Recent Topics
Favorite Honda Acura filters
by JeