuous power) but it would seem that this is a bit too warm for a healthy turbine life.

Apparently they need to run about 30degC cooler to preserve their life. Cruise EGT is about 740degC so it would appear that a new cruise power setting needs to be found. Unfortunately all we have in the ODMs are High Speed Cruise and the mind-numbing Long Range Cruise.

Until data figures can be produced for an "MCP - 30" Speed Cruise setting the Release to Service has been amended such that Long Range Cruise is the power setting to be used. This can add over an hour to a flight back from Cyprus....

As an aside, if Long Range Cruise is flown properly then the aircraft should always be at it's cruise ceiling. This leads to a situation whereby, in the high 20s/low 30s FLs the power setting required is MCP, as near as dammit. Couple this with the lower airspeeds associated with LRC one can end up spending longer at MCP than if one was High Speed Cruising at a lower altitude. Ho hum.

I imagine it'll take about eight thousand years for Qinetiq etc to produce new ODM data (and then stress test the pages to 90G and -243F) and so hopefully an interim solution may be found. Cruising at MCP - 30 deg doesn't have a major impact on flight times; back from Cyprus it would add about 10 minutes over a HSC plan. Whilst there is no data for MCP - 30 fuel flows etc one can just run a LRC fuel plan and use that as a Red Line. Once at cruising level actual IAS and Fuel flow can be stuck in the CNI to give accurate ETAs and fuels. If you hit the red line, go LRC, just as per the SOP for HSC.
Not that I'm suggesting you do that of course. R to S is the law ;) and the PMA sees all


Coincidentally, the K had a similar problem when it came into service. Cruise power was originally, I believe, 1010deg. This was knackering engines so was reduced to 932deg (?). I think ultimately the additional costs of fuel, extra flight time, long crew duty etc etc outweighed the costs of engines so it was upped to the happy medium of 985deg.

At least that's what bloke down the pub said.

:E
I shall now prepare myself for a weekend standing in front of one telling the punters 'ow bleedin' marvellous the J is :D Cos it is :ok:

[Captain Gadget]

WIWOH...

If I remember rightly, Max Continuous was always 1010 deg C and was the setting that all engine-out cruise data was based on (and that we used if we lost a donk).

However 985 deg C was the normal 4-engine cruise setting when I joined the fleet in 1986 (!) and we had ODM data for it by the bucketload.

The 932 deg C thing was a trial that we later had to do for a while on each flight for 1 hour in the cruise - again, if I remember rightly. I think that that value was chosen because 932 deg C was Max Continuous on the engines fitted to the A model Hercs still then in widespread use by the Spams, and oodles of cruise data for the frame was available from them. The data that were gathered showed that the loss of speed and consequent increase in nightstops and loss of availability (particularly on those devilishly tight European multi-shuttle day trips such as the Deci sched), coupled with the general loss of sense of humour on what was already a famously slow aircraft, led to its being abandoned.

If I remember rightly, of course.

(Got to drink my Horlicks now)

Gadget :cool:

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

I try not to be too cynical about our J cousins, but does this mean that you'll have to wait 6 months for a software update?

I take it that you can't just bring back the power levers a bit, like you could on a Klassic.

Let's not be too ambitious here but you've only got until 2012 to get them all to Brize. Tee Hee. ;)

[StopStart]

SirPeter - cynical? You? Never :)

We can just pull the levers back and set whatever temps/power we want. The argument from on high is that there is no ODM planning data to work on when doing this so you can't plan it properly.
I say run a LRC jetplan to use as a red line and HSC shortplan to give you an upper limit fuel figure then crack on at MCP temps minus 30deg.
But then I also say things like "Champagne? £180 a bottle? Capital idea - we'll take three" so it's probably best not listening to me....

:}

Captain Gadget - I guess that'll be what I heard. Lost a bit in translation perhaps :) 985 is still the cruise power setting and 1010 the MCP and climb power....I think....immediately forgot all this stuff the day after my last K trip :D

[RoboAlbert]

I think you may well be right SS. Although by the late 80's we were using 985 on the K, I remember being told by some old and bold bloke that the K originally cruised at 1010 when it came in the 70's.

I think you're absolutely right about the MCP-30 stuff - mind you I can say that now being boat happy....:p

[DrSyn]

Cruise TIT was indeed reduced from 1010 to 985 in the 70s, SS (Hi. How are you, by the way!). 932 was not used operationally. That must have been a later thing, as per CG's post. We had a couple of in-flight turbine failures and found some of the other hot-ends were none too pretty either. I don't seem to recall any traumas with the reduced setting. It was simply adopted and the perf pages came along in due time. It only cost about 15 KTAS in a typical cruise, but upped the turbine life by a few thousand hours, and improved the range - a reasonable fix I think.

