C-130 TOLD Calculator

[HerkPerfMan]

The C-130J preTOLD app has remained a prototype since October (same as the screenshots on our website). Without getting into too many details, I met with LM last year and they seemed receptive to partnering, but things have fizzled. It takes a lot to get them moving on anything (shock!). The major stumbling block (as noted on this forum) is getting the proper permissions to use the LM-owned C-130J performance data (-1-1). No one seems willing to share/license it and I haven't found the right people at AMC, SPO, etc., to talk to about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

In the meantime, I started seeing more demand for C-130H. We have a complete PC app for C-130H (all USAF variants), which you can see here. The iPad functionality is being finalized, which implements the same database and model from the PC app. Once it is ready for prime-time (end of April), I'm planning an online demo of the PC and iPad apps. Please sign up here to receive an invitation (please provide name and email and select "webinars and online demonstrations" in the last question).

[HerkPerfMan]

Latest iPad screenshots and details for the C-130H app are up here. Still working out a few kinks, but we're almost there! What do you think?

[HerkPerfMan]

We've completed the C-130H preTOLD app for PC and iPad and have a live online demonstration scheduled for May 28 at 1500Z. Sign up here if you would like to attend.

Would you buy it individually if it were available in the App Store? Check our website for details on features and functionality.

[HerkPerfMan]

Some good news to report: We have entered into a formal partnership with Lockheed Martin to develop C-130J preTOLD. Development is underway and we'll have an iPad prototype by the end of the month. Stay tuned...

Check out our updated website for all the details, screenshots, and downloads.

Later this month, I will be exhibiting at the Hercules Operators Council (HOC) in Atlanta, and the C-130 Technical Coordination Group (TCG) International Technical Program Review in Orlando. Stop by the Elite Electronic Engineering booth for a hands-on demonstration of the C-130H and C-130J apps.

I'm happy to answer any general questions here, or PM me for more detailed info.

[LockheedFix]

Some good news to report: We have entered into a formal partnership with Lockheed Martin to develop C-130J preTOLD. Development is underway and we'll have an iPad prototype by the end of the month. Stay tuned...

Check out our updated website for all the details, screenshots, and downloads.

Later this month, I will be exhibiting at the Hercules Operators Council (HOC) in Atlanta, and the C-130 Technical Coordination Group (TCG) International Technical Program Review in Orlando. Stop by the Elite Electronic Engineering booth for a hands-on demonstration of the C-130H and C-130J apps.

I'm happy to answer any general questions here, or PM me for more detailed info.

Awesome! Hope all goes well for you. I'm sure this has been mentioned before in this thread, but if you could make the program calculate brake cooling times that would be extremely useful to us out in the field. That's one thing that's missing from CNI-MU TOLD that would be great to have.

[HerkPerfMan]

Thanks, LockheedFix! And we already have the brake energy zone and cooling time calculations built in for landing. Would brake energy data be useful for rejected takeoffs as well?

[LockheedFix]

Thanks, LockheedFix! And we already have the brake energy zone and cooling time calculations built in for landing. Would brake energy data be useful for rejected takeoffs as well?

Definitely. Those should come from the chart, IIRC.

[HerkPerfMan]

Thread bump to report that our C-130J preTOLD app has been approved by Lockheed Martin and is now available. It is the only TOLD calculator validated against Mission Computer TOLD and approved by Lockheed Martin for mission planning. It includes brake energy/cooling times and implements mitigations from tech pub supplements along with all other MC TOLD functions. Due to export restrictions, you won't find it on the Public App Store, but we are offering directly to operators at the Squadron, Wing, and MAJCOM levels through Apple's Volume Purchase Program (VPP).

Please check our website for more details and screenshots.

If you are interested in a demo, please PM me or contact me through our website. I can also offer 30-day trials of the full-featured app to individual users. I am eager to hear your feedback and more than happy to answer any general questions on this thread.

[Champ Kind]

Are you taking to AMC at all to get it available across the community?

Also, will it be available to download from DISA on MDM EFBs?

[HerkPerfMan]

14 minutes ago, Champ Kind said:

Are you taking to AMC at all to get it available across the community?

Also, will it be available to download from DISA on MDM EFBs?

I have been in touch with a couple of people at AMC, but it is very early stages. If they decide to procure, the plan would be to deploy to MDM EFBs.

