C130J Getting nowhere fast?
C130J Getting nowhere fast?
Champagne anyone...?
Tis true!
Had to come out eventually
The C130J is getting through turbines somewhat quicker than it should
Basically they are being run too hot. We cruise at a detented power setting of MCP (max continuous power) but it would seem that this is a bit too warm for a healthy turbine life.
Apparently they need to run about 30degC cooler to preserve their life. Cruise EGT is about 740degC so it would appear that a new cruise power setting needs to be found. Unfortunately all we have in the ODMs are High Speed Cruise and the mind-numbing Long Range Cruise.
Until data figures can be produced for an "MCP - 30" Speed Cruise setting the Release to Service has been amended such that Long Range Cruise is the power setting to be used. This can add over an hour to a flight back from Cyprus....
As an aside, if Long Range Cruise is flown properly then the aircraft should always be at it's cruise ceiling. This leads to a situation whereby, in the high 20s/low 30s FLs the power setting required is MCP, as near as dammit. Couple this with the lower airspeeds associated with LRC one can end up spending longer at MCP than if one was High Speed Cruising at a lower altitude. Ho hum.
I imagine it'll take about eight thousand years for Qinetiq etc to produce new ODM data (and then stress test the pages to 90G and -243F) and so hopefully an interim solution may be found. Cruising at MCP - 30 deg doesn't have a major impact on flight times; back from Cyprus it would add about 10 minutes over a HSC plan. Whilst there is no data for MCP - 30 fuel flows etc one can just run a LRC fuel plan and use that as a Red Line. Once at cruising level actual IAS and Fuel flow can be stuck in the CNI to give accurate ETAs and fuels. If you hit the red line, go LRC, just as per the SOP for HSC.
Not that I'm suggesting you do that of course. R to S is the law
and the PMA sees all
Coincidentally, the K had a similar problem when it came into service. Cruise power was originally, I believe, 1010deg. This was knackering engines so was reduced to 932deg (?). I think ultimately the additional costs of fuel, extra flight time, long crew duty etc etc outweighed the costs of engines so it was upped to the happy medium of 985deg.
At least that's what bloke down the pub said.
I shall now prepare myself for a weekend standing in front of one telling the punters 'ow bleedin' marvellous the J is
Cos it is 
Had to come out eventually
The C130J is getting through turbines somewhat quicker than it should
Basically they are being run too hot. We cruise at a detented power setting of MCP (max continuous power) but it would seem that this is a bit too warm for a healthy turbine life. Apparently they need to run about 30degC cooler to preserve their life. Cruise EGT is about 740degC so it would appear that a new cruise power setting needs to be found. Unfortunately all we have in the ODMs are High Speed Cruise and the mind-numbing Long Range Cruise.
Until data figures can be produced for an "MCP - 30" Speed Cruise setting the Release to Service has been amended such that Long Range Cruise is the power setting to be used. This can add over an hour to a flight back from Cyprus....
As an aside, if Long Range Cruise is flown properly then the aircraft should always be at it's cruise ceiling. This leads to a situation whereby, in the high 20s/low 30s FLs the power setting required is MCP, as near as dammit. Couple this with the lower airspeeds associated with LRC one can end up spending longer at MCP than if one was High Speed Cruising at a lower altitude. Ho hum.
I imagine it'll take about eight thousand years for Qinetiq etc to produce new ODM data (and then stress test the pages to 90G and -243F) and so hopefully an interim solution may be found. Cruising at MCP - 30 deg doesn't have a major impact on flight times; back from Cyprus it would add about 10 minutes over a HSC plan. Whilst there is no data for MCP - 30 fuel flows etc one can just run a LRC fuel plan and use that as a Red Line. Once at cruising level actual IAS and Fuel flow can be stuck in the CNI to give accurate ETAs and fuels. If you hit the red line, go LRC, just as per the SOP for HSC.
Not that I'm suggesting you do that of course. R to S is the law
and the PMA sees allCoincidentally, the K had a similar problem when it came into service. Cruise power was originally, I believe, 1010deg. This was knackering engines so was reduced to 932deg (?). I think ultimately the additional costs of fuel, extra flight time, long crew duty etc etc outweighed the costs of engines so it was upped to the happy medium of 985deg.
