PirateAF Posted August 28, 2007 Posted August 28, 2007 Hi, I'm a C-17 IP at CHS looking for a little gouge... to those currently at Little Rock AFB flying the 130J - they're searching Charleston for 2 C-17 Airdrop ACs to go fly the 130J...I understand from searching through a myriad of 130j posts on this forum that the training is for 6 months (fam/msn), and I've got a handle on what living in Little Rock is like for that time. My questions specifically though are ---> 1) Is the 130J operational and flying around the desert? (excuse my ignorance please...google and wikipedia just aren't cutting it these days) 2) If so, do the 130Js deploy as much as the 130Es out there currently? (ie. 4 on 4 off) 3) Finally, does anyone know why the 130J community in Little Rock would want C-17 guys to crossflow? I get the hud, no nav/fe similarities, but after that I'm drawing blanks. Many thanks for any replies...PM me if you'd like. Fly safe!
HerkDerka Posted August 28, 2007 Posted August 28, 2007 (edited) 1) Is the 130J operational and flying around the desert? Not yet for AD. 2) If so, do the 130Js deploy as much as the 130Es out there currently? (ie. 4 on 4 off) No. 3) Finally, does anyone know why the 130J community in Little Rock would want C-17 guys to crossflow? Makes zero sense to me. HD Edited August 28, 2007 by HerkDerka
slacker Posted August 28, 2007 Posted August 28, 2007 Cross flowing from C-130J to C-17 or vice versa makes more sense than C-130J to C-130H or C-17 to C-130H. The crew compliment is the same- 2 person cockpit- work load on the front enders are similar. The J model checklist was modeled from the C-17. The plane is operational in the desert by the ARC. AD doesn't have a squadron full up yet. I imagine you'll see the 41st in the desert early next year. It's a great plane to fly.
HerkDerka Posted August 28, 2007 Posted August 28, 2007 (edited) Cross flowing from C-130J to C-17 or vice versa makes more sense than C-130J to C-130H or C-17 to C-130H. The crew compliment is the same- 2 person cockpit- work load on the front enders are similar. I understand the "crew compliment similarity" arguement, but I can't buy it. Flying props vs. jets is the main difference. We've been doing just fine training E/H drivers to fly the J. HD Edited August 28, 2007 by HerkDerka
GW Posted August 28, 2007 Posted August 28, 2007 1) Is the 130J operational and flying around the desert? (excuse my ignorance please...google and wikipedia just aren't cutting it these days) Yes, it very much is fully operational. The Guard has been deploying with it from 04 thru the start of 07, and is now deploying on the AEF rotation schedule. I won't say too much more than that on a public forum. 2) If so, do the 130Js deploy as much as the 130Es out there currently? (ie. 4 on 4 off) The actual rotation cycles (ie 4 on 4 off etc) varied from guard unit to guard unit. I would expect the AD (ie the 41st, and the 37th at some point) to do their own thing when the time comes. 3) Finally, does anyone know why the 130J community in Little Rock would want C-17 guys to crossflow? I get the hud, no nav/fe similarities, but after that I'm drawing blanks. Several reason that I know of, most of which have already been discussed crew concept, msn, avionics. In my opinion it was and still is, an attempt to break out of 50 years of "Herc-isms" and get some new blood and perspectives from the C-17 community into an airframe that looks and flys like a Herc, but doesn't act like a Herc. I fly with some people that know a lot of/all the people at the school house right now, including some former 17 guys, PM me if you're interested in getting info straight from the source. BTW, the full Qual/MSN course has several different "flavors", the one you mentioned clocking in at 6 months (assuming you can run them concurrently) is for guys right out of UPT. Depending on your current qual the course could be considerably shorter. GW Edit: Just re-read your post, coming over as an AD IP to the J would put you in the "short course" category, not sure what that's running these days.
slacker Posted August 28, 2007 Posted August 28, 2007 I don't buy the "crew compliment similarity" arguement. Flying props vs. jets is the main difference. We've been doing just fine training E/H drivers to fly the J. HD Agreed on the E/H drivers trained to fly the J, my argument is J drivers going to the E/H. It would be easier to take a J driver to the C-17 or a C-17 driver to a J. The skills of flying the legacy models are quickly lost in the glass cockpit. And the props on the J are hardly like the ol' ham stands.
Guest dtfl Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 I understand the "crew compliment similarity" arguement, but I can't buy it. Flying props vs. jets is the main difference. We've been doing just fine training E/H drivers to fly the J. HD There's more to it than just flying. C17 pilots are used to a 2 pilot cockpit, using automation and "managing" the automation while sharing duties between 2 pilots....its basically like leaving a C130 and heading to the airlines...we don't use the big ugly plastic checklists..we have a flow checklist that is a fan-fold...we do our msn planning with just 2 pilots. We have a lot of cockpit corrd that the C17 guys are already familiar with.....an easier transition basically. The schoolhouse has some prior E and H guys that are immediately Ips in the J. Not a good idea - coming from an IP who went through school and had them as my IP. The C17 guys would be easier to train.