[ChiefSlapahoe]

Did the 30 day trial and would definitely recommend we have it as a permanent program. Provides a HUGE amount of SA and helped us quickly reference PLT speeds in flight, not to mention the help it's provided in mission planning for every C-130J variant out there.

[The Ginger]

On February 13, 2016 at 8:46 AM, ChiefSlapahoe said:

Did the 30 day trial and would definitely recommend we have it as a permanent program. Provides a HUGE amount of SA and helped us quickly reference PLT speeds in flight, not to mention the help it's provided in mission planning for every C-130J variant out there.

Including gusts? Better than using the Perf Cruise 2?

[ChiefSlapahoe]

Does include gusts and corrected numbers for mitigation but only info from the TOLD pages, nothing from PERF.

Does include PLT speeds and weights for various configurations though. Kevin and their team have been open to suggestions to though. Definitely recommend making suggestions to them to improve the product.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HerkPerfMan]

On 2/14/2016 at 8:57 AM, The Ginger said:

Including gusts? Better than using the Perf Cruise 2?

As Chief said, the app is focused on TOLD only - no cruise performance calculations at this time.

We incorporated fixes for the Block 6.0 MC TOLD mitigations, and added some additional computations like PLT speed for each landing flap setting and landing brake energy calculations (including zone and recommended cooling time). Are there any other TOLD-related calculations missing from the MC that would provide value and SA?

[The Ginger]

Factory PLT chart can't account for:

Increased touchdown speed due to gust

Increased touchdown due to crosswind (max effort)

Nosewheel groundspeed limitation (anytime headwind is less than 6)

 

So, a popular technique is to use the offside cruise page to input the PA, OAT and touchdown CAS to ensure it's below 145 TAS.

You could program that, but it's not going to jive with the -1-1 procedure....

[HerkPerfMan]

5 hours ago, The Ginger said:

Factory PLT chart can't account for:

Increased touchdown speed due to gust

Increased touchdown due to crosswind (max effort)

Nosewheel groundspeed limitation (anytime headwind is less than 6)

 

So, a popular technique is to use the offside cruise page to input the PA, OAT and touchdown CAS to ensure it's below 145 TAS.

You could program that, but it's not going to jive with the -1-1 procedure....

You're right about the PLT Landing Weight Limit charts not accounting for increases in touchdown speed. You're also right about not having an "official" procedure to mitigate it in the -1-1 or any supplements, which is why we did not alter the calculation for Maximum Landing Weight Limited by PLT. Instead, we added the PLT Speed (in CAS) along with the other Landing data so you can do a quick comparison of the PLT and Touchdown Speeds (red boxes added for emphasis).

Very clever using Perf Cruise 2 to convert Touchdown CAS to TAS! There are a few ways to account for increased Touchdwon Speed using the -1-1 as well. But would you say that presenting PLT Speed within the Landing data is better?

[The Ginger]

I like it!

This program will be a great tool for all those times that the ops desk gets a call from the user regarding available payload...

For brake energy on multiple heavyweight landings, can you calculate brake energy with brake release at 60 KCAS, then time to cool to ensure the reject (50 flap, 2 in rev)? if your reject would cost you 18M per wheel, how do you cool below 5M? 

[HerkPerfMan]

Thanks! I'm working on the procedure for a "Quick-Turn Brake Energy" calculation to include as a tool within the app. It will allow you to enter the actual brake application speed from the landing and the planned takeoff weight, then calculate the required cooling time to have sufficient brake energy to safely reject.

What's the policy on inflight air cooling (leave the gear down in the pattern) when performing multiple braked landings? There is no planning data for that, but air cooling is exponentially faster than ground cooling.

[The Ginger]

There's no time advantage provided for air cooling vs ground cooling. The problem: when you need cooling most (multiple heavyweight assaults), you usually get trapped on the ground because you don't have energy available for a fully braked reject. Some bypass this by taking off from the main runway and saying they can roll out the reject.

The Lockheed method for calculating a brake application starting at touchdown and releasing at 60 KCAS calculates a smaller "burn" that simply running both speeds individually and taking the difference. Are you going to go that far?

Do you have contacts to get you the carbon brake test data results prior to TO release? All of this is really semantics as all the planes got carbon brakes for "mx labor savings" but no carbon brake charts or data.

[HerkPerfMan]

If you can get your hands on the Lockheed Martin C-130H performance manual used by some foreign operators (SMP 777), it has air and ground cooling times. It's based on the H model, but the multi-disc steel brakes are identical between the H and J models.

