US grounds C130Es due to wing cracks
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a problem for the U.K. it seems ......
quote "
US Hercules planes grounded Feb 12 2005
The RAF will not stop its Hercules C-130 planes flying despite America grounding its 30 oldest aircraft because of wing cracks, the Ministry of Defence has said.
Flight restrictions have been imposed by the US on 60 more of its C-130 fleet. The move by the US Air Force comes less than a fortnight after an RAF Hercules crashed into the Iraqi desert, killing 10 servicemen.
An MoD spokesman said there were no plans to ground any of the RAF's fleet, adding that the UK version of the plane, the C-130K, was "very different" to America's C-130E.
"If the US thought there was a problem they would have informed us," he said. "I am not aware of any such approach. If the president of the board of inquiry (into the Iraq crash) thought there was any risk to fleet safety from his initial findings, the UK fleet would have been grounded."
The spokesman added that Britain had been "liaising" with the US over the C-130 since the tragedy. He stressed that until the full report was completed, no definite cause for the crash could be stated.
"The UK C-130 is much younger, both in terms of years and flying hours, than the US fleet. This means the UK fleet has a lower fatigue rate. We use the C-130K primarily for strategic flying, the transportation of equipment and personnel, which puts less strain on the aircraft."
The British model dates from the late 1960s, while the US's fleet was built at the beginning of that decade, he added.
"The construction of the wing section of the UK Hercules is different to that of the grounded American fleet. The wing structure is much more durable and stronger on the K variant. It's a different variant and that's why the RAF has not grounded its fleet."
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk...name_page.html
quote "
US Hercules planes grounded Feb 12 2005
The RAF will not stop its Hercules C-130 planes flying despite America grounding its 30 oldest aircraft because of wing cracks, the Ministry of Defence has said.
Flight restrictions have been imposed by the US on 60 more of its C-130 fleet. The move by the US Air Force comes less than a fortnight after an RAF Hercules crashed into the Iraqi desert, killing 10 servicemen.
An MoD spokesman said there were no plans to ground any of the RAF's fleet, adding that the UK version of the plane, the C-130K, was "very different" to America's C-130E.
"If the US thought there was a problem they would have informed us," he said. "I am not aware of any such approach. If the president of the board of inquiry (into the Iraq crash) thought there was any risk to fleet safety from his initial findings, the UK fleet would have been grounded."
The spokesman added that Britain had been "liaising" with the US over the C-130 since the tragedy. He stressed that until the full report was completed, no definite cause for the crash could be stated.
"The UK C-130 is much younger, both in terms of years and flying hours, than the US fleet. This means the UK fleet has a lower fatigue rate. We use the C-130K primarily for strategic flying, the transportation of equipment and personnel, which puts less strain on the aircraft."
The British model dates from the late 1960s, while the US's fleet was built at the beginning of that decade, he added.
"The construction of the wing section of the UK Hercules is different to that of the grounded American fleet. The wing structure is much more durable and stronger on the K variant. It's a different variant and that's why the RAF has not grounded its fleet."
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk...name_page.html
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, US Herk. What we have are E-models with H engines.
And our fatigue consumption has increased dramatically in the last 5 yrs or so due to the Operational tempo. I would hazard that we give our 'frames a much harder time that the USAF do, too. This is worrying news, I fear.
16B
And our fatigue consumption has increased dramatically in the last 5 yrs or so due to the Operational tempo. I would hazard that we give our 'frames a much harder time that the USAF do, too. This is worrying news, I fear.
16B
Are you sure?
I thought there were several standards of centre section as built.
Original (A/B)
Strengthened (E)
Further strengthened (early H, K, etc.)
Final (developed for later, 'heavy H')
and several mods to those various standards.
Or are all the books wrong? Is the fact that the USAF is imposing limitations on some of its Hs indication that these have the same wing box as the Es, or just that the Es (whose wing boxes were modified back in the 70s) are NOW at the same standard.
Can anyone definitively confirm that (structurally speaking) the K is an E and not an H?
I thought there were several standards of centre section as built.
Original (A/B)
Strengthened (E)
Further strengthened (early H, K, etc.)
Final (developed for later, 'heavy H')
and several mods to those various standards.
Or are all the books wrong? Is the fact that the USAF is imposing limitations on some of its Hs indication that these have the same wing box as the Es, or just that the Es (whose wing boxes were modified back in the 70s) are NOW at the same standard.
Can anyone definitively confirm that (structurally speaking) the K is an E and not an H?
See 'Metal fatigue theory in RAF crash':
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...481752,00.html
If this does ultimately prove to have been the cause, one wonders at the wisdom of extending so many of the RAF's large a/c fleets way past their originally intended use-by dates?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...481752,00.html
If this does ultimately prove to have been the cause, one wonders at the wisdom of extending so many of the RAF's large a/c fleets way past their originally intended use-by dates?
Last edited by BEagle; 13th Feb 2005 at 07:07.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Is this related in any way to the incident in 2002, of the firefighting C-130, when on a water drop run the right wing folded, with the obvious consequences?
Not a nice video.
Photo if you choose to see it
Narrative
Not a nice video.
Photo if you choose to see it
Narrative
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2002 Firefighting crash I seem to remember was partially attributed to the aircraft carrying a high payload and very little (ie. NO wing relieving) fuel.
Although as many say we have abused our aircraft during various ops with aircraft getting airborne over MAX TOW (175000lbs ops necessity in old money) every crew I have ever got airborne at high weights with, has taken the carriage of wing relieving fuel seriously, which has hopefully protected our wing roots to some extent. This does depend however on whether our figures for wing relieving are accurate and we shouldnt forget that all fatigue is cumulative.
