Question for the C130J types
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It takes alot longer than that to dismantle all the seats and put them away before you can lay the roller - assuming they were down. Role changes are ALWAYS a major ball-ache.
Er....no it doesn't!
it is part of the aircraft role fit and remains on-board permanently
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite your handle you don't seem to be all that inquisitive, in fact you seem to be down right confused 
The roller on the J model is part of the basic fit, is accounted for in the -9
is included in the basic weight and index calculation and remains on the aircraft at all times.
When not on the floor it is stacked up to 3 high on top of the permanently fitted -4a side guidance system and as AIDU states it takes about 5-10 minutes for a couples of guys to lay or take up.
So your statement "I've flown plenty of 'frames that have not had roller on board anywhere" is actually pants and I would humbly suggest a couple of sessions with the latest copy of Jane's to help you sort out your recognition issues
The roller on the J model is part of the basic fit, is accounted for in the -9
is included in the basic weight and index calculation and remains on the aircraft at all times.
When not on the floor it is stacked up to 3 high on top of the permanently fitted -4a side guidance system and as AIDU states it takes about 5-10 minutes for a couples of guys to lay or take up.
So your statement "I've flown plenty of 'frames that have not had roller on board anywhere" is actually pants and I would humbly suggest a couple of sessions with the latest copy of Jane's to help you sort out your recognition issues
Never ever saw the "front-enders" helping with a re-role in my time (not that I'm saying I'd expect them to).
Plenty of times when the Muppets got on with it (esp. down-route) whilst the LM kept them fed and watered, and concentrated on "paperwork"
Plenty of times when the Muppets got on with it (esp. down-route) whilst the LM kept them fed and watered, and concentrated on "paperwork"
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess I'm getting some J / K confusion here then - I'm fairly certain that the same doesn't apply to the K, as I have on more than one occasion had no roller on board when I could really have done with it.
Really? You need to kick your front-ender's arses then - I've helped out with plenty of re-roles and they're a major ball-ache. It takes at least 30 mins to go from full side & centre seats to full roller, with EVERYBODY mucking in - but again, this might only be applicable to the K.
Never ever saw the "front-enders" helping with a re-role in my time
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The J floor ended up as Dash4a after Lockheed threw out Skydel as un- American. The movers then insisted on Dash 4 as everone else in the world had it and it was 'modern' - (it isn't, its as old as Skydel and not half as flexible) when what they really should have had was the ECHS flip up roller underfloor winch et al. Dash 4a is dangerous I can point you in the direction of accident reports where the floor design led to the loss of the aircarft and crew. Now the A400M on the otherhand is being ruined by Airbus without any assistance from anyone else - even though the users have tried to replicate the Beverley/Noratlas/C119 (it is a multinational project after all). Airbus are great at civil freighters and this is what they are making the A400M into - a two crew freighter and neither of them is a loadie. 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: rourkes drift
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wx662,
Our wonderful procurement people decided to buy the J with no cargo handling system (ECHS or -4a) because they thought it would be cheaper and promote commonality if they lashed up the Skydel. When we got the ac this proved impractical (but predictable). It was nothing to do with Lockheed, we messed up all by ourselves. At that stage it was too late to fit the ECHS so we ended up with the -4a. That said, it has proved flexible and efficient, there are pros and cons with both systems, but on balance the -4a is probably better for the users.
As for the A400M, there is plenty of RAF LM input to this program and I have not heard of any serious problems relating to the role equipment.
As regards the original subject of this thread, the lack of drive to get RVSM cert prior to delivery was a major own goal, just like not getting external fuel tanks. However, we will get clearance soon - the delay was due to a software error in the (UK made) ADC. In non-RVSM areas I have often flown the ac at F330, where it sniffs the fuel and still manages a good TAS.
Our wonderful procurement people decided to buy the J with no cargo handling system (ECHS or -4a) because they thought it would be cheaper and promote commonality if they lashed up the Skydel. When we got the ac this proved impractical (but predictable). It was nothing to do with Lockheed, we messed up all by ourselves. At that stage it was too late to fit the ECHS so we ended up with the -4a. That said, it has proved flexible and efficient, there are pros and cons with both systems, but on balance the -4a is probably better for the users.
As for the A400M, there is plenty of RAF LM input to this program and I have not heard of any serious problems relating to the role equipment.
