Global Aviation Magazine : 60 Years of the Hercules
Yamagata Ken,
yes a maldrop on a fully kitted heavy drop could indeed result in a fireball, especially if the ammo went off as well. I believe there are/were videos of this very thing. Dragartist is better placed than I to comment on the latest thinking ref fuel for airdrop loads.
yes a maldrop on a fully kitted heavy drop could indeed result in a fireball, especially if the ammo went off as well. I believe there are/were videos of this very thing. Dragartist is better placed than I to comment on the latest thinking ref fuel for airdrop loads.
Nimbev, Green Night,
as the one who may have started the mature a/c post, perhaps I can explain what I meant. My main gripe was that MOD thought that by buying a proven 'off the shelf' a/c they did not need much in the way of spares. Of course the UK fiddled about with this 'off the shelf' buy to such an extent that our E/H (take your pick) became a completely new model, the 'K' (short for UK).
Many airforces had successfully operated the C130 in various marks before we got ours. For example the Indonesians were using them during Confrontation when we were still using the already obsolete Beverley and Hastings.
The FSII fiasco has already been mentioned but it is absolutely typical of MOD bean counters that the concept of spending a penny today to save a fortune tomorrow escaped them. And probably still does, alas.
as the one who may have started the mature a/c post, perhaps I can explain what I meant. My main gripe was that MOD thought that by buying a proven 'off the shelf' a/c they did not need much in the way of spares. Of course the UK fiddled about with this 'off the shelf' buy to such an extent that our E/H (take your pick) became a completely new model, the 'K' (short for UK).
Many airforces had successfully operated the C130 in various marks before we got ours. For example the Indonesians were using them during Confrontation when we were still using the already obsolete Beverley and Hastings.
The FSII fiasco has already been mentioned but it is absolutely typical of MOD bean counters that the concept of spending a penny today to save a fortune tomorrow escaped them. And probably still does, alas.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: wiltshire
Age: 65
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall the video of the MSP drop as part of an exercise mounted from Carlisle. As the load failed to land correctly the film crew were approaching the crater, just as the rounds started cooking off, credit to the cameraman for holding camera facing the explosions as he legged it!
Nimbev #1820,
I was one of six techies who were the founding members of the Corrosion Control Team (CCTV/Tank Rats) at Colerne, in late 1972. Our task was to "blend out" corrosion in the wings (particularly the fuel tanks), take a full measure of such blends, and produce a map of the (damage) resulting. This allowed the structural authority to decide the status, and future operability of the wings in the aircraft. I well remember one Saturday evening (yes, we worked weekends too) using a 30,000 RPM air grinder on a small "bleb" of exfoliation in the No3 Dry bay, as soon as a small amount of pressure was applied to the head, the grinder, then my hand disappeared through the wing (the titanium heat shields were removed at that time to allow external inspection). It resulted in an 8 inch diameter hole through the bottom of the mainplane, I believe this might have been the damage subsequently shown to the delivery crew. One thing for certain, the corrosion, as I understood it, was not the product of Cladosporium Resinae, or any other external influence. ISTR at the time that most in the engineering world clearly identified the corrosion as developing from within the material. The thinking, even at that time, was that the C130 had a finite design life, vastly short of that envisaged by the politicians who decided to buy i Having spent many hours "blending" I have to say that the way it went was as follows;
We first did a survey of the interior of the fuel tanks, all signs of degradation(often a "bleb" of 1/16 of an inch diameter) were logged and recorded. We then began the rectification. Using a fine emery on the grinder to start we often found that as we worked the 1/16 bleb became a 2 inch diameter crater. When the corrosion was removed, we honed (polished) the resulting pit, then measured and recorded the result. As the outside of the wing was similarly treated, the resulting map gave a decent indication of structural degradation.
I was posted to Akrotiri in 1973, thankfully, but I understand that the whole fleet had the wings replaced not long after. As a result, by the time I returned to Albert, all was well.
Greenknight has some valid points about USAF, etc, experience with the C130. The C130K was a "different beast" to anything the U.S. Forces used. Many avionics systems were replaced, and subsequently their electrical supply systems etc. The -15 Allisons were different again from the more standard -7As of its C130E predecessor (as was the C130H from the K). Either way, I doubt any poster on here would deride either version of this fabulous aircraft. Wherever I've been fortunate enough to travel around the globe, it's always been a pleasure spending time debating the engineering problems of the C130, of all varieties, at the end of the day with fellow support people, though, there's not many techies I've met who dislike the aircraft. Sorry if I've bored anyone with tecky stuff, but I felt it was relevant to how this discussion is developing.