I only know the difference method for calculating brake energy and cooling times, which is the basis of our quick-turn energy calculation. Could you PM me with the details on the "Lockheed method"?

In practice, do you apply brakes just after touchdown, then release at 60 KCAS? From an energy standpoint, it would be more beneficial to use reverse thrust just after touchdown and delay braking (assuming you don't need to achieve scheduled landing distances, of course).

We get source data directly from Lockheed, so if and when new TO charts are available for carbon brakes, we will incorporate them into preTOLD. Carbon brakes were always sold on MX and service life savings - stopping distances was assumed to be "equivalent or better" than steel brakes, but no performance testing was ever conducted to validate that assumption.

[ThreeHoler]

The only significant difference between steel and CF brakes is brake fade as temperature increases. Steel brakes fade. CF brakes do not fade...though they do spontaneously combust at around 5000 C.

I got to see some neat destructive testing of aviation CF brakes at the BF Goodrich factory a few years back. More than 9 million ft-lbs of rotational energy stopped in a few seconds by a single brake stack. Pretty impressive.

[HerkPerfMan]

1 hour ago, ThreeHoler said:

The only significant difference between steel and CF brakes is brake fade as temperature increases. Steel brakes fade. CF brakes do not fade...though they do spontaneously combust at around 5000 C.

I got to see some neat destructive testing of aviation CF brakes at the BF Goodrich factory a few years back. More than 9 million ft-lbs of rotational energy stopped in a few seconds by a single brake stack. Pretty impressive.

Carbon dissipates energy more quickly too, so faster cooling times. UTAS (formerly Goodrich) claims 30% increase in energy absorption for the C-130 brakes, which puts them in the 30+ million ft-lb range. 

Edited February 22, 2016 by HerkPerfMan
specificity

[Herk Driver]

The only significant difference between steel and CF brakes is brake fade as temperature increases. Steel brakes fade. CF brakes do not fade...though they do spontaneously combust at around 5000 C.

I got to see some neat destructive testing of aviation CF brakes at the BF Goodrich factory a few years back. More than 9 million ft-lbs of rotational energy stopped in a few seconds by a single brake stack. Pretty impressive.

Carbon dissipates energy more quickly too, so faster cooling times. UTAS (formerly Goodrich) claims 30% increase in energy absorption for the C-130 brakes, which puts them in the 30+ million ft-lb range. 

Unfortunately the wheel assembly does not dissipate the energy any faster so there are still issues in the Herk. Couple that with limited feedback that you now get in the -130 and you can have a recipe for problems.

For those with access, there is an AFSAS report (within the last year) that speaks to some of this.

[HerkPerfMan]

5 hours ago, Herk Driver said:

Unfortunately the wheel assembly does not dissipate the energy any faster so there are still issues in the Herk. Couple that with limited feedback that you now get in the -130 and you can have a recipe for problems.

For those with access, there is an AFSAS report (within the last year) that speaks to some of this.

Agreed - all that heat energy has to go somewhere with the wheel and tire as the closest options. Pop goes the fuseplugs. I got involved after the fact on the USAF carbon brake test and had many of the same questions about heat dissipation and performance effects that were met with shrugs. You'll also notice that the main landing gear doors are removed from the test aircraft - not the best configuration for assessing cooling profiles.

[The Ginger]

On February 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, HerkPerfMan said:

I only know the difference method for calculating brake energy and cooling times, which is the basis of our quick-turn energy calculation. Could you PM me with the details on the "Lockheed method"?

Nothing cosmic. It's described in a -1-1 example. Say you were applying at 120 KCAS and releasing at 60.  On chart 2/3, you would calc 120, then slide down to 60. Carry the difference forward rather than computing 120 and 60 through all 3 charts. I'm not sure I agree, given these charts are exponential.....but it lets me do things I want to do.

Quote

In practice, do you apply brakes just after touchdown, then release at 60 KCAS? From an energy standpoint, it would be more beneficial to use reverse thrust just after touchdown and delay braking (assuming you don't need to achieve scheduled landing distances, of course).

The only way to do multiple heavyweight landings is to avoid braking below 60 KCAS so you can subtract that energy. Therefore,  reverse and stomp the hell out of the brakes 120-60, then try to reverse the rest. Brake temp sensors in brand new planes? Nope. Carbon brake charts? Nope. Heavyweight assaults per copilot per year? Eight.

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by The Ginger