Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Alpha Kilo

Help the Iraqi C-130J crew

Recommended Posts

Guys,

I'm a C-130J pilot (Iraqi air force), we recently bought and started flying these birds. As we are progressing we started to be aware of more issues in the aircraft. One of which is the digimap. I'm wondering if it's possible to create a map format using TASM and what format would that be? or do we have to have a contract with a third party i.e honeywell?

the second is updating CNI-MU navdata, how? where from?

I appreciate any inputs,

Thanks,

Edited by Ali.Kareem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As we are progressing we started to be aware of more issues in the aircraft.

Join the club... we prefer to blame the Brits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the club... we prefer to blame the Brits.

Just curious what "issues" you're referring to. Sounds like the issues the Iraqis are having are more of a support contract issue than with the aircraft itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious what "issues" you're referring to. Sounds like the issues the Iraqis are having are more of a support contract issue than with the aircraft itself.

Perhaps the issue of the CNI-MU not being able to calculate TOLD accurately? Or some of those other programming type issues the safety supps address in the -1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the issue of the CNI-MU not being able to calculate TOLD accurately? Or some of those other programming type issues the safety supps address in the -1?

That's the only thing that I can think of, and those are pretty minor and easy to mitigate in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll have to work those issues through the FMS process. I'd like to say I'm surprised they can't get database updates but I'm not given how contracts are written these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents,

Don't get me wrong the aircrafts are superb, but what I meant by issues are contracts related. i.e updating the database, etc...

We all got our training at JMATS(long course) ,but the experience that we have between us isn't enough to overcome even the tiny obstacle in the most sound and safe manner most of the times. I personally don't want to see the iraqi air force neglecting any matter concerning the aircraft. We've just started building and we better get it right from the beginning. I appreciate your inputs.

Just curious what "issues" you're referring to. Sounds like the issues the Iraqis are having are more of a support contract issue than with the aircraft itself.

Perhaps the issue of the CNI-MU not being able to calculate TOLD accurately? Or some of those other programming type issues the safety supps address in the -1?

All calculations seem to be fine but data base is missing a lot of info that needs to be filled ever single trip.

They'll have to work those issues through the FMS process. I'd like to say I'm surprised they can't get database updates but I'm not given how contracts are written these days.

and that's what I'm trying to figure out in here who should we talk to. I don't write contracts but it will help if I can give an advice to the people who do.

go black, reset the FADECs.. boom, all is well.

Trust me they've started to wear out. haha

Cheers folks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we are progressing we started to be aware of more issues in the aircraft.

Ha ha. You should have been around in the early 2000's. Really, they should have a 5.0 or 5.1 emulator out there just to keep comments like this in perspective. Ha.

On a serious note, the guys are right - the nav database updates I believe have to be paid for, and the details depend on the contract as to whether or not Honeywell or Lockheed does them and how much they cost. I know of a simulator or two that is still using the 2008 database because they are too cheap to pay the per-unit upgrade that Honeywell charges.

Also, you should be able to cut cards with the TASM software, as long as you have the right software and the map database info.

But honestly, with all of the small issues, and the fact that nobody there has any experience with the J-model outside the schoolhouse presents its own set of problems. Perhaps the two governments could talk to get a USAF exchange pilot there for a year or two to be the experienced guy to answer these little questions. I am sure there will be dozens of guys knocking down the door to volunteer for that job.

Or, on a much more realistic level, I know there are several small private contractor companies that supply subject matter experts and crewmembers to some of our various allies for situations like these. You can basically hire these companies, along with a few experienced crewmembers to help out for a few months/years, or however long it takes. I have seen that done before with pretty good results in the C-17 and the C-130J.

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the issues the Iraqis are having are more of a support contract issue than with the aircraft itself.

Yes, I was refering to the aircraft itself... since the OP was:

As we are progressing we started to be aware of more issues in the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was refering to the aircraft itself... since the OP was:

Okay, so to which issues are you referring? Not trying to start an argument, I'm just genuinely curious. I don't know of many issues, other than those already discussed and the HUD in NVIS mode. I've always thought those were pretty minor and easily mitigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all I wanted was to have the galley tied to the essential bus. Is that too much to ask?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all I wanted was to have the galley tied to the essential bus. Is that too much to ask?

No way, it's too much fun telling your CP to go heat up your lunch when you're on APU power and then watching them trying to figure out why they can't get it to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds funny coming from a herk guy but.... a speed brake.

What? Why? Just to get out of the combat 360 on final when you've overshot your Pen-D? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you really want to hear a heavy pilot complain... pull up a chair and I'll tell you what would make me happy, or at least make me find something else to complain about.

How is that block 7.0 working out? A woefully underpowered FMS is a huge issue (Rumour mill was that it was designed for/ICW the upgraded FMS for the C-5? which last I checked does not do nearly the same mission set)... How late will 8.1 be because of it?

http://www.defensene...-C-130-Grounded

I'd take a speed brake/spoiler, but (yes, I know it is not that simple) how about a lower idle power setting so you can slow down like many other variable pitch prop aircraft.

Poorly designed, slow responding AP, ATS. Why did they not redesign the gear so you can actually stop in a turn? Why did they not put temp monitors on the brakes? Why pull CBs as a regular checklist item? Why reset systems (FADEC, NIU, etc) as a regular checklist item. HINT: Poor design. Why design a HOTEL mode without a method of cooling the engines (or the ability to run hydraulics)? How is that vibration issue in the cargo compartment affect us in the long term?

I could go on, there are plenty of issues that need to be addressed... It is a great aircraft with great performance, and the operators do a great job of working around the designed deficiencies. But it is not worth almost $100 million a copy with the buyers shouldering all the fixes. Just because we delt with it on the legacy doesn't mean we should have to deal with these issues for another 50 years on a brand new plane. Just my $0.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you really want to hear a heavy pilot complain... pull up a chair and I'll tell you what would make me happy, or at least make me find something else to complain about.

How is that block 7.0 working out? A woefully underpowered FMS is a huge issue (Rumour mill was that it was designed for/ICW the upgraded FMS for the C-5? which last I checked does not do nearly the same mission set)... How late will 8.1 be because of it?

http://www.defensene...-C-130-Grounded

I'd take a speed brake/spoiler, but (yes, I know it is not that simple) how about a lower idle power setting so you can slow down like many other variable pitch prop aircraft.

Poorly designed, slow responding AP, ATS. Why did they not redesign the gear so you can actually stop in a turn? Why did they not put temp monitors on the brakes? Why pull CBs as a regular checklist item? Why reset systems (FADEC, NIU, etc) as a regular checklist item. HINT: Poor design. Why design a HOTEL mode without a method of cooling the engines (or the ability to run hydraulics)? How is that vibration issue in the cargo compartment affect us in the long term?

I could go on, there are plenty of issues that need to be addressed... It is a great aircraft with great performance, and the operators do a great job of working around the designed deficiencies. But it is not worth almost $100 million a copy with the buyers shouldering all the fixes. Just because we delt with it on the legacy doesn't mean we should have to deal with these issues for another 50 years on a brand new plane. Just my $0.02

A brake temp monitor system could have been such an easy fix. Of all the years we have been doing assault landings in these things, you would have thought they would have put one in. Let's pull out the 1-1instead and run some charts! I believe the C-17 has a system for brake temps.

WxMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance (I fly small pointy things).....

If you want a speed brake or lower idle, and you have variable pitch props, why can't you feather and/or slightly reverse them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an emphatic NO. Not in the air. Feathering is for emergencies, reverse is to assist stopping on the ground (though I've wanted to try it in the sim just to see what would happen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse my ignorance (I fly small pointy things)..... If you want a speed brake or lower idle, and you have variable pitch props, why can't you feather and/or slightly reverse them?

Caveman description-> As the pitch of the blades goes towards the feather position the engine doesn't work as hard (producing less thrust), requiring (demanding) less fuel. Once you get to an idle thrust any further reduction in pitch on the props would result in the speed of the blades to increase (Which in a constant speed prop is not a good thing). I would assume that the idle is set to limit the fuel reduction to stay out of a poor performance state (stall/surge susceptibility region), and to keep the engine turning the elecs/hyd/air (note my complaint about HOTEL mode in the previous post)... As it is now the Idle is so low that the anti/de-ice doesn't work as effectively if you pull all 4 to idle.

However it has never really been an issue until (and by no means is this a complaint) you create a new engine that produces so much thrust at idle that an empty, low-fuel aircraft has a comparability smaller ratio of induced drag to slow down the aircraft with. You then put that aircraft in icing conditions where you have to keep the engines out of idle to keep from icing and well, it sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caveman description-> As the pitch of the blades goes towards the feather position the engine doesn't work as hard (producing less thrust), requiring (demanding) less fuel. Once you get to an idle thrust any further reduction in pitch on the props would result in the speed of the blades to increase (Which in a constant speed prop is not a good thing). I would assume that the idle is set to limit the fuel reduction to stay out of a poor performance state (stall/surge susceptibility region), and to keep the engine turning the elecs/hyd/air (note my complaint about HOTEL mode in the previous post)... As it is now the Idle is so low that the anti/de-ice doesn't work as effectively if you pull all 4 to idle.

However it has never really been an issue until (and by no means is this a complaint) you create a new engine that produces so much thrust at idle that an empty, low-fuel aircraft has a comparability smaller ratio of induced drag to slow down the aircraft with. You then put that aircraft in icing conditions where you have to keep the engines out of idle to keep from icing and well, it sucks.

The part about increasing RPM is true on legacy Herks with the direct-drive T56 turboshaft, but not on the free-turbine AE2100s. You can go to feather on those engines without it affecting the engine much but it won't help slow the airplane because the feather position DECREASES drag.

Going to reverse in either engine type is a no-no because it will result in the engine bogging down and flaming out (imagine trying to start uphill in a manual xmission car in fifth gear...). A number of years ago, an American Eagle crew tried to put both engines of their Saab 340 in beta (reverse) while airborne to lose altitude due to being too high on descent into Baton Rouge LA. Both motors flamed out and they dead-sticked it into New Roads, LA.

Turbofans can go into reverse while airborne because all they are doing is redirecting the thrust of their engine...the turbine core doesn't really know the difference. But since the prop is geared to the turbine, it bogs down and the rest of the motor follows quickly. The direct-drive turboprops will bog down easier and faster than the free turbine designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way, it's too much fun telling your CP to go heat up your lunch when you're on APU power and then watching them trying to figure out why they can't get it to work.

I have seen much more experienced guys do the same thing. We had a LtCol former schoolhouse instructor fumbling around with it and was about to write up the microwave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...