Smudge
I was one of six techies who were the founding members of the Corrosion Control Team (CCTV/Tank Rats) at Colerne, in late 1972. Our task was to "blend out" corrosion in the wings (particularly the fuel tanks), take a full measure of such blends, and produce a map of the (damage) resulting. This allowed the structural authority to decide the status, and future operability of the wings in the aircraft. I well remember one Saturday evening (yes, we worked weekends too) using a 30,000 RPM air grinder on a small "bleb" of exfoliation in the No3 Dry bay, as soon as a small amount of pressure was applied to the head, the grinder, then my hand disappeared through the wing (the titanium heat shields were removed at that time to allow external inspection). It resulted in an 8 inch diameter hole through the bottom of the mainplane, I believe this might have been the damage subsequently shown to the delivery crew. One thing for certain, the corrosion, as I understood it, was not the product of Cladosporium Resinae, or any other external influence. ISTR at the time that most in the engineering world clearly identified the corrosion as developing from within the material. The thinking, even at that time, was that the C130 had a finite design life, vastly short of that envisaged by the politicians who decided to buy i Having spent many hours "blending" I have to say that the way it went was as follows;
We first did a survey of the interior of the fuel tanks, all signs of degradation(often a "bleb" of 1/16 of an inch diameter) were logged and recorded. We then began the rectification. Using a fine emery on the grinder to start we often found that as we worked the 1/16 bleb became a 2 inch diameter crater. When the corrosion was removed, we honed (polished) the resulting pit, then measured and recorded the result. As the outside of the wing was similarly treated, the resulting map gave a decent indication of structural degradation.
I was posted to Akrotiri in 1973, thankfully, but I understand that the whole fleet had the wings replaced not long after. As a result, by the time I returned to Albert, all was well.
Greenknight has some valid points about USAF, etc, experience with the C130. The C130K was a "different beast" to anything the U.S. Forces used. Many avionics systems were replaced, and subsequently their electrical supply systems etc. The -15 Allisons were different again from the more standard -7As of its C130E predecessor (as was the C130H from the K). Either way, I doubt any poster on here would deride either version of this fabulous aircraft. Wherever I've been fortunate enough to travel around the globe, it's always been a pleasure spending time debating the engineering problems of the C130, of all varieties, at the end of the day with fellow support people, though, there's not many techies I've met who dislike the aircraft. Sorry if I've bored anyone with tecky stuff, but I felt it was relevant to how this discussion is developing.
Smudge
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ksim,
I recall said video was a Pinz and trailer loaded with live 88mm mortar rounds. Ex purple something or other. It was a JATE camera man who dived into a hollow leaving his camera running. Big Paul (can't recall his surname) was on the MALDROP party and can be seen walking around quite nonchalantly having a gander. As the rounds started to go off he began walking away slowly. I would have ran! The DZ was up at Otterburn. The next day Paul came down to Newton Abbott with me catching up with zeds in the back of the Astra. He was not much good at the Torquay grab a granny that night.
I am surprised these video's have not yet shown up on You Tube. (the airdrop not the grab a granny with the cattle prod)
Re the fuel. Yes a big move from petrol to diesel. Vehicle tanks were never more than 3/4 full. AA62 is absolutely correct over max out with side stores on ops. In many cases this exceeded the cleared weight and particularly the CoG which was quite critical.
The jerry cans may have been mandatory stores on this particular load to get the CoG in the middle. Ammo boxes filled with gravel were preferred.
I think I have previously recounted the issues we had when we tried to bring back HSP! I hope the remaining one finished up at the Airborne collection at Duxford. Does anyone know if there is an MSP preserved. There were a couple at JATE in May this year when I went to the reunion.
I recall said video was a Pinz and trailer loaded with live 88mm mortar rounds. Ex purple something or other. It was a JATE camera man who dived into a hollow leaving his camera running. Big Paul (can't recall his surname) was on the MALDROP party and can be seen walking around quite nonchalantly having a gander. As the rounds started to go off he began walking away slowly. I would have ran! The DZ was up at Otterburn. The next day Paul came down to Newton Abbott with me catching up with zeds in the back of the Astra. He was not much good at the Torquay grab a granny that night.