At least that's what bloke down the pub said.
I shall now prepare myself for a weekend standing in front of one telling the punters 'ow bleedin' marvellous the J is
Cos it is
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest Oxfordshire
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herc K cruise
WIWOH...
If I remember rightly, Max Continuous was always 1010 deg C and was the setting that all engine-out cruise data was based on (and that we used if we lost a donk).
However 985 deg C was the normal 4-engine cruise setting when I joined the fleet in 1986 (!) and we had ODM data for it by the bucketload.
The 932 deg C thing was a trial that we later had to do for a while on each flight for 1 hour in the cruise - again, if I remember rightly. I think that that value was chosen because 932 deg C was Max Continuous on the engines fitted to the A model Hercs still then in widespread use by the Spams, and oodles of cruise data for the frame was available from them. The data that were gathered showed that the loss of speed and consequent increase in nightstops and loss of availability (particularly on those devilishly tight European multi-shuttle day trips such as the Deci sched), coupled with the general loss of sense of humour on what was already a famously slow aircraft, led to its being abandoned.
If I remember rightly, of course.
(Got to drink my Horlicks now)
Gadget
If I remember rightly, Max Continuous was always 1010 deg C and was the setting that all engine-out cruise data was based on (and that we used if we lost a donk).
However 985 deg C was the normal 4-engine cruise setting when I joined the fleet in 1986 (!) and we had ODM data for it by the bucketload.
The 932 deg C thing was a trial that we later had to do for a while on each flight for 1 hour in the cruise - again, if I remember rightly. I think that that value was chosen because 932 deg C was Max Continuous on the engines fitted to the A model Hercs still then in widespread use by the Spams, and oodles of cruise data for the frame was available from them. The data that were gathered showed that the loss of speed and consequent increase in nightstops and loss of availability (particularly on those devilishly tight European multi-shuttle day trips such as the Deci sched), coupled with the general loss of sense of humour on what was already a famously slow aircraft, led to its being abandoned.
If I remember rightly, of course.
(Got to drink my Horlicks now)
Gadget
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I try not to be too cynical about our J cousins, but does this mean that you'll have to wait 6 months for a software update?
I take it that you can't just bring back the power levers a bit, like you could on a Klassic.
Let's not be too ambitious here but you've only got until 2012 to get them all to Brize. Tee Hee.
I take it that you can't just bring back the power levers a bit, like you could on a Klassic.
Let's not be too ambitious here but you've only got until 2012 to get them all to Brize. Tee Hee.
Champagne anyone...?
SirPeter - cynical? You? Never
We can just pull the levers back and set whatever temps/power we want. The argument from on high is that there is no ODM planning data to work on when doing this so you can't plan it properly.
I say run a LRC jetplan to use as a red line and HSC shortplan to give you an upper limit fuel figure then crack on at MCP temps minus 30deg.
But then I also say things like "Champagne? £180 a bottle? Capital idea - we'll take three" so it's probably best not listening to me....
Captain Gadget - I guess that'll be what I heard. Lost a bit in translation perhaps 985 is still the cruise power setting and 1010 the MCP and climb power....I think....immediately forgot all this stuff the day after my last K trip
We can just pull the levers back and set whatever temps/power we want. The argument from on high is that there is no ODM planning data to work on when doing this so you can't plan it properly.
I say run a LRC jetplan to use as a red line and HSC shortplan to give you an upper limit fuel figure then crack on at MCP temps minus 30deg.
But then I also say things like "Champagne? £180 a bottle? Capital idea - we'll take three" so it's probably best not listening to me....
Captain Gadget - I guess that'll be what I heard. Lost a bit in translation perhaps
985 is still the cruise power setting and 1010 the MCP and climb power....I think....immediately forgot all this stuff the day after my last K trip
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you may well be right SS. Although by the late 80's we were using 985 on the K, I remember being told by some old and bold bloke that the K originally cruised at 1010 when it came in the 70's.
I think you're absolutely right about the MCP-30 stuff - mind you I can say that now being boat happy....
I think you're absolutely right about the MCP-30 stuff - mind you I can say that now being boat happy....
Man of the Marsh
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cruise TIT was indeed reduced from 1010 to 985 in the 70s, SS (Hi. How are you, by the way!). 932 was not used operationally. That must have been a later thing, as per CG's post. We had a couple of in-flight turbine failures and found some of the other hot-ends were none too pretty either. I don't seem to recall any traumas with the reduced setting. It was simply adopted and the perf pages came along in due time. It only cost about 15 KTAS in a typical cruise, but upped the turbine life by a few thousand hours, and improved the range - a reasonable fix I think.
The second one was on a LYE-AKT (Dick Barton, I think), possibly in 74. When they throttled back at TOD, the No3 turbine came out the back and bits of it jammed the elevator. There was a fairly concerned period of descent without pitch control until they decided to apply brute force and managed to free it. 985 followed shortly afterwards!
It seems strange that, given the extended development time on the J, and the history of the K, that the MCP setting was not fully optimised by the time of RtoS. I am ever less impressed by those responsible for the test programme than I am by the aircraft itself. I'm quite sure that the J will prove a worthy successor once the professionals on 30 & 24 have shaken the bugs out of it
The second one was on a LYE-AKT (Dick Barton, I think), possibly in 74. When they throttled back at TOD, the No3 turbine came out the back and bits of it jammed the elevator. There was a fairly concerned period of descent without pitch control until they decided to apply brute force and managed to free it. 985 followed shortly afterwards!
It seems strange that, given the extended development time on the J, and the history of the K, that the MCP setting was not fully optimised by the time of RtoS. I am ever less impressed by those responsible for the test programme than I am by the aircraft itself. I'm quite sure that the J will prove a worthy successor once the professionals on 30 & 24 have shaken the bugs out of it
But by 2012, Brize will have 4-prop aircraft capable of cruising at M0.72 and up to FL 370......
A400M will make the digitally re-mastered C130 seem positively ancient by comparison - not that it isn't currently doing a good, albeit slow, job.
An extra hour to crawl back from Cyprus......good grief. Will that accord with the latest EU ruling on moving livestock around in trucks?
A400M will make the digitally re-mastered C130 seem positively ancient by comparison - not that it isn't currently doing a good, albeit slow, job.
An extra hour to crawl back from Cyprus......good grief. Will that accord with the latest EU ruling on moving livestock around in trucks?
!! - I remember "crawling" back from AKT to BZZ once (at least an extra hour en route) in the Funbus due to an aeromed pax (baby in incubator) and an associated alt. restriction of FL240 if I remember correct.
The fact we knew it was going to be a long flight made it seem even longer still.
Nice views of Mt Etna though
The fact we knew it was going to be a long flight made it seem even longer still.
Nice views of Mt Etna though
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wycombe, are you, like your nom-de-plum, never satisfied. The funbus will let you move about without clampons, have a pee in private, give you a sitting position that whilst not luxury does not give you an idea of how the Hunchback of Notre Dame got his figure and allow you to hear your good ladies moans about the mower/washing machine/dog as soon as you get home.
Champagne anyone...?
Mr BEagle sir! I admire your faith in the mighty A400M Euroluftenkargogecarryen Flugzeug!
By 2012 I reckon they'll have just about thrashed out what material to make the seat covers from and be starting on the basic airframe aerodynamics..... But then I have become rather cynical of late
By 2012 I reckon they'll have just about thrashed out what material to make the seat covers from and be starting on the basic airframe aerodynamics..... But then I have become rather cynical of late
Art
Sorry, not meant to be a whinge - just a recollection by me of one trip where the "Queen of the Skies" was a bit slower than usual (and for good reason, as the infant was very poorly).
Btw, my non-de-plume refers to the Bucks airfield, not the base.
Btw, my non-de-plume refers to the Bucks airfield, not the base.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long is Akrotiri - Lyneham?? 6Hrs LRC?
Your good ol' country is only 3 hours end to end at LRC. We do 8 across ways and our pax never complain!! Regularly doing 9-10 hour trips and never heard a peep out of the pax. They are enjoying the luxurious 'airliner beds' too much
Your good ol' country is only 3 hours end to end at LRC. We do 8 across ways and our pax never complain!! Regularly doing 9-10 hour trips and never heard a peep out of the pax. They are enjoying the luxurious 'airliner beds' too much
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPHLC
2012 for the Js to get to Brize? I heard that 2012 was the end of the Herc and that Brize will be 25 A400Ms, 10 C-17s and FTA. Same capacity as we have now but less aircraft. Surely with the exsisting C-17s, proposed A400M and FTA there can't be enough room at Brize for Hercs....
2012 for the Js to get to Brize? I heard that 2012 was the end of the Herc and that Brize will be 25 A400Ms, 10 C-17s and FTA. Same capacity as we have now but less aircraft. Surely with the exsisting C-17s, proposed A400M and FTA there can't be enough room at Brize for Hercs....
I heard that Lockheed had stitched the RAF up contractualy with the J so badly that the MoD was considering handing it back to them as it was proving too expensive to maintain / operate?
What news?
Apparently they even have to pay lockheed to publish a photo of one of their own aircraft!! Nice one!!
What news?
Apparently they even have to pay lockheed to publish a photo of one of their own aircraft!! Nice one!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
charliesbar
My tongue in cheek reference to 2012 is the (provisional) closure date for Lyneham at the end of the K life.
Therefore any J christmas trees will have to be serviceable by then, go to Brize on a lorry or end up in Chippenham scrappy on top of all those Halifax bombers.
My tongue in cheek reference to 2012 is the (provisional) closure date for Lyneham at the end of the K life.
Therefore any J christmas trees will have to be serviceable by then, go to Brize on a lorry or end up in Chippenham scrappy on top of all those Halifax bombers.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EXETER,UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to confirm the previous posts, the 932 cruise was abandoned because the customer (the other 2 services) would not countenance giving up 5% of capacity based on flying hours fixed servicng cost. It was decided to buy turbines instead.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
932 was the solution decided on and, I believe still is used by, the US operators of the C130E and H for the T56-15, way back in the late '70s. Allison always intended the engine to be operated at 1010, but didn't make the turbine of stern enough stuff - and so history repeats itself. The RAF settled for a compromise of 985 - which may have had something to do with the fact that our engines were license-built by Rolls Royce originally, and may have been more durable. Seemed to work well enough at 985, anyway. Spookily, the HSC figures (height/IAS) for the C130K at 1010 were very similar to the HSC figures for the C130J at designed MCP........
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My query is how much $$$ is Lockheed / Rolls Royce going to give in compensation to our respective Air Forces for telling us the aircraft can do one thing then providing an aircraft that can't. Surely there is something in the contract for this.
Quiet amusing though - "What, you've been using Max Continuous Power continuously?!?! Who'd have thunk it!"
We should be calling it Max Non Continuous Power. Imagine if we operated it up to 6000+ HP .
If we don't even start the engines imagine how long they'll last for!!
you Lockheed
Quiet amusing though - "What, you've been using Max Continuous Power continuously?!?! Who'd have thunk it!"
We should be calling it Max Non Continuous Power. Imagine if we operated it up to 6000+ HP .
If we don't even start the engines imagine how long they'll last for!!
you Lockheed
What - another American promise which turned out to be not quite what was expected?
Well, Stoppers me old aerobationphobe, at least Das EADS A400M Wunderschöner Uberflugzeug has been designed by a team who know what they're doing - a digitally re-mastered 1950s design, it is not!
Good luck on the J and I hope that someone's toes will be held against the fire - or their bits connected up to 220 volts - over this engine thing.
Well, Stoppers me old aerobationphobe, at least Das EADS A400M Wunderschöner Uberflugzeug has been designed by a team who know what they're doing - a digitally re-mastered 1950s design, it is not!
Good luck on the J and I hope that someone's toes will be held against the fire - or their bits connected up to 220 volts - over this engine thing.