C130H
Longest I have done without internal tanks or AAR was 13.20 in a C Mk1. Not a lot of fuel left at the end !
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well let me see. a H model is basically an E model with more powerfull engines and lots of nicer things on the flight deck. However for the purpose of your question they have the same limitations. Much better aircraft, many consider that they were the best model C130 made.
Our RAAF H models are getting tired and have been flogged greatly mainly because of our customer the ARMY.
In my log book I see many sorties which turned into 16 hour flights because of head winds.
Now if LM had addressed the centre section fatique life early in the program we would not see basically good airframes just sitting because the fix is sooooooooo expensive.
With the exception of a few USAF aircraft which were built to consistantly work at !75,000 AUW the centre section did not change in design and life limits, from the A model through to the J.
Regards
Col
Our RAAF H models are getting tired and have been flogged greatly mainly because of our customer the ARMY.
In my log book I see many sorties which turned into 16 hour flights because of head winds.
Now if LM had addressed the centre section fatique life early in the program we would not see basically good airframes just sitting because the fix is sooooooooo expensive.
With the exception of a few USAF aircraft which were built to consistantly work at !75,000 AUW the centre section did not change in design and life limits, from the A model through to the J.
Regards
Col
herkman,
I don't agree with your comment that the RAAF C130H fleet has been flogged 'mainly because our customer the ARMY'. Constant circuit training, fighter evasion and low level operations especially in Iraq at ~300KIAS have done the damage.
In regards to C130 centre sections, the C130A had an entirely different centre section from other C130s. The original C130B/E centre section was also considerable different and really only designed for the C130B with an AUW of 135.0K. It deteriated rapidly in the C130E with the higher AUW and almost all C130E aircraft (RAAF, USAF, RCAF, RNZAF and RAF) had their centre section replaced with an upgraded centre section that is basically the same (but not identical) as the centre section used in the C130H/J. Except for an experimental carbon fibre centre section the USAF MC130H is really the only other centre section out there. Its increased strength is not so much for operating at 175.0K but to tolerate the increased fatigue spectrum of the mission and to increase the LOT of what is a very expensive and capable specialised aircraft.
I assume that the 'many 16 hour flights' in your log book either included a refuel or you had the internal ferry tank fitted?
Beez51
I don't agree with your comment that the RAAF C130H fleet has been flogged 'mainly because our customer the ARMY'. Constant circuit training, fighter evasion and low level operations especially in Iraq at ~300KIAS have done the damage.
In regards to C130 centre sections, the C130A had an entirely different centre section from other C130s. The original C130B/E centre section was also considerable different and really only designed for the C130B with an AUW of 135.0K. It deteriated rapidly in the C130E with the higher AUW and almost all C130E aircraft (RAAF, USAF, RCAF, RNZAF and RAF) had their centre section replaced with an upgraded centre section that is basically the same (but not identical) as the centre section used in the C130H/J. Except for an experimental carbon fibre centre section the USAF MC130H is really the only other centre section out there. Its increased strength is not so much for operating at 175.0K but to tolerate the increased fatigue spectrum of the mission and to increase the LOT of what is a very expensive and capable specialised aircraft.
I assume that the 'many 16 hour flights' in your log book either included a refuel or you had the internal ferry tank fitted?
Beez51
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit, I only operated at up to 175,000 lbs when South of Ascension, then we flew for about 5-6 hours and refuelled, leaving the tanker crew to fly back to ASI - poor sods.
This generally left us with enough fuel to have a shot at Mount Pleasant and divert to Monty Video.
This generally left us with enough fuel to have a shot at Mount Pleasant and divert to Monty Video.
Can a C130H do an 8 hour flight
(Including landing / take-off from a carrier, act as a field gun platform)
IMHO the best aircraft we ever bought.
(Along with the other "H's" Harrier / Hawk)
lsh
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid that I must disagree with your comments based upon information on the Herky Bird site.
The RAAF C130A's and the RC130A's that followed them down the line we were always taught were different in at least materials than the earlier ones and on the Lockheed service bulitens there is a great deal of information in regard to the materials changes and what was hoped to be achieved.
My information on the fall off of the H model came from serving members relatess to periods long before they had been operating in the sand pit.