I am surprised these video's have not yet shown up on You Tube. (the airdrop not the grab a granny with the cattle prod)
Re the fuel. Yes a big move from petrol to diesel. Vehicle tanks were never more than 3/4 full. AA62 is absolutely correct over max out with side stores on ops. In many cases this exceeded the cleared weight and particularly the CoG which was quite critical.
The jerry cans may have been mandatory stores on this particular load to get the CoG in the middle. Ammo boxes filled with gravel were preferred.
I think I have previously recounted the issues we had when we tried to bring back HSP! I hope the remaining one finished up at the Airborne collection at Duxford. Does anyone know if there is an MSP preserved. There were a couple at JATE in May this year when I went to the reunion.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: wiltshire
Age: 65
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drag,
The big question is are there videos of the drop in France when no-one told the crews it was a climbing dz and as the platforms departed, working as advertised, right up until the anti swing chute (not fully deployed) failed to fully retard the swing. It was ok though the French countryside did that. Much merriment at the campsite in Toulouse at the sight of many land rovers/trailers arriving on flat beds looking as flat as something from a cartoon. Happy days indeed.
The big question is are there videos of the drop in France when no-one told the crews it was a climbing dz and as the platforms departed, working as advertised, right up until the anti swing chute (not fully deployed) failed to fully retard the swing. It was ok though the French countryside did that. Much merriment at the campsite in Toulouse at the sight of many land rovers/trailers arriving on flat beds looking as flat as something from a cartoon. Happy days indeed.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smuj
I bow to your superior knowledge re the Corrosion Control Team at Colerne in late '72, but I was talking about the corrosion problem in mid '69 when the aircraft were only 12 - 18 months old. I am not aware that any other C130 operator had the same problem in which case the cause could hardly have been a design problem, could it? Unless not adding a manufacturer approved and recommended additive could be seen as a design problem.
I left the Herc fleet at the end of '71 so perhaps I have missed part of the story!
The thinking, even at that time, was that the C130 had a finite design life, vastly short of that envisaged
I left the Herc fleet at the end of '71 so perhaps I have missed part of the story!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed Service News magazine #29 July-August 1961 special "fuel tank corrosion" issue (the entire 7-article 15-page issue was devoted to the problem). This addresses the microbiological contamination and corrosion. According to the article:
http://www.c-130hercules.net/LSN/No29.pdf
The RAAF signed a contract for 12 C-130As in October 1957, which were all delivered by March 1959.
During the early 1960s all of the RAAF's C-130As were flown to the United States to receive new wing fuel tanks after the original tanks were affected by corrosion caused by tropical fungi and bacteria. Later that decade these aircraft received new panels on the upper surface of their wings after the original ones were found to be faulty.
Within the past year, fuel tank corrosion induced by microbiological contamination of jet fuels has become one of the most all encompassing problems ever encountered by airplane operators and manufacturers.
The problem is industry wide. The effects have been felt by virtually everyone concerned with jet aircraft.
The problem is industry wide. The effects have been felt by virtually everyone concerned with jet aircraft.
The RAAF signed a contract for 12 C-130As in October 1957, which were all delivered by March 1959.
During the early 1960s all of the RAAF's C-130As were flown to the United States to receive new wing fuel tanks after the original tanks were affected by corrosion caused by tropical fungi and bacteria. Later that decade these aircraft received new panels on the upper surface of their wings after the original ones were found to be faulty.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 11th Nov 2014 at 04:41.
Green Knight,
thank you for that informative post. I believe that MOD were told about the potential problem and that the addition of FSII would help in this respect. That they chose to not to accept this advice could only be on 'penny pinching' grounds. Before the bulk issue of fuel with FSII we used to carry a 44 gallon drum of the stuff and hand blend it over wing using a Kelson pump !
The bottom line is that the C130 in whatever mark, (Multi Role Capable Aircraft) is the greatest airlifter ever built. Without it we in the UK could not have carried out many of the ops we were sent to do.
thank you for that informative post. I believe that MOD were told about the potential problem and that the addition of FSII would help in this respect. That they chose to not to accept this advice could only be on 'penny pinching' grounds. Before the bulk issue of fuel with FSII we used to carry a 44 gallon drum of the stuff and hand blend it over wing using a Kelson pump !