The second one was on a LYE-AKT (Dick Barton, I think), possibly in 74. When they throttled back at TOD, the No3 turbine came out the back and bits of it jammed the elevator. There was a fairly concerned period of descent without pitch control until they decided to apply brute force and managed to free it. 985 followed shortly afterwards!

It seems strange that, given the extended development time on the J, and the history of the K, that the MCP setting was not fully optimised by the time of RtoS. I am ever less impressed by those responsible for the test programme than I am by the aircraft itself. I'm quite sure that the J will prove a worthy successor once the professionals on 30 & 24 have shaken the bugs out of it :)

[BEagle]

But by 2012, Brize will have 4-prop aircraft capable of cruising at M0.72 and up to FL 370......

A400M will make the digitally re-mastered C130 seem positively ancient by comparison - not that it isn't currently doing a good, albeit slow, job.

An extra hour to crawl back from Cyprus......good grief. Will that accord with the latest EU ruling on moving livestock around in trucks?

[Wycombe]

!! - I remember "crawling" back from AKT to BZZ once (at least an extra hour en route) in the Funbus due to an aeromed pax (baby in incubator) and an associated alt. restriction of FL240 if I remember correct.

The fact we knew it was going to be a long flight made it seem even longer still.

Nice views of Mt Etna though :D

[Art Field]

Wycombe, are you, like your nom-de-plum, never satisfied. The funbus will let you move about without clampons, have a pee in private, give you a sitting position that whilst not luxury does not give you an idea of how the Hunchback of Notre Dame got his figure and allow you to hear your good ladies moans about the mower/washing machine/dog as soon as you get home.

[StopStart]

Mr BEagle sir! I admire your faith in the mighty A400M Euroluftenkargogecarryen Flugzeug!
By 2012 I reckon they'll have just about thrashed out what material to make the seat covers from and be starting on the basic airframe aerodynamics..... But then I have become rather cynical of late :)


:D

[Wycombe]

Sorry, not meant to be a whinge - just a recollection by me of one trip where the "Queen of the Skies" was a bit slower than usual (and for good reason, as the infant was very poorly).

Btw, my non-de-plume refers to the Bucks airfield, not the base.

[Cougar]

How long is Akrotiri - Lyneham?? 6Hrs LRC?

Your good ol' country is only 3 hours end to end at LRC. We do 8 across ways and our pax never complain!! Regularly doing 9-10 hour trips and never heard a peep out of the pax. They are enjoying the luxurious 'airliner beds' too much :O

[charliesbar]

SPHLC

2012 for the Js to get to Brize? I heard that 2012 was the end of the Herc and that Brize will be 25 A400Ms, 10 C-17s and FTA. Same capacity as we have now but less aircraft. Surely with the exsisting C-17s, proposed A400M and FTA there can't be enough room at Brize for Hercs....

[Grimweasel]

I heard that Lockheed had stitched the RAF up contractualy with the J so badly that the MoD was considering handing it back to them as it was proving too expensive to maintain / operate?
What news?
Apparently they even have to pay lockheed to publish a photo of one of their own aircraft!! Nice one!!

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

charliesbar

My tongue in cheek reference to 2012 is the (provisional) closure date for Lyneham at the end of the K life.

Therefore any J christmas trees will have to be serviceable by then, go to Brize on a lorry or end up in Chippenham scrappy on top of all those Halifax bombers.

[MaxProp]

Just to confirm the previous posts, the 932 cruise was abandoned because the customer (the other 2 services) would not countenance giving up 5% of capacity based on flying hours fixed servicng cost. It was decided to buy turbines instead.

[scroggs]

932 was the solution decided on and, I believe still is used by, the US operators of the C130E and H for the T56-15, way back in the late '70s. Allison always intended the engine to be operated at 1010, but didn't make the turbine of stern enough stuff - and so history repeats itself. The RAF settled for a compromise of 985 - which may have had something to do with the fact that our engines were license-built by Rolls Royce originally, and may have been more durable. Seemed to work well enough at 985, anyway. Spookily, the HSC figures (height/IAS) for the C130K at 1010 were very similar to the HSC figures for the C130J at designed MCP........

[Pass-A-Frozo]

My query is how much $$$ is Lockheed / Rolls Royce going to give in compensation to our respective Air Forces for telling us the aircraft can do one thing then providing an aircraft that can't. Surely there is something in the contract for this.

Quiet amusing though - "What, you've been using Max Continuous Power continuously?!?! Who'd have thunk it!"

We should be calling it Max Non Continuous Power. Imagine if we operated it up to 6000+ HP .

If we don't even start the engines imagine how long they'll last for!! :yuk:

:mad: you Lockheed :}

[BEagle]

What - another American promise which turned out to be not quite what was expected?

Well, Stoppers me old aerobationphobe, at least Das EADS A400M Wunderschöner Uberflugzeug has been designed by a team who know what they're doing - a digitally re-mastered 1950s design, it is not!

Good luck on the J and I hope that someone's toes will be held against the fire - or their bits connected up to 220 volts - over this engine thing.

[ZH875]

Pass-A-Frozo sayeth

'If we don't even start the engines imagine how long they'll last for!! '

The ultimate answer is 28 Days +/- a few days.

pass the scrap bucket

[T_Handle]

BEagle

" A400M - designed by a team who know what they are doing"!!!!!!!!:E :E

You obviously have not been to a 400 meeting then!!:eek:

as I understand it the lack of comprehension of what is required of a Tac airlifter is staggering....... but atleast they are keen to learn, even if the 350 different nations and agendas involved can't agree on anything!

But if you are happy with the vorsprungdirk technik pipedream then that is fine

T:\ :ok:

[BEagle]

The A400M has been through many iterations in its gestation. Various design 'Solutions' appeared and were rejected or modified. But the Common Standard Aircraft design has now been frozen and the first aircraft is in the course of being constructed.

I have no doubt that the aircraft will appear on time and that it will meet performance estimates and specifications; however, what may take longer is international clearance for all the many roles which the aircraft will operate in. It will be a quantum leap over the C130J in terms of both technology and capability.

It's trendy to poke fun at the A400M; however, that is no longer fair. There's nothing wrong with the aeroplane - if you want to poke fun at anything, choose the politicians who delayed the programme with their vacillation.

[West Coast]

"There's nothing wrong with the aeroplane"

There is no airplane. There are blueprints, computers and committees.

[BEagle]

Alright then Westie, there's nothing wrong with the aeroplane design.


'Not invented here' syndrome at work? Boeing may think that they rule the world, but actually they don't. Same goes for Lockheed Martin.

The C130 is old, old, old. 1950s technology digtally remastered into the 130J will be comprehensively outclassed by the A400M; yes the C-17A is an excellent aeroplane but too big and expensive for many nations who need a capability better than that offered by the 130 but not as much as the C-17 provides. A400M will comfortably meet both their needs and budgets.

[West Coast]

If the plane is ever buit and lives up to manufacturers claims, then you can roam the streets screaming to the heavens, drunk with glee.
Do you think LockMart also put out the proverbial glossy brochure touting all its capabilities? Sounds like you got ahold of the one for the A400.

I could care less if its built here or there because as with you, I will be retired. Or at least I will by the time the first block one aircraft flies.

[Dale Harris]

Geez BE, ease up a bit. Of course the A400 will outclass the C130 whatever model. It is after all 40 years newer!! The decision to get the C130J was taken well before the A400 could ever have been considered as likely to even get off the drawing board.

[BEagle]

OK, mate!

I just get rather annoyed when people compare Lockheed BS with the professionalism of others.....

[Yeller_Gait]

All this wingeing about the A400 !!! At least you will (?) get a new aircraft. Think about the poor s***s at Kinloss and the chances of them get a nice shiney new aeroplane fit for task. An updated MR2 perhaps, if they are lucky.

But at least I am not there any more.

[Prop-Ed]

Glimmer of hope or cruel joke?:

A little bird told me (while it was over taking us as we were flying at LRC) that new turbines, made of a similar compound to those in the tornado, may be replacing the current fit. Could be a solution to getting our precious 30 or so knots back?

Anybody aware of such a plan being seriously considered?

[StopStart]

Not heard of that one.
Last I heard they were waiting for RR to come up with a max temp figure against which a new cruise regime could be established....
Still, new turbine blades would be nice, then we could use that nice little detente and also Max Continuous, er, continuously.

:D

[Follow Me Through]

Beags

I accept your words on some things but not others. The A400 'team' have never built a military airlifter but can easily demonstrate on a screen that their product will do x, y and z.

If this was Peugot, for example, about to launch a new product into the 4WD market in 6 years time for example - would you:
a. Place an order early to be the first with one on the drive. or
b. Stick with a tried and trusted version of whatever Land Rover are producing at the time.

I know where I would place my money!

One other minor criticism - why do pilots always choose the freighters? We end up with nice flight-decks and a back-end from the 50's without a winch. I would be interested to know what the composition of the C-130J selection team was.

