The J vs K Thread. Pacifists keep out.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It proves that they are all Junts.
Pass-A-Frozo:
Do a search in prune for "stinks of" or "piss" then you will realise its not the K that smells but the old bloke at the back of the flight deck who tells you your scns is wrong that smells.
If in doubt ask ABIW he seems to be the main proponent of the incontinent nav rumour.
Pass-A-Frozo:
Do a search in prune for "stinks of" or "piss" then you will realise its not the K that smells but the old bloke at the back of the flight deck who tells you your scns is wrong that smells.
If in doubt ask ABIW he seems to be the main proponent of the incontinent nav rumour.
"Everyone knows there's no K in Kandahar......."
But why is there a tent in retention? Somewhat self-defeating, methinks.....
But why is there a tent in retention? Somewhat self-defeating, methinks.....
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxon
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The K is now 40 years old, has done an awful lot of work, from Ethiopia to gulf warII, and came through them all with honours. It is an extremely old aircraft that has had to work hard, of course its now going to struggle with fatique. However it still keeps going, and thats despite the best efforts of marshalls to keep it on the ground.
The J can be a very capable aircraft, if allowed to be. It is only about 7 years old, however the unservicability has not been too good, (especially when you compare it to the c17, an aircraft of similar age), but we can put that down to teething problems. Maybe one day the J will do all that is promised of it, and if it can stay servicable then it should do the job more than adequately. Its big advantage over the K is its uprated engines, but surely that is to be expected over the ageing allison engines.
My point is that i believe it is wrong to give the K such bad press when really if J model operators (the majority who were ex K model aircrew) were completely honest with themselves, they know there aircraft isnt living up to expectations and has been a poor replacement so far. But that is not to say it wont be as usefull as the K has been, but it really needs to earn its spurs before it can be put up and compared with what the K has achieved in its lifetime.
D-F
The J can be a very capable aircraft, if allowed to be. It is only about 7 years old, however the unservicability has not been too good, (especially when you compare it to the c17, an aircraft of similar age), but we can put that down to teething problems. Maybe one day the J will do all that is promised of it, and if it can stay servicable then it should do the job more than adequately. Its big advantage over the K is its uprated engines, but surely that is to be expected over the ageing allison engines.
My point is that i believe it is wrong to give the K such bad press when really if J model operators (the majority who were ex K model aircrew) were completely honest with themselves, they know there aircraft isnt living up to expectations and has been a poor replacement so far. But that is not to say it wont be as usefull as the K has been, but it really needs to earn its spurs before it can be put up and compared with what the K has achieved in its lifetime.
D-F
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: .
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dessert_flyer
It is only about 7 years old, however the unservicability has not been too good,
D-F
If it is the latter what engineering figures are you basing your statement on?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxon
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The figures based upon being around the route and it not turning up, now you know there are few figures knocking about, but if you trying to say that they have a very high servicability rate then please quote them, and im sure you will be able to obtain c17 servicability figures and compare them.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxon
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no cant find them ratty, maybe you could give me the link, also if you can find the c17 statistics it would be usefull. It would cheer me up no end if the servicabilty of the j has been as good as you have hinted, and would go a long way to prove that it is not the white elephant that a huge majority of the air force believe it is, (and no i dont have statistics for that either)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxon
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldnt agree with you more pass, im not saying that the j is the most unreliable ac in nato, all i am saying is that it has had its problems, ie the well known engine turbine problems, compared to the C17 which since coming into the RAF, has had very few problems. The K model has been a great servant for the us and proved its worth a long time ago, but i still believe we are waiting for the J to do that.
All new aircraft have had problems (a similar turbine problem occured to the K as well as it happens, the reason for 985 cruise instead of 1010. Nothing like history repeating itself is there!). The C-17 though had been operating for a number of years with the USAF before we ever though of affording a couple of them, so many of the teething problems had been cured through them. The J's servicability is now pretty d*mned good, especialy since the Eng lines were split again.
So will the J have to have any structural changes before the clearances come through, or is it going to be the same aircraft just allowed to do its job? We all know the answer. The problem (in the majority) isn't the aircraft, it's the clearance process. Every operational clearance we got in the early days was awarded retrospectively! If it hadn't been for Afg and Iraq the aircraft would probably still not be cleared to carry DAC! (Probably...)
