Question for the C130J types
 

Can someone settle an argument for me please.

If carrying no payload could a c-130J make it up to FL430?

The only details I can find all quote around FL310 with a payload.

Thanks clicker

OVERALL CLASS RECORDS - TURBOPROP ENGINE
Grob/E-Systems Egrett-1 - Altitude without payload (53,574 ft)
Grob/E-Systems Egrett-1 - Altitude with 1,000 kg payload (51,023 ft)
Grob/E-Systems Egrett-1 - Altitude in horizontal flight (53,276)


So feasible i would think looking at turboprop figures.

Pressurisation is the problem without going onto Oxygen.

Actually probably not.

http://www.c-130j.ca/index.php?page=...d=36#world_alt

Can't see the zero payload height on that page for the J

NEW RECORD Country USA Altitude 40,386 feet Aircraft Lockheed Martin C-130J Date 5/14/99 Details ESTABLISHES these records:
Absolute altitude with following payloads: 0 kg; 1,000 kg; 2,000 kg; 5,000 kg; 10,000 k


Not sure if that is the zero payload height.

Turning the underfloor heating up to "Medium-Well" should give you an extra couple of hundred feet...:E

Thanks Gents,

Sounds like I'll have to cough up a pint ot two.

Oh wel,l I'll make sure to have a few myself.

clicker

another question for C130 J types
 

Approximately how many hours a month on average are you guys getting? I realise it comes in feast or famine but I'm just looking for a rough guess.

On a trial (Hercules C1) in 1982 we cruised at FL450- not much on board.
Main problem,in addition to the pressurisation, was gearbox oil pressures believe it or not!

And it's been going slowly but surely down hill ever since Lurker :E

Crikey, that's some endurance :)

sw

Just think in 25 years time you will then be able to say On a Hercules C1 in 2007 we cruised at FL200- not much on board.

In the days Pre-RVSM, I took a K (Mk 1 IIRC) up to FL370. Empty, not alot of gas, and it was 'kin cold all the way up. It was also a particularly airtight 'frame, so I just kept going up until we hit max diff at a cabin alt of 8,000ft. It was late night / early morning, so no traffic to get in the way of.

Shame the J is limited to FL280 by not having enough / correctly reporting altimeters. It goes up like a rocket and then hits an administrative glass ceiling!

Not in non RVSM airspace it isn't.

And they're off...............:E

T'was what I was told by a J driver. Apparently one of the altimeters has too low a 'reporting resolution' or some such. They cured the problem on th VC10 by fitting a 3rd altimeter, I'm led to believe.

RVSM Trials were successfully completed over Strumble HMU last year using revised ADCs that incorpated new PE data. I guess that RVSM clearance for the C130J is just probably lower down the IPT's priority list right at the moment.

TI, not sure if it was fitted with a 3rd, was it not just a replacement of the primary with one of greater accuracy? IIRC all the components of your ADS/Autopilot have to be capable of +/- 100 (or is it 50?) ft at the correct range of FL's?

May well have been just that. We had a similar problem on the K when TCAS was fitted - the solution being to replace the primary altimeter and the RADALT.

Not related to RVSM though, as under normal circumstances the K is never going to get anywhere near RVSM airspace - although that limitation is more down to lack of a pax oxy system than a performance issue!

The VC10 has always had 3 altimeters. Plus another for the navigator and, in some marks, another for the air engineer.

To be compliant with RVSM requirements, the original main altimeter system was replaced with one of greater accuracy. Fleet compliance was granted for the C1K after a few HMU runs; however, every single VC10K had to do its own HMU run as the first few aircraft showed unacceptable scatter of results.

The programme also introduced the GPS/FMS/LINS system to meet MNPS requirements after Omega died.

Perhaps it was the downward extension of RVSM airspace, as well as its extension across most of the Northern Hemisphere, which caught the Hercules people by surprise?

Indeed it seems it was. The J was designed for cruise in the low-to-mid 30s, where it has outrageous fuel efficiency and TAS (at least that's how it was sold to the RAF). It gets from 0-FL280 very rapidly, where it sits burning fuel at a rate not that much less than the K, severely limiting the range that can be achieved in a crew day.
Yet another thing that shows up poor planning in procurement - they could have anticipated requiring RVSM clearance alot sooner. It's not as if major modification is required. Sad that, 8 years on from introduction, we are only now approaching where we should have been from the start.
The J procurement and introduction to service should be made into a case study of how not to do it - there's no doubt the aircraft is a massive leap forward in capability, sadly hamstrung initially by piss-poor back-office support.

Incidentally, what are the requirements for MNPS? Does the '10 have 3 nav systems?

"Sad that, 8 years on from introduction, we are only now approaching where we should have been from the start."

I wonder how long it will take to shake out the bugs from the A400M when it eventually comes into service. With our woeful record on the procurement front one can only wonder how the corporate lawyers are chuckling with anticipation as yet another "pup" has been sold to an unsuspecting buyer :rolleyes:

Well Seldom,
i take it you have heard they are pulling the same stunt with the A400M's that they did with the J's. I.e turning down the std fit roller flip floor to keep our old manual role equiptment to save a few £££ :ugh::rolleyes:.... Obviouisly 10 minuites of the loadies time to press a few buttons to re-role the aircraft is much too easy, what you really need is a 4 hour role and a team of 5-6 lineys and a truck full of heavy battered old roller conveyer that dosn't fit very well :ugh: