C-130J etc.
 

Good Mickey, I agree with your last ,but then who was it who didn`t want the USAF system? Remember who puts up the goal -posts in the first place- not MOD.PE/QQ,but your own Air Staff. BEagle,you haven`t answered the question yet,or are you still gargling?:p

Sycamore,

The K3/K3 trial was an extension of the cleared receiving envelope for the K3. Quite reasonably the TP handled the receiver ac. Just as they have been for a more recent envelope extension of a FJ aeroplane. So why did a DEARer crew have to fly the tanker on the 130J receiver trial in the US.....

The other trial was an equipment trial of the VC10 JTIDS. The DEARer pilot, nav and engineer all agreed that the high level help were the only ones causing difficulties; we knew and agreed precisely who would do what. But I certainly learned that boffins need to be watched - one of them turned off a switch on the Air Engineers panel with the corner of a clumsily handled document....

pi$$ taking apart, if I can be trusted to assess the handling of the aircraft on a full post-maintenance air test which includes taking it beyond the envelope cleared for use by routine sqn operation, I can't really see that a straightforward equipment trial really needs TP expertise. Not their fault, of course - just 'the system'!

Goodmick/Beagle,

For your info the QQ trim runaway in the J during AAR was infact inadvertant trimming by the TP. Aparently it has happened before a few times ay QQ, but no occurences reported by operators. The stick top is a bit crowded and it can take time to learn how to "grip" it without pressing a button.

On the thread of useless trials, on 2 occasions, in two different transport aircraft I had to instruct the TP how to fly the thing before he could conduct the trial. One was a USAF KC135 exchange mate who had to conduct an airdrop trial. He had 4 hrs C130 and had never dropped anything before. Another time, when it came to the trial, in a blatantly non-aerobatic aircraft, I was to be co and we had to get an auth from the chief TP who asked "how many spins were we going to do?"

Also I think experienced operator are more than capable of assessing what new/"average" pilots could cope with.

It seems that everyone is 'sticking the boot in' on QQ and I can't quite work out how the thrust of the original question on this thread got completely lost!

So, back to the original question... 'C130-J, just a strat ac?' ... ridiculous suggestion, not even worth talking about, now back to slagging off QQ!!

LESS WEIGHT
 

My information is that the C-130J has:

a. Less Ramp clearence than the K (cannot drop some heavy loads, that the K can)

b. Less Ramp load than the K

c. Less floor loading weight thah the K

Considering it's rpimary task is to carry stuff for the Pongo's this is a pretty poor show, IF IT'S TRUE!

Anyone know, or shall we all just revert to quoting opion as fact! :)

Not really sure I’d have to ask an ALM. However, are these things that debilitating? Does the aircraft’s greatly improved performance, integrated DAS and Nav Kit matter more?

Would the Army prefer an aircraft that can drop blind with enormous accuracy when and where they want it or wait several days for the weather to clear so that they can carry a few more Kgs in the Wedge?

:confused:

Hi Gang;

Some comments

a. Less Ramp clearence than the K (cannot drop some heavy loads, that the K can)

Correct, the drop trials have not yet finished....

b. Less Ramp load than the K

Same limitations...but we can put it on a pallet!!! Easier, quicker loading and all that!

c. Less floor loading weight thah the K

Some restrictions, but the J has a uniform area loading over the whole floor unlike the K so in some respects is better!!!

Regards to Most
SFS


:cool: :cool:

Low and Slow,

I can't believe that you want to start a pissing contest between the K and J over performance. You will never win that one - unless you have a different version of the AM than I have.

Oh, by the way, top notch spolling!!

GOOD MICKEY
 

Thanks for the compliment.

Couldn't care if it's a K or J that does the job. I look at these things from a customer point of view. Something few else here do!

If you can't push a heavy pallet out of the back, why bother. Make all the J's tanker and gunships.

KBloke seems to have covered the ramp and floor issues. What heavy loads are the problem?
From the Army’s point of view, as I said in a previous post, I would have thought that the ability to drop with enormous accuracy, in almost any weather and as hot and high as you like would be very welcome. Or am I missing the point?
:cool:

Face it...there's a new kid on the pans at LYN and the K HAS HAD ITS DAY!
Its a good kite and we can't wait for the Tac LL Flying to start.
All the doubters are the jealous ones who have now realised that they have fouled up by not going 'J' in the first place. As more realise the potential of this frame then so more come across North side.
Like it or lump it J is best!!!!

Yeah, the J's great. Apart from the b@5t@rd CBT.

And apparently we don't say "stop start" any more. Which is a matter of some great concern for me, obviously.

Er, that's it.

Apologies, I have nothing sensible to add to this lofty debate. :rolleyes:

Like I said you’re just going to have to change your name to…

'WAHHWAHHWAAH and Flashing yellow master caution lights …’ooeer wots that’…. ‘wots the ACAWS’ ….switch to stop'

Kind of trips of the tongue:p

SS in a 'J' - it will never happen!!

Low and Slow

Excellent idea about the Gunships. I believe we came close to getting some when the Bosnia campaign was on, but the airships then realized it would take work away from the FJs. However, Gunships would have been useful in Afg.

About the load issue, there are some differences between the K and J floors. The J has the same floor as all C130s apart from the K which was built to take the Beverley role equipment. Which incidentally, they tried to make the J use until common sense won the day. Both floors have their advantages, but the Js is far more flexible when carrying out a re-role.

The ideal would have been to buy in to the US airdrop system, but the people who ordered it did not of course know much about airdrop. There is always an attitude that our way is best. That is why QQ are taking a tried and tested airdrop system, and re-inventing it - which takes time. Of course if we had the same kit as the US/French/Canadians/Aussies/Kiwis we would be able to drop loads prepared by them during joint ops.

INTEROPERABILITY - seems to be the latest buzz word to be banded about lately. Shame no one has mentioned it to QQ!!

Personnel view, but maybe the USAF way of doing airdrop isn’t always best. Their method of CDS drops, with ac flying very very slowly with a few degrees of flap to achieve the required deck angle could be construed as downright dangerous. I think I’m right in saying that the US has lost several ac from hitting wake and flick spin......:eek:
Having said that I think we’re going the CDS way too. I can’t see what’s wrong with 50 flap and a nice safe climbing drop for AEs – or better still MEs with a bunch of blokes pushing the thing out!

RoboAlbert,

I'm fairly sure that the standard drop technique for CDS is 50 flap with a 7 degree deck angle. The beauty of the J is that 7 degrees can be nailed every time using HUD symbology. Early CDS trials, I am led to believe, have been fairly encouraging. Foot and Mouth and lack of money have brought it all to a grinding halt. Word of caution - don't be surprised if QQ manage to turn CDS (the worlds most successful and widely used air drop system) into good old fashioned AGE!!

Bring back ME and all is forgiven!

I'm obviously open to corrections from any American Pprunners but I'm fairly sure that the USAF system does involve flap settings like 6-8 degrees.

7 degrees with 50 flap, even when slow?

A bit more on weight limits. Never mind the air drop or how fast it flies, the bitter pill is that the good old K (even a Mk 1) could carry 2 x 4 ton trucks whereas the J can only carry 1 because of the weaker floor fore and aft. There are many variations of K load which are not now feasible.

Has anyone mentioned the vibration problems yet? On a Mk5 I believe you can only manage to sit approx 3 pax forward of TDR 10 (first two fifths of the cargo compartment) due to all the restrictions. After over two years in service the aircraft still doesn't have a winch. Why are the side para doors never opened?

All this said , interoperability should have been introduced years ago. At least NATO tried 3 decades ago to have all pongos use the same calibre weapons...