As regards the original subject of this thread, the lack of drive to get RVSM cert prior to delivery was a major own goal, just like not getting external fuel tanks. However, we will get clearance soon - the delay was due to a software error in the (UK made) ADC. In non-RVSM areas I have often flown the ac at F330, where it sniffs the fuel and still manages a good TAS.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skydel is indeed flexible, but horribly manual-labour intensive. I too helped a re-role a time or two in my short time on exchange.
"Hey loady, need some help? Or do you want it done right?"
Another nice feature of the -4 floor is those 463L pallets that slide on also slide into the C17 w/o disassembling or floor loading or any of the other nonsense skydel required.
Strat air to tac air to user...463L pallets work well & have been doing so in USAF since Viet Nam - one common pallet system for entire AT fleet.
As for altitude reporting on the J - I'm just guessing here, but doubt the actual altimeters themselves have anything to do with it. Would likely suspect all is converted from an ADT or three & RVSM is principally a money/certification issue - could've been done by Lockheed (for a fee, no doubt).
"Hey loady, need some help? Or do you want it done right?"
Another nice feature of the -4 floor is those 463L pallets that slide on also slide into the C17 w/o disassembling or floor loading or any of the other nonsense skydel required.
Strat air to tac air to user...463L pallets work well & have been doing so in USAF since Viet Nam - one common pallet system for entire AT fleet.
As for altitude reporting on the J - I'm just guessing here, but doubt the actual altimeters themselves have anything to do with it. Would likely suspect all is converted from an ADT or three & RVSM is principally a money/certification issue - could've been done by Lockheed (for a fee, no doubt).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I can help with some of the confusion on the J model rollers.
The RAAF C130J's as you know are stretched.
Are so I believe are most of the RAF ones.
When the aircraft were in production at least, there was no flip over roller developed for the stretched J models. Neither the RAAF or RAF were prepared to pay the high developement costs.
End result was at build time (it may have now changed) no flip over rollers for stretched J's. However on standard length airframes the flip over rollers were available.
The RAAF apparently cooled off on flip over rollers, as experience with other aircraft (the C141 mainly) indicated they could be a high maintenace item because of dirt and sand.
However this appears to fly in the eye of the C17 experience, where their rollers appear to give little trouble.
Regards
Col Tigwell
The RAAF C130J's as you know are stretched.
Are so I believe are most of the RAF ones.
When the aircraft were in production at least, there was no flip over roller developed for the stretched J models. Neither the RAAF or RAF were prepared to pay the high developement costs.
End result was at build time (it may have now changed) no flip over rollers for stretched J's. However on standard length airframes the flip over rollers were available.
The RAAF apparently cooled off on flip over rollers, as experience with other aircraft (the C141 mainly) indicated they could be a high maintenace item because of dirt and sand.
However this appears to fly in the eye of the C17 experience, where their rollers appear to give little trouble.
Regards
Col Tigwell
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: wilts
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"However this appears to fly in the eye of the C17 experience, where their rollers appear to give little trouble".
I might be wrong, but i would imagine the C17 doesn't quite do the same role in theatre as the C130J/K.
I might be wrong, but i would imagine the C17 doesn't quite do the same role in theatre as the C130J/K.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by startermotor
I might be wrong, but i would imagine the C17 doesn't quite do the same role in theatre as the C130J/K.
Regardless, it doesn't matter what your role is, if you're in the sandbox, you get sand & grit in everything anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a RAAF C130A, I was detailed to fly with the Wing Commander, to see how high we could get a C130.
The A model being the lightest of the C130 models, would have weighed at 55,000lbs plus crew and fuel.
So at the top of the climb would have weighed about 65,000 lbs and at 37,000 ft, she just would not climb anymore.
The boss said well now we know and we went home. A model only had 3750HP engines, in the E model the best I ever saw was 38,000 ft.
I think the problem flying the J model high, is your speed would not suit mingling with the jets.
Regards
Col Tigwell
The A model being the lightest of the C130 models, would have weighed at 55,000lbs plus crew and fuel.
So at the top of the climb would have weighed about 65,000 lbs and at 37,000 ft, she just would not climb anymore.
The boss said well now we know and we went home. A model only had 3750HP engines, in the E model the best I ever saw was 38,000 ft.
I think the problem flying the J model high, is your speed would not suit mingling with the jets.
Regards
Col Tigwell