The bottom line is that the C130 in whatever mark, (Multi Role Capable Aircraft) is the greatest airlifter ever built. Without it we in the UK could not have carried out many of the ops we were sent to do.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, Ksim, I know the event in France you mention. would have been in my early days at JATE. I know the Maldrop party came back traumatised (I think it would have been Capt Pete G*****) where the MSPs dropped long into the hillside. They consider them selves lucky not to have been squashed. I think it was a night drop. They heard but did not see them coming.
I went down to CAP Toulouse and remember the French putting on a show from the Transal and 130 with lots of troop chutes used for heavy drop. Clusters of 20 or so chutes all tangled up. Us Brits clapped and cheered and went back to le chateau for more shampoo with blackcurrant juice and soft chees on small squares of bread.
AA62- That chevron shape is quite landmark and features in some of my own photos from a few years after your HSP.
I went down to CAP Toulouse and remember the French putting on a show from the Transal and 130 with lots of troop chutes used for heavy drop. Clusters of 20 or so chutes all tangled up. Us Brits clapped and cheered and went back to le chateau for more shampoo with blackcurrant juice and soft chees on small squares of bread.
AA62- That chevron shape is quite landmark and features in some of my own photos from a few years after your HSP.
Nimbev#1827,
I'm sure that I never meant to insinuate that Lockheed had ever designed the aircraft to be "short of legs" with regard to time capability. My belief is simply that the material used to manufacture the wings, was sub standard, of dubious quality, and may well have been the cause of both the RAF and prior RAAF corrosion problems. Greenknight's description of replacing RAAF fuel tanks sounds very like re skinning of the wings (the fuel tanks were all integral) apart from the Aux (bag) tanks. Certainly, the vast majority of the stuff I ground away originated from the Middle, not the surface of the wing plank material. My post referred to thinking, at Colerne, the major servicing unit in the early 70s, that the corrosion problem was the result of impurities, or poor production of the material used to manufacture the wings of the aircraft. I well remember someone telling me that when they melted the "Aloominum" saucepans, they forgot to take the Bakelite handles off them. It wouldn't be the first time I'm sure. The problem was resolved later when new wings were fitted, and Albert became the aircraft we all know and love. I wonder if any aircraft has ever entered service, without such hiccups ? I'm sure few can claim that distinction, yet, throughout the corrosion problems of the late 60s/ early 70s Albert continued to do the job, and brought the Royal Air Force transport fleet into the realms of modern capability. As always, apologies for the long post, I must say, that AA62 shot looks like a bullseye.
Smudge
I'm sure that I never meant to insinuate that Lockheed had ever designed the aircraft to be "short of legs" with regard to time capability. My belief is simply that the material used to manufacture the wings, was sub standard, of dubious quality, and may well have been the cause of both the RAF and prior RAAF corrosion problems. Greenknight's description of replacing RAAF fuel tanks sounds very like re skinning of the wings (the fuel tanks were all integral) apart from the Aux (bag) tanks. Certainly, the vast majority of the stuff I ground away originated from the Middle, not the surface of the wing plank material. My post referred to thinking, at Colerne, the major servicing unit in the early 70s, that the corrosion problem was the result of impurities, or poor production of the material used to manufacture the wings of the aircraft. I well remember someone telling me that when they melted the "Aloominum" saucepans, they forgot to take the Bakelite handles off them. It wouldn't be the first time I'm sure. The problem was resolved later when new wings were fitted, and Albert became the aircraft we all know and love. I wonder if any aircraft has ever entered service, without such hiccups ? I'm sure few can claim that distinction, yet, throughout the corrosion problems of the late 60s/ early 70s Albert continued to do the job, and brought the Royal Air Force transport fleet into the realms of modern capability. As always, apologies for the long post, I must say, that AA62 shot looks like a bullseye.
Smudge
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, like the British issue with the material the main wing spars of their V-bombers (especially the Valiants) were made of becoming more brittle sooner than planned, there is plenty of documentation of the material of C-130 wings.
The C-130A used basically the aluminium grades used by the B-29s, etc-which had stood up well. However, before production of the C-130E began is was learned that the stresses experienced by a tactical airlifter were different than those of a high-altitude strategic bomber (much like the change in stresses when the RAF went to low-level operations with the V-force), and cracks in wing spars and the center wing box were being found much earlier than expected.
This led to the C-130E wings being constructed with different alloys - ones designed to hold up better. The earlier models had "doublers' added in many points in their wing structures to enable them to serve longer (more below).
The C-130Hs had yet another material change, as the C-130Es also eventually began to be fitted with "doublers" - although fewer in number.
I learned all this doing research after the 2002 crash of a civilian-operated fire-tanker C-130A - the center wing box failed, and both wings broke off in flight - the crash was filmed, and can be found on youtube.
The cause was found to be corrosion-amplified fatigue cracks in the original structure, which had been hidden from inspection by the doublers - the only way to find these cracks would be to periodically drill out the rivets holding the doublers in place to expose the underlying material, then re-rivet the doublers back into place.
The C-130A used basically the aluminium grades used by the B-29s, etc-which had stood up well. However, before production of the C-130E began is was learned that the stresses experienced by a tactical airlifter were different than those of a high-altitude strategic bomber (much like the change in stresses when the RAF went to low-level operations with the V-force), and cracks in wing spars and the center wing box were being found much earlier than expected.
This led to the C-130E wings being constructed with different alloys - ones designed to hold up better. The earlier models had "doublers' added in many points in their wing structures to enable them to serve longer (more below).
The C-130Hs had yet another material change, as the C-130Es also eventually began to be fitted with "doublers" - although fewer in number.
I learned all this doing research after the 2002 crash of a civilian-operated fire-tanker C-130A - the center wing box failed, and both wings broke off in flight - the crash was filmed, and can be found on youtube.
The cause was found to be corrosion-amplified fatigue cracks in the original structure, which had been hidden from inspection by the doublers - the only way to find these cracks would be to periodically drill out the rivets holding the doublers in place to expose the underlying material, then re-rivet the doublers back into place.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 13th Nov 2014 at 01:49.
Gan,
as the advert used to put it 'the RAF's own island in the sun ' For those that may not be familiar it is located at the southern end of the Maldives. No doubt a search engine trawl will provide the history etc.
Green Knight,
thank you for another very interesting post. If the 'E' and the 'H' had different material in the wing it begs the question of what the RAF 'K' was constructed from ! As a mere loadmaster I became interested in the a/c structure and the corrosion problems when, as was my habit on route, I read about it in the relevant AP in the a/c library. I had not known till then of the variety of alloy used in the C130 structure.
The SNCO i/c the Structures Bay very kindly indulged my curiosity and showed my some rather alarming bits of mouldy a/c and the constant battle with the problem. Many other a/c will have no doubt suffered at one time or another as the battle of weight versus strength was fought out in the design offices.
thank you for another very interesting post. If the 'E' and the 'H' had different material in the wing it begs the question of what the RAF 'K' was constructed from ! As a mere loadmaster I became interested in the a/c structure and the corrosion problems when, as was my habit on route, I read about it in the relevant AP in the a/c library. I had not known till then of the variety of alloy used in the C130 structure.
The SNCO i/c the Structures Bay very kindly indulged my curiosity and showed my some rather alarming bits of mouldy a/c and the constant battle with the problem. Many other a/c will have no doubt suffered at one time or another as the battle of weight versus strength was fought out in the design offices.
Smudge.
I think you will find that Albert was not the only one suffering from corrosion. The Nimrod also had a big problem with wing corrosion and many manhours were expended trying to eliminate what effectively was eating metal from the inside and by the time it was seen,on the surface, it was pretty bad.The Lockheed P3 Orion, ISTR, had similar corrosion problems too.
If memory serves me; It was the method of construction of the wings which caused the bother. The corrosion had a particular name but my grey matter refuses to retrieve it.
I think you will find that Albert was not the only one suffering from corrosion. The Nimrod also had a big problem with wing corrosion and many manhours were expended trying to eliminate what effectively was eating metal from the inside and by the time it was seen,on the surface, it was pretty bad.The Lockheed P3 Orion, ISTR, had similar corrosion problems too.
If memory serves me; It was the method of construction of the wings which caused the bother. The corrosion had a particular name but my grey matter refuses to retrieve it.
OA & T,
Of course you are correct. All aircraft suffer from corrosion in one form or another. Certainly, the type of corrosion experienced in the original supplied mainplanes met all the requirements of Exfoliation corrosion;
"Exfoliation corrosion is a special form of intergranular corrosion which occurs when the grains are flattened by heavy deformation during hot or cold rolling, and where no recrystallization has occurred. Exfoliation is characteristic for the 2000 (Al-Cu), 5000 (Al-Mg), and 7000 (Al-Zn-Mg) series alloys which have grain boundary precipitation or depleted grain boundary regions." Credits to Keytometals.com.
Your reference to the Nimrod, and it's associated corrosion problems are directly related to the aircrafts operating environment, salt water, and despite the wash at the end of the sortie, ultimately proved not up to defeating Mr Atmospheric corrosion;
Atmospheric corrosion is defined as the corrosion or degradation of material exposed to the air and its pollutants rather than immersed in a liquid. This has been identified as one of the oldest forms of corrosion and has been reported to account for more failures in terms of cost and tonnage than any other single environment. Many authors classify atmospheric corrosion under categories of dry, damp, and wet, thus emphasizing the different mechanisms of attack under increasing humidity or moisture.
Corrosivity of the atmosphere to metals varies greatly from one geographic location to another, depending on such weather factors as wind direction, precipitation and temperature changes, amount and type of urban and industrial pollutants, and proximity to natural bodies of water. Service life may also be affected by the design of the structure if weather conditions cause repeated moisture condensation in unsealed crevices or in channels with no provision for drainage. Credits Keytometals.com
There's a huge difference in what was experienced with Alberts first wings, and the "usual run of the mill" corrosion problems. I'm sure that many might have different opinions, but having been involved in the very expensive attempts by the "RAF to repair a lost cause", I honestly feel that better quality control in producing the material might well have elicited a more favourable outcome. I'm pretty sure that we have now done this subject to death (I hope so), I'm sure that many operators are reading this and saying "what is he blathering on about?".
I look forward to Chickenlover, AA62 and all those others who, unlike me, saw fit to take a decent camera down route with them. Meanwhile, Gan looks worthy of a paid visit, though a posting there in the 70s would have found some resistance.
A question for the drivers, no doubt one that will be ignored as usual. Having jumped in the back of many a different airframe, heading down route, and, having some experience in flying gliders, I wonder if pilots were aware of any peculiarities of any particular aircraft (Trembling Two for example (XV222))? I know I have flown different gliders of the same designation, that certainly "felt" different in handling. So, did our pilots maintain a note of different aircraft within the fleet? We're the SF designated airframes truly bent ? I'm sure that many might be interested in the handling qualities of Albert, me for one, and only those who operated them regularly can offer any material on that.
Smudge
Of course you are correct. All aircraft suffer from corrosion in one form or another. Certainly, the type of corrosion experienced in the original supplied mainplanes met all the requirements of Exfoliation corrosion;
"Exfoliation corrosion is a special form of intergranular corrosion which occurs when the grains are flattened by heavy deformation during hot or cold rolling, and where no recrystallization has occurred. Exfoliation is characteristic for the 2000 (Al-Cu), 5000 (Al-Mg), and 7000 (Al-Zn-Mg) series alloys which have grain boundary precipitation or depleted grain boundary regions." Credits to Keytometals.com.
Your reference to the Nimrod, and it's associated corrosion problems are directly related to the aircrafts operating environment, salt water, and despite the wash at the end of the sortie, ultimately proved not up to defeating Mr Atmospheric corrosion;
Atmospheric corrosion is defined as the corrosion or degradation of material exposed to the air and its pollutants rather than immersed in a liquid. This has been identified as one of the oldest forms of corrosion and has been reported to account for more failures in terms of cost and tonnage than any other single environment. Many authors classify atmospheric corrosion under categories of dry, damp, and wet, thus emphasizing the different mechanisms of attack under increasing humidity or moisture.
Corrosivity of the atmosphere to metals varies greatly from one geographic location to another, depending on such weather factors as wind direction, precipitation and temperature changes, amount and type of urban and industrial pollutants, and proximity to natural bodies of water. Service life may also be affected by the design of the structure if weather conditions cause repeated moisture condensation in unsealed crevices or in channels with no provision for drainage. Credits Keytometals.com
There's a huge difference in what was experienced with Alberts first wings, and the "usual run of the mill" corrosion problems. I'm sure that many might have different opinions, but having been involved in the very expensive attempts by the "RAF to repair a lost cause", I honestly feel that better quality control in producing the material might well have elicited a more favourable outcome. I'm pretty sure that we have now done this subject to death (I hope so), I'm sure that many operators are reading this and saying "what is he blathering on about?".
I look forward to Chickenlover, AA62 and all those others who, unlike me, saw fit to take a decent camera down route with them. Meanwhile, Gan looks worthy of a paid visit, though a posting there in the 70s would have found some resistance.