The real problem is that we are finding the same problems with centre section life as every other air force in the world, the rest of the airplane operating hours are caused by weakness of the centre section. The design of the centre section does not vary from a fatique point of view from model to model and that is the real problem and it needs to be understood that is the real weakness of airframe life. The J model as the RAF has found out is going to have exactly the same problem.
A C130 with external tanks (one seldom sees them flying without them) caries a fuel load of 65,000lbs, the RAAF always has flown its H models on a lower TIT setting which increases engine life and lowers fuel consumption. I can assure you that only when we were hitting strong headwinds and could not climb to a better altitude for fuel flow would we divert to pick up fuel.
There was great pressure from on high not to land prematurely because all of the trips were MEDAVACS and anywhere we landed would cause great problems because of the temperatures on the ground.
A C130E with and average fuel flow can do 16 hours before the tank lights come on because we used to average 3800lbs consumption per hour.
Regards
Col
The RAAF C130A's and the RC130A's that followed them down the line we were always taught were different in at least materials than the earlier ones and on the Lockheed service bulitens there is a great deal of information in regard to the materials changes and what was hoped to be achieved.
My information on the fall off of the H model came from serving members relatess to periods long before they had been operating in the sand pit.
The real problem is that we are finding the same problems with centre section life as every other air force in the world, the rest of the airplane operating hours are caused by weakness of the centre section. The design of the centre section does not vary from a fatique point of view from model to model and that is the real problem and it needs to be understood that is the real weakness of airframe life. The J model as the RAF has found out is going to have exactly the same problem.
A C130 with external tanks (one seldom sees them flying without them) caries a fuel load of 65,000lbs, the RAAF always has flown its H models on a lower TIT setting which increases engine life and lowers fuel consumption. I can assure you that only when we were hitting strong headwinds and could not climb to a better altitude for fuel flow would we divert to pick up fuel.
There was great pressure from on high not to land prematurely because all of the trips were MEDAVACS and anywhere we landed would cause great problems because of the temperatures on the ground.
A C130E with and average fuel flow can do 16 hours before the tank lights come on because we used to average 3800lbs consumption per hour.
Regards
Col
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few comments that may help clear the matter of centre section life.
A study of this subject by yahoo search will reveal countless posts on the matter most coming from areas with considerable authority.
It needs to be understood that the problem is associated with design and QA has nothing to do with it.
Some of these posts show clearly the developement of the centre section and what various Air Forces including the RAF RAAF AND USAF are doing to overcome the problem.
Regards
Col
A study of this subject by yahoo search will reveal countless posts on the matter most coming from areas with considerable authority.
It needs to be understood that the problem is associated with design and QA has nothing to do with it.
Some of these posts show clearly the developement of the centre section and what various Air Forces including the RAF RAAF AND USAF are doing to overcome the problem.
Regards
Col
Lockheed seem always to have had centre section problems with their airlifters.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the RAAF always has flown its H models on a lower TIT setting which increases engine life and lowers fuel consumption
...When I was a young lad, I thought that we often flew at the 'higher TIT' than other Alison T56-15 operators. Depends what you mean about 'Lower TIT'...I seem to recall that it was common to LRC at max continuous - and without the Tanks fitted, ISTR that we out performed (WRT range) those with Tanks - in so far as fuel used for (LRC) range.....but too many beers have passed since then.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True enough, the RAF used to cruise at 1010 TIT, and got about 3500 hrs out of a turbine module.
Then we dropped back to 985 and immediately the overhaul period increased to about 4800 hrs (remember this is in the early/mid 70s).
If we long range cruised, we started at up to 1010 (Max Cont.) and progressively throttled back - usually aligning inboard and outboard torques as pairs to whatever was lower. By doing this, you could all but remove trim drag (bear in mind these airframes did tactical low flying and a fair few were a bit bent).
Centre section problems were caused in the RAF by NOT taking the offered protection against Cladosporium Resinae (you'll have to Google the spelling, I can't be bothered). So 'we' paid the price.
Ah well, nostalgia over, I have to go and sort out a recently decorated bedroom - how mighty are the fallen . . .
Then we dropped back to 985 and immediately the overhaul period increased to about 4800 hrs (remember this is in the early/mid 70s).
