C130J Mk5 Sell off
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C130J Mk5 Sell off
Anyone else heard the one about us selling off the short J model in order to pay for the C17's that we're getting?
Here's another one about a directive that says that the J model will shortly stop all LL flying to concentrate on what it does best - Strat!! (But not as well as the C17)?
Here's another one about a directive that says that the J model will shortly stop all LL flying to concentrate on what it does best - Strat!! (But not as well as the C17)?
Champagne anyone...?
gibber gibber
I'd heard that all the Mk5s were being sold to help fund the retirement packages for all the K navigators.......
A fair swap methinks.
As for the low level thing i believe this is true too. It has been decided that a twin IN/GPS, moving map, HUD, mapping radar etc etc platform is wasted at low level and cannot hope to compete against an old urine stained man, a crumpled map and a 230kt piece of string.
Consequently all the Js are being sold off and the crews retrained. Unfortunately the crews cannot return to the K as this would require a level of evolutionary regression not yet mastered by the world's genetic scientists. That and the fact that the shock would probably kill them too. Have you been on one of those things lately..........? Yikes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
all in jest children, all ingest....
A fair swap methinks.
As for the low level thing i believe this is true too. It has been decided that a twin IN/GPS, moving map, HUD, mapping radar etc etc platform is wasted at low level and cannot hope to compete against an old urine stained man, a crumpled map and a 230kt piece of string.
Consequently all the Js are being sold off and the crews retrained. Unfortunately the crews cannot return to the K as this would require a level of evolutionary regression not yet mastered by the world's genetic scientists. That and the fact that the shock would probably kill them too. Have you been on one of those things lately..........? Yikes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
all in jest children, all ingest....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: W England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop Start ( do they use that expression on the J?)
Is it not true then that the MK5 has to carry ballast to stay in trim then?
And who exactly is going to operate JTIDS when you get it? Although I'm not sure you are going to get it are you?
Something about not a penny more for your fleet. Do tell.
Is it not true then that the MK5 has to carry ballast to stay in trim then?
And who exactly is going to operate JTIDS when you get it? Although I'm not sure you are going to get it are you?
Something about not a penny more for your fleet. Do tell.
Champagne anyone...?
Mr 18 
I've never carried ballast on a Mk 5 to keep it in trim
Who operates the JTIDS on the Tristar? The ship's cat?
As for the "not a penny more" who knows....?
PS. Who's going to train all you lot to operate all this fabulous kit? Got the resources to keep you all current too? I'd heard they were selling off Mk5 ballast to help pay for it all.....
I've never carried ballast on a Mk 5 to keep it in trim
Who operates the JTIDS on the Tristar? The ship's cat?
As for the "not a penny more" who knows....?
PS. Who's going to train all you lot to operate all this fabulous kit? Got the resources to keep you all current too? I'd heard they were selling off Mk5 ballast to help pay for it all.....
Mr Mole
I thought that the whole point of putting 12t of fuel on board was to take that freight (you say that is also ballast) on it's way, all be it shoved up at the front. That is the same for any cargo, hence the trim sheet!!
You are not suggesting that, in addition to the cargo, the crew takes additional ballast to trim the ac? Chicken and egg theory developing here.......what came first; the ballast or the fuel?
I thought that the whole point of putting 12t of fuel on board was to take that freight (you say that is also ballast) on it's way, all be it shoved up at the front. That is the same for any cargo, hence the trim sheet!!
You are not suggesting that, in addition to the cargo, the crew takes additional ballast to trim the ac? Chicken and egg theory developing here.......what came first; the ballast or the fuel?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow.
Age: 80
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EESDL
I heard a rumour that passengers could not be seated in the front 1/3 rd of the freight bay therefore human ballast out of the question. True or False ?
I heard a rumour that passengers could not be seated in the front 1/3 rd of the freight bay therefore human ballast out of the question. True or False ?
Champagne anyone...?
An empty Mk5 will not "sit on it's bum" with more than 12T fuel on board. Sorry but that's the way it is. It will be "taily" sure but then so is a gassed up empty Mk1....
"Problems" such as they are arise with a pax only move. There is an area of the forward freight bay that cannot be used for pax due to vibration and H&S etc etc. If you carry pax only (note - no baggage) then they all have to seated to the rear of the aircraft. A large number of pax (50 odd) in such configuration will cause the aircraft to be out trim tailwards. Consequently extra ballast may be put on up front to balance it. Ordinarily the baggage could be shoved up the front to balance. A Mk1 similarly loaded would be equally difficult to trim.
This is not a particular problem as moving pax without bags is a fairly rare occurrence.
"Problems" such as they are arise with a pax only move. There is an area of the forward freight bay that cannot be used for pax due to vibration and H&S etc etc. If you carry pax only (note - no baggage) then they all have to seated to the rear of the aircraft. A large number of pax (50 odd) in such configuration will cause the aircraft to be out trim tailwards. Consequently extra ballast may be put on up front to balance it. Ordinarily the baggage could be shoved up the front to balance. A Mk1 similarly loaded would be equally difficult to trim.
This is not a particular problem as moving pax without bags is a fairly rare occurrence.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EESDL
If there isn't any cargo the Mk5 will take ballast in the form of bottled water or boxed sand!!
SS
One selling point of the 'J' was the ability to palletise everything making loading easier. The Mk5 taking baggage has to be either manually loaded by passing all the bags forward by hand or you have to re-install all the pax seats down the back once the baggage pallet has been put up front. Obviously you do the reverse to offload - what a clever step forward from the 'K'lassic where you put the bags at the back!
If there isn't any cargo the Mk5 will take ballast in the form of bottled water or boxed sand!!
SS
One selling point of the 'J' was the ability to palletise everything making loading easier. The Mk5 taking baggage has to be either manually loaded by passing all the bags forward by hand or you have to re-install all the pax seats down the back once the baggage pallet has been put up front. Obviously you do the reverse to offload - what a clever step forward from the 'K'lassic where you put the bags at the back!
So, joking aside, is this rumour just that? Or is there truth in it. Seems a bit odd to sell off a new aircraft? I heard that the remaining Mk1's were getting re-roled back into the AAR type, to refuel the slower Ch47D's and the Merlins, hence the apperance of the Mk3a???