A question for the drivers, no doubt one that will be ignored as usual. Having jumped in the back of many a different airframe, heading down route, and, having some experience in flying gliders, I wonder if pilots were aware of any peculiarities of any particular aircraft (Trembling Two for example (XV222))? I know I have flown different gliders of the same designation, that certainly "felt" different in handling. So, did our pilots maintain a note of different aircraft within the fleet? We're the SF designated airframes truly bent ? I'm sure that many might be interested in the handling qualities of Albert, me for one, and only those who operated them regularly can offer any material on that.
Smudge
Last edited by smujsmith; 12th Nov 2014 at 20:20.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I well remember whilst on duty crew in the early 60's watching an A model that had just come of its first major service, unload all over the hardstand about 30.000 lb of fuel. We tried to defuel it but was running out quicker than we could suck it out.
When the greater part was either back in the tanker, or it had stopped leaking from the wing, we towed year to more remote spot and allowed her to drip dry.
In this case the leaks were caused by microbes that loved the talk sealant.
When Mr Lockheed turned up we found that the IAF were the only operator who did not have the problem.
IAF staff it turned out were using the pogo stick to capture the fuel from the wing sumps to take home for their stoves. Needless to say the microbes went with the drainers.
REGARDS
When the greater part was either back in the tanker, or it had stopped leaking from the wing, we towed year to more remote spot and allowed her to drip dry.
In this case the leaks were caused by microbes that loved the talk sealant.
When Mr Lockheed turned up we found that the IAF were the only operator who did not have the problem.
IAF staff it turned out were using the pogo stick to capture the fuel from the wing sumps to take home for their stoves. Needless to say the microbes went with the drainers.
REGARDS
HERKMAN,
Ahh, the pogo stick, and the poly bag. Many a morning I've spent doing water seds, and trying to work out how to dispose of the results. Dakar in Senegal often attracted an audience, more than willing, to relieve me of the burden. RAF Germany was another matter, despite the words of hardship from the "linie's" at Wildenrath, none offered to make use of my samples. Usually dumped in the Houchin cable stowage bay. I agree though that water sed was an important part of "looking after your Albert", and having seen some real crud in the sample bag, made a point of doing the checks religiously. I assume IAF is Indian, not Israeli Air Force.
Smudge
Ahh, the pogo stick, and the poly bag. Many a morning I've spent doing water seds, and trying to work out how to dispose of the results. Dakar in Senegal often attracted an audience, more than willing, to relieve me of the burden. RAF Germany was another matter, despite the words of hardship from the "linie's" at Wildenrath, none offered to make use of my samples. Usually dumped in the Houchin cable stowage bay. I agree though that water sed was an important part of "looking after your Albert", and having seen some real crud in the sample bag, made a point of doing the checks religiously. I assume IAF is Indian, not Israeli Air Force.
Smudge
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, aa62 - I've looked it up, and I wasn't 100% correct in my memory -but I was close.
Here is what I was (slightly mis-) remembering:
Hidden Fatigue Cracks Suspected in C130 Fire-Fighter Wing-Loss
Here is what I was (slightly mis-) remembering:
Hidden Fatigue Cracks Suspected in C130 Fire-Fighter Wing-Loss
The prototype C-130A fuselage was made of 7075-T6 alloy aluminum. The T6 temper gives high strength, but the fuselage cyclic tests quickly showed it is susceptible to fatigue, leading to hundreds of failures, three of which would have been catastrophic. Lockheed changed the fuselage skin to fatigue-tolerant 2024-T3 aluminum and redesigned the structure to reduce stress.
But they did not change the wing center box alloy, which was 7075-T6. The C-130B and original C-130E center boxes remained 7075-T6, but poor results in the C-130E fatigue test, in which the center box lower skin suffered the most damage, caused a change of material to more fatigue-tolerant 7075-T7531, as well as a redesign to reduce stress by 20%. The wing center section continues to be a life-limiting part for newer C-130s.
But they did not change the wing center box alloy, which was 7075-T6. The C-130B and original C-130E center boxes remained 7075-T6, but poor results in the C-130E fatigue test, in which the center box lower skin suffered the most damage, caused a change of material to more fatigue-tolerant 7075-T7531, as well as a redesign to reduce stress by 20%. The wing center section continues to be a life-limiting part for newer C-130s.