If we long range cruised, we started at up to 1010 (Max Cont.) and progressively throttled back - usually aligning inboard and outboard torques as pairs to whatever was lower. By doing this, you could all but remove trim drag (bear in mind these airframes did tactical low flying and a fair few were a bit bent).
Centre section problems were caused in the RAF by NOT taking the offered protection against Cladosporium Resinae (you'll have to Google the spelling, I can't be bothered). So 'we' paid the price.
Ah well, nostalgia over, I have to go and sort out a recently decorated bedroom - how mighty are the fallen . . .
Last edited by Dengue_Dude; 8th Aug 2010 at 09:47. Reason: Being anal
175,000 lbs out of ASI
When the first A/C were operating out of ASI the refuelling control was a little primitive with the rig of four tanks, collector box and associated pipework in the fuselage. The required loads were 175,000 lbs but the internals were a little bit awkward to accurately refuel to the correct figures so it was only after some comments on " I know these are heavy but they dont climb much at all" that some checks were carried out and we realised that with the pan slopeing in the wrong way you could actually achieve nearly 185,000 lbs on the frame. This went some way to explaining the lack of climb rate and the discrepancies on some of the refuels that were carried out. This I know cos I was there as one of the G/Es who did the HDU course at Marham before they ( Marshalls ) had actually fitted a HDU to a Herc, and went back to Marshalls to see the films they took of the drogue deployment trials.
I am afraid your terminology is wrong - the All Up Weight was 175,000 lbs, NOT the "load".
There was many a long argument about how much the empty C130K tankers actually weighed, but the fuel could not physically be much more than 62900 lbs in the wings and 28000 lbs in the fuselage tanks.
Your suggestion that there could be 10000 lbs extra fuel is way off the mark. The only thing that could affect the weight of fuel was it's temperature - and we all know that that is always in the mid to high 20s at Ascension. When the nice Victor turned up a few hours south of Ascension after some time cooling the fuel in the cruise, with a bit of side-slipping in contact to fill the outboards and a decent toboggan at the end we could get upwards of 64000 lbs in the wings (don't tell Lockheed!). The internal tanks could only be refuelled on the ground and as we could move that fuel into the wings, we know that the figures we were working on were pretty accurate.
I accept that there could have been some discrepancy about the empty weight, but it was in our interests to find out because we soon started flying off a 6000 ft runway at 175000 lbs. They flew (and climbed!) perfectly well at the published speeds so I do not believe figures of anywhere near 185000 lbs. This weight has been achieved (anecdotally?), but only with freight and definitely not on the tankers where there was no room for anything apart from the odd extra crew member.
Interestingly, at the time, Lockheed's finest brains were unconcerned about us flying regularly at 175000 lbs, but they told us to be VERY careful whilst taxying.
There was many a long argument about how much the empty C130K tankers actually weighed, but the fuel could not physically be much more than 62900 lbs in the wings and 28000 lbs in the fuselage tanks.
Your suggestion that there could be 10000 lbs extra fuel is way off the mark. The only thing that could affect the weight of fuel was it's temperature - and we all know that that is always in the mid to high 20s at Ascension. When the nice Victor turned up a few hours south of Ascension after some time cooling the fuel in the cruise, with a bit of side-slipping in contact to fill the outboards and a decent toboggan at the end we could get upwards of 64000 lbs in the wings (don't tell Lockheed!). The internal tanks could only be refuelled on the ground and as we could move that fuel into the wings, we know that the figures we were working on were pretty accurate.
I accept that there could have been some discrepancy about the empty weight, but it was in our interests to find out because we soon started flying off a 6000 ft runway at 175000 lbs. They flew (and climbed!) perfectly well at the published speeds so I do not believe figures of anywhere near 185000 lbs. This weight has been achieved (anecdotally?), but only with freight and definitely not on the tankers where there was no room for anything apart from the odd extra crew member.
Interestingly, at the time, Lockheed's finest brains were unconcerned about us flying regularly at 175000 lbs, but they told us to be VERY careful whilst taxying.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to agree with WIDN62.
That's how I remember it. We got over 64k in the wings too, basically as the SG had increased, although we were only at about FL early 20s.
God, those Hercs travelled some miles . . .
That's how I remember it. We got over 64k in the wings too, basically as the SG had increased, although we were only at about FL early 20s.
God, those Hercs travelled some miles . . .