I've said it before. I've flown them both and the J is more capable. But - at 6 years old, the J is now 15% of its way through an optimistic 40 year service life! How much longer do we have to wait?
(Not long for 3 crews from 70Sqn I hear
)
So will the J have to have any structural changes before the clearances come through, or is it going to be the same aircraft just allowed to do its job? We all know the answer. The problem (in the majority) isn't the aircraft, it's the clearance process. Every operational clearance we got in the early days was awarded retrospectively! If it hadn't been for Afg and Iraq the aircraft would probably still not be cleared to carry DAC! (Probably...)
I've said it before. I've flown them both and the J is more capable. But - at 6 years old, the J is now 15% of its way through an optimistic 40 year service life! How much longer do we have to wait?
(Not long for 3 crews from 70Sqn I hear
)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fat Albert- you are a tosser.
Some of the PPrune folk seem to be taken in by pass-a-frozo. He know's about as much as the Laundry boy in Butterworth about Hercules Op's. He spends to much time listening to the likes of the jorno Carlo Koppe.
The word in Australia is that the Pom's are so unhappy with their 'j' 's that they have sold them on to Canada.
Some of the PPrune folk seem to be taken in by pass-a-frozo. He know's about as much as the Laundry boy in Butterworth about Hercules Op's. He spends to much time listening to the likes of the jorno Carlo Koppe.
The word in Australia is that the Pom's are so unhappy with their 'j' 's that they have sold them on to Canada.
Last edited by Loadmaster; 19th Mar 2006 at 11:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes! That's a cracker! Have the J's been sold yet? I mean, who'd have 'em?I heard all the nose gears had to be replaced as they'd exceeded their fatigue life after all the towing around they've had while u/s.
On the other hand, nice place, Jandahar. Never been to Kandahar though
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Loadmaster
The word in Australia is that the Pom's are so unhappy with their 'j' 's that they have sold them on to Canada.
Although I have heard a rumour that Marshalls are going to "stretch" some of the Mk5s...
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ooooooh, Fat Albert, you finally got a bite!
Loadmaster, thank you for clearing that one up, there I was thinking that the 'J' crews absent from the sqn were out in Afg. Best we start a search party for them........
Loadmaster, thank you for clearing that one up, there I was thinking that the 'J' crews absent from the sqn were out in Afg. Best we start a search party for them........
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it was me Vs the enitre J world for 6 pages, so I thought I'd give someone else a go for a while - I'm glad others have now waded in!
The reason for the slightly higher J availability, and the reason the J is getting the bulk of the tasking, is actually very simple and may surprise many.
It is nothing to do with the aircraft being newer, or "better" - it is because K servicing schedules are based on flying hours, whereas the J's is based solely on time elapsed. In other words, you can fly the @rse off the J with no maintenence penalty. Why this is so is a mystery, not only to me but to a friend of mine, a highly experienced eng SNCO, who attempted to explain the system to me.
The K fleet has still not really recovered from Saif Sareea, where a whole shedload of maintenance was deferred, setting a precedent we are still stuck with. We now have so many lims and deferred items in F700s that servicing is taking twice as long. And thanks to LEAN we no longer have the engineering manpower to catch up with it.
If you can: A) Get a 'frame in the first place, and B) Get it away from Lyneham, the K is amazingly serviceable for a 40-year old airframe. I can count on the fingers of 1 hand the number of times I've gone u/s away from Lyneham - and I've been around for a while.
16B
The reason for the slightly higher J availability, and the reason the J is getting the bulk of the tasking, is actually very simple and may surprise many.
It is nothing to do with the aircraft being newer, or "better" - it is because K servicing schedules are based on flying hours, whereas the J's is based solely on time elapsed. In other words, you can fly the @rse off the J with no maintenence penalty. Why this is so is a mystery, not only to me but to a friend of mine, a highly experienced eng SNCO, who attempted to explain the system to me.
The K fleet has still not really recovered from Saif Sareea, where a whole shedload of maintenance was deferred, setting a precedent we are still stuck with. We now have so many lims and deferred items in F700s that servicing is taking twice as long. And thanks to LEAN we no longer have the engineering manpower to catch up with it.
If you can: A) Get a 'frame in the first place, and B) Get it away from Lyneham, the K is amazingly serviceable for a 40-year old airframe. I can count on the fingers of 1 hand the number of times I've gone u/s away from Lyneham - and I've been around for a while.
16B