Although as many say we have abused our aircraft during various ops with aircraft getting airborne over MAX TOW (175000lbs ops necessity in old money) every crew I have ever got airborne at high weights with, has taken the carriage of wing relieving fuel seriously, which has hopefully protected our wing roots to some extent. This does depend however on whether our figures for wing relieving are accurate and we shouldnt forget that all fatigue is cumulative.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firefighting A-Model Crash
The A-model firefighter that folded up its wings was nothing like an E or K. Those particular birds were retired by the USAF having never had their centre wing boxes upgraded. The forestry service operated them & even some non-government contractors.
Fire fighting is severe duty - max speed dives into moderate/severe turbulence with rapid onset G-forces during pullout.
Metal fatigue is indeed cumulative - it's like bending a paper clip back & forth - eventually it snaps & you never know exactly when.
Fire fighting is severe duty - max speed dives into moderate/severe turbulence with rapid onset G-forces during pullout.
Metal fatigue is indeed cumulative - it's like bending a paper clip back & forth - eventually it snaps & you never know exactly when.
Last edited by US Herk; 8th Mar 2005 at 08:10.
The other primary structural issue with a fire fighting aircraft is that the wing loads very rapidly reverse as the water drops. The aircraft goes from heavy to light in a couple of seconds, which then flexes the whole wing in the opposite direction from that in normal loaded flight.
The net result is greater fatigue in the structure, caused by a pretty unique operating regime. Even load dropping from a Herc doesn't get rid of mass quite as rapidly as a water drop, I think.
The net result is greater fatigue in the structure, caused by a pretty unique operating regime. Even load dropping from a Herc doesn't get rid of mass quite as rapidly as a water drop, I think.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hobie
The BBC broadcast I heard refrred to "an Army spokesman" in the context of the wing structure of various marks. Now that inspires confidence!
In The Times last week there was a picture of the Hercules at Basra loading the coffins of those who died in the Hercules crash. The caption referred to the "ten soldiers who died". This following an article soon after the crash referring to "No 47 Air Despatch Sqn of the Royal Logistics Corps" or some such crap.
I think the trouble may be that the services have lost their single-service PR staff at MOD, and it is all done now by Purple People, who would not recognise an airman if he booted them up the bum. And the press are notorious for employing defence correspondents who know nothing of military aviation.
The BBC broadcast I heard refrred to "an Army spokesman" in the context of the wing structure of various marks. Now that inspires confidence!
In The Times last week there was a picture of the Hercules at Basra loading the coffins of those who died in the Hercules crash. The caption referred to the "ten soldiers who died". This following an article soon after the crash referring to "No 47 Air Despatch Sqn of the Royal Logistics Corps" or some such crap.
I think the trouble may be that the services have lost their single-service PR staff at MOD, and it is all done now by Purple People, who would not recognise an airman if he booted them up the bum. And the press are notorious for employing defence correspondents who know nothing of military aviation.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"This following an article soon after the crash referring to "No 47 Air Despatch Sqn of the Royal Logistics Corps" or some such crap."
Flatus,
47 AD RLC are intertwined with the herc squadrons in that they are the ones organising and dispatching the stuff that gets thrown out the back. they are a separate unit to 47 Sqn RAF but work very closely with them.
Flatus,
47 AD RLC are intertwined with the herc squadrons in that they are the ones organising and dispatching the stuff that gets thrown out the back. they are a separate unit to 47 Sqn RAF but work very closely with them.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: wilts
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't, but I know some people who should. Just don't ask me who as I would hate to offend. Don't you just hate it when people like to dig for any info on such a tragic event. I'm sure that if you needed to know you would have been told.
I'm hesitant about asking the question.
Especially as a journo.
But the issue of fatigue is now firmly out there, on TV, radio and in the press, and there are times when 'digging' can be of greater value than watching as something is covered up. Journos and others digging was, on balance, helpful on the Chinook/Mull accident, for example.
And isn't it always better, if a story is going to be told anyway, that that story should at least be 'informed'?
It's easy to ascertain the milestones at which fatigue is regarded as a concern by LM, and we know that the centre wing box is 'of concern' to the IPT. If we know that 179 was a low houred aircraft we can avoid unnecessary and distressing speculation, and if we know it was high houred (in the 'of concern ballpark') then reporting can at least be more calm and level headed.
And why should 179's hours and cycles be a secret?
Especially as a journo.
But the issue of fatigue is now firmly out there, on TV, radio and in the press, and there are times when 'digging' can be of greater value than watching as something is covered up. Journos and others digging was, on balance, helpful on the Chinook/Mull accident, for example.
And isn't it always better, if a story is going to be told anyway, that that story should at least be 'informed'?
It's easy to ascertain the milestones at which fatigue is regarded as a concern by LM, and we know that the centre wing box is 'of concern' to the IPT. If we know that 179 was a low houred aircraft we can avoid unnecessary and distressing speculation, and if we know it was high houred (in the 'of concern ballpark') then reporting can at least be more calm and level headed.
And why should 179's hours and cycles be a secret?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK, there are NO RAF herks flying with original wings except the new J's. At Marshalls in the seventies and eighties we gave them new centre sections and the outer wings were completely rebuilt (new planks top and bottom). This was specifically to address the fatigue problems associated with the older type wing. (The one with the oblong tank hatches - look at an RAF model now and you'll see the hatches are oval)
There was no selection of aircraft according to usage, the entire fleet was done. So the wings are in fact a fair bit younger than the fuselages.
There was no selection of aircraft according to usage, the entire fleet was done. So the wings are in fact a fair bit younger than the fuselages.