HerkDerka Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 (edited) In my opinion it was and still is, an attempt to break out of 50 years of "Herc-isms" and get some new blood and perspectives from the C-17. Why would you want to break out of Herkisms? The J is still a Herk and the herkisms have been working fine for 50 years. I just don't see the need for C-17 perspective in the J-world. You can teach a C-17 driver how to fly a Herk, but you can't make him a Herk pilot. Everyone who's had a phoenix crossflow guy in their squadron knows this. You grow up with the mindset your community beat into your brain. C17 pilots are used to a 2 pilot cockpit, using automation and "managing" the automation while sharing duties between 2 pilots We have a lot of cockpit corrd that the C17 guys are already familiar with.....an easier transition basically. I'm not saying that those aren't the reasons. I'm just saying that if that's how Big Blue is justifying it, then they are flimsy reasons. You can teach a monkey to manage systems. A C-17 guy learned 2-man crew coordination and automation management when he was in initial qual. An E/H driver going through J-school can learn the same concepts just fine. If crew coordination and a HUD are the only reason why Big Blue thinks they need C-17 experience, then it doesn't sound like it's accomplishing much. HD Edited August 29, 2007 by HerkDerka
Guest Boom Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 My boss is a prior C-17 IP and he's one of our top AC's in my sq in the 135. One of the better Herk pilots we had before I left LR was a prior C-21/KC-10 guy. I think you sound bitter cause you don't like people coming over from other MWS's to fly "your" Herk. Get over it. 1
Guest Coxor Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Random Question: Did the C-130J get RVSM certified?
HercDude Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Can a 130 even fly that high? A J model can. No they are not RVSM equiped. Unless something has changed.
JS Posted October 9, 2007 Posted October 9, 2007 A J model can. No they are not RVSM equiped. Unless something has changed. The J can fly a lot higher than 29K, and you are correct, the latest block does not have the RVSM certification - I hear it may be in the next block, which will probably be in a year or three.
Guest Boom Posted October 9, 2007 Posted October 9, 2007 (edited) The J can fly a lot higher than 29K, and you are correct, the latest block does not have the RVSM certification - I hear it may be in the next block, which will probably be in a year or three. What is the J's ceiling without carrying any cargo/pax? The AF website says it's 28,000ft carrying a 42,000 load. https://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92 Edited October 9, 2007 by Boom
JS Posted October 9, 2007 Posted October 9, 2007 What is the J's ceiling without carrying any cargo/pax? The AF website says it's 28,000ft carrying a 42,000 load. https://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92 Standard day at 110K gross weight (20K of fuel and no cargo) the book says 36,000 feet for cruise ceiling. The charts top out at over 40,000 feet for even lighter weight on a cooler day.
LockheedFix Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 I was at FL290 last week. We weighed about 120K, temp dev was probably +10, and we were doing 320KTAS and could have done more. The AF should have bought RVSM for the J, but I think that our optimum altitude is probably mid to upper 20s. The AF also should have bought a GPS with IFR approach capability and a SKE system that works. I think they were focusing on the short haul Herc mission, and the J is great for that. Does it at least have SELCAL? I heard they originally put it on the H3 but took it off for some unknown reason.
Guest Caddis Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Can a 130 even fly that high? Back in the late 90's I went to FL330 in an E model. The controller laughed at us when we made the request but gave us the block from FL 290 to FL 330. It was winter so the temps were cold and we were over North Dakota on a Sunday afternoon so very little traffic in the area. We were able to get to 290KTAS. The H2 could get into RVSM airspace on a reugular basis but the aicraft seems to perform best, i.e. FF vs KTAS between 21 and 26 so not sure if there would be value in cruising above FL 290.
FourFans Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Slowmover, Do you guys normally cruise above 320 KTAS? Is 250 still the magic number to not exceed?
amcflyboy Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 We got our skibirds up to FL320, but that was over Antarctica, and the temp dev was negative ridiculous! Antarctica is also Class G airspace, so no RVSM going on there.
Riddller Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 I was in an F-model up to FL 370 on a standard day once. Tried to make it to 400 but we had some mechanical problems.
jiggy Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) I am working on my masters and looking for info about the flight controls on a C-130J. Do they have cables and pulleys like the old models or are they fly by wire. I know the engines have a FADEC system, but I can't find anything that talks about the flight controls. Any help or links would be great. The Lockheed site is quite vague. Thanks Edited January 31, 2010 by jiggy
slacker Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 It's all "fly by wire," big, thick wire stretched between pulleys and bellcranks with hydraulic booster packs. Power levers are "fly by wire," little wire, conducting electricity or what I call, "magic."
jiggy Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 It's all "fly by wire," big, thick wire stretched between pulleys and bellcranks with hydraulic booster packs. Power levers are "fly by wire," little wire, conducting electricity or what I call, "magic." Thanks,
Steve Davies Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 Thanks, I really hope that you don't use any of that in your MA.
slacker Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 I really hope that you don't use any of that in your MA. Why? That was quality info.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now