[scroggs]

To put the 'J' into perspective, Lockheed's bid was one of many responding to an MoD requirement to keep the C130 freight bay flying for another 25 years while the A400 (as it has become known) was being thrashed out. The requirement didn't ask for improvements to that freight bay or its systems, but did ask for improvements in reliability, maintainability and cost of ownership of the entire system.

I don't intend to get into arguments about the success or otherwise with which those aims have or have not been achieved, but just wish to point out that the acquisition of the C130J was never intended to represent an increase in capability - that's an assumption that crept in later. The improvements to the front end, and the loss of two crew, were purely in response to the cost and maintenance issues. Remember, the competing bids were revamps of the existing K airframes - no other aircraft were ever involved.

[pr00ne]

Scroggs,

Absolute b*ll*cks!

The competitor for the C-130J for the first tranche of the C130K replacement WAS the A400M!
It was a huge political scrap with Airships being paid by both sides to boost their own proposal.

You are dead right on the "no increase in capacity", but so way off the mark with the "no competitor" that it's laughable.

Tranche one was to replace half the existing 60 a/c K fleet, tranche two was for the other half. Lockheed won tranche one, Airbus won tranche two.

[scroggs]

pr00ne thankyou for that. As I remember, the competition was held once it was accepted by both the military and political machines that the A400 could not be in service within its original projected timescale. Therefore a 'low cost' solution to maintain tactical airlift capacity was sought while the wranglings over the A400 continued. At the time, there was no certainty that the A400 would ever pitch up, so the two-tranche competition was decided upon - I think this was an effort to apply some pressure to Germany to get its ducks in a row over the A400 so that the thing would have a reasonable chance of existing in the Tranche 2 timescale.

The Tranche 1 timescale required the aircraft (which, as I say, was only intended to maintain capability, not enhance it) to be in service by, I think, 1996. We all know now that that didn't happen, but the timeline made it obvious that the only solution was either a remanufactured C130K or a new-build C130H or J. Lockheed forced the issue by undercutting the rebuilt-K bids and announcing that the H would cease production forthwith.

Perhaps you are aware of some secret plan to have got the A400 into service in 1996? Apart from over-optimistic BAe, MoD and Airbus statements of the early '90s, that was never a player. A competitor has to exist - or have a reasonable prospect of existing - to compete. The A400 did, and could, not - at that time.

[BEagle]

Would I wish to buy another vehicle built by Landrover with 1940's technology but a better engine and a few more electronics - NO!!

Would I trust another manufacturer who had already built a winning series of vehicles to come up with a new 4x4, why not? BMW did and so have Volvo.

Airbus have a much better rack record of getting their products out on time then anyone else. Whilst I'm certain that A400M will fly on the planned date, what isn't so certain is how long the trials organisations will take to obtain the clearances for every role......

.......and its cargo handling system is rather better than just a winch, you'll be pleased to note!

[StopStart]

Mr BEagleBus, sir :D

Didn't Landrover just win some award for having produced the best vehicle ever in the history of vehicles (or something equally bonkers)?

Hmmm.

As for the 1940s technology - I'm pretty sure they took most of that out when they replaced all the avionics and engines. I think the cables that attach the flying controls to the surfaces are probably 1940s technology though....

You're right about the freight bay though. I think the funding priorities must have been set by a committee of pilots. For us stick monkeys in the front (gear down - banana please http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/monkey.gif ) it's marvellous, with lots of toys to play with. For the pallet monkeys in the back though, no money was spent at all. Given that it's a trash hauler, that's where the money should've been spent first - built in winch, flip floor, electric locks etc etc. What was then left over should then have been spent on the toys up front. Hey ho.

PS. 1940s technology? The flight deck of that C17 thingy... Blimey - that was quite scary. Far too many buttons and not enough screens. Their HUD is very sweet though :)

Still, I admire your confidence in the BEagleBus 400M. It'll come in on time, on spec, on cost with the latest avionics and high technology engines - two pigs strapped under each wing.

:ok:

[BEagle]

Ahh - but Stoppers, old bean, have you seen the .jpg s of the A380 flight deck? Well, the A400M will be getting the same technology. Less buttons and several gucci screens......!!

Good luck on the digitally re-mastered 130. Who says you can't polish a turd?

[Grimweasel]

So is the J staying or going back to lockheed???

[ZH875]

If Lockheed wrote the contract, they would refuse to accept the J back as being unfit for purpose.

[Lionel Lion]

You seem very pro airbus at the moment Beagle......and particular reasons?:=

[BEagle]

My work on the A310MRTT has meant that I've had to do various calculations etc to analyse comparative tanker capabilities.

From which it is evident that the A330-200 knocks the spots off either the KC-767A or more especially the old ex-BA 767-300s in both AT and AR roles.

Also, as the capabilities of the A400M will be considerably superior to those of the 130J, it looks like EADS should have a pretty good product range for you to play with in 5 years' time or so. But 'my' A310MRTT will fly this November....:ok:

[propulike]

Just been looking at the jpg's of the A380- http://airbus.dyndns.info/A380/

The screens are small, PFD has little NAV info, there's no HUD and the lack of an eyebrow panel display makes it all very "heads in". Apart from the built in dinner tray/keyboard it all looks very A340 technology! (ie several generations old). Is there a link somewhere for the proposed fit for the A400M that you know of Beags? The military requirement for a TAC airlifter doesn't appear to comply with the civvy fit for an airliner.

And to follow the original thread, could RR / Allison could come up with an engine that doesn't vibrate itself to component parts, have self-destructing generators or turbines made of chocolate? Mrs P-u-L would be most grateful. Thank you.

[BEagle]

propulike - try http://www.airbusmilitary.com/a400m.html . Then look at the 'virtual tour' - you'll need 'Quicktime' on your PC; you can download that from the site above.

But if that doesn't work:

HUDs? Most definitely. A400M will have a foldable HUD for each pilot to augment situational awareness during demanding flight phases.

Head-down displays. There will be 7 large-screen full-colour HDDs for the pilots plus another for the optional third flight deck crew member (the Air Loadmaster will have a multi-purpose workstation at the fron of the cargo area). These HDDs will be the latest generation and will be bigger than the current Airbus style of displays (not sure why you thought that they were smaller than those in the A340 - perhaps it was the effect of the size of the A380 flight deck? Look at http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_flight_deck.asp for the true picture) and include a Primary Flight Display, a Navigation and Tactical Display (including threat warning display and horizontal terrain data), an Engine Warning Display, System Display and Multi-function control display. All HDDs will be able to display any one of these 5 formats, as will the 8th; video imagery will also be displayable on the HDDs. The flight deck will be fully NVG compatible.

Engines - A400M will use the TP-400 D6 with over 10 000shp driving 8-bladed high-speed Ratier propellers (the outer part of each blade having a nickel guard to prevent foreign object damage). The TP-400D6 is being developed by a consortium of RR, Snecma, MTU and ITP. Not Allison!

The European Staff Requirement was written 7 years ago; the requirements of both tactical and strategic airlift are well accepted and the ac has been designed to meet these. For example, the cargo floor is equipped with a complete cargo handling system and an optional power loading crane capable of lifting 5 tonnes can be fitted to the rear cargo bay roof.

Crew protection will be afforded by a comprehensive DASS, crew seats can be armoured as can the loadmaster's station. Survivability has been designed in from the start.

Vmo is 300KCAS, Mmo is M0.72 and it'll fly at up to FL 370.

[2port]

Mr BEagle

As you appear to be the font of all knowledge - what do you know about this "optional 3rd seat on the flight deck"? I mean what trade will fill it and when, not whether it can recline!!

Cheers.

[BEagle]

The 3rd crew seat is for an 'optional' crew member on complex tactical missions. So it'll be up to the user to decide whether to use the seat - and who would occupy it.

There will also be a 4th 'observers seat', a couple of crew bunks and 2 proper unisex loos on the lower deck - not the disgusting pee-trough thing that's in the 130. There'll also be 2 urinals behind screens at the back - and even a wash basin!

[Lionel Lion]

Send the sqns regards to Brian P and Keith F then beags:eek:

[BEagle]

Why not send them yourself?

[Green Flash]

BEags

How many windows will it have? No, hang on, seriously. The main thing us SLF trash could come up with from the back of the C-17 was that we couldn't see out. Will there be a better view from the 400??

[BEagle]

Strange you should ask that as it was one of the first questions I had! It seems that it'll be up to the customer; all the brochures show very few windows indeed - just 3 per side at the front of the cargo hold. Since the permanently-installed sidewall seats will fold into the structure, there isn't much scope for many windows..... Which will make it about as bad as a KC-135 or KC-767A for the SLF to be moved around in, I would guess. The 120 grunt fit looks horrible; however, you could fit palletised seats, I suppose.

Still - no windows means that the muppets won't be able to damage them!

Regarding sidewall seats, the A400M is designed to civil standards complemented where appropriate by specific military requirements - and JAR crashworthiness regulations seem to require fore or aft facing seats for passengers. Hmmm - that could be interesting in the present huggy-fluffy era.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I'd be interested to see the *final* cost per airframe.

It's all about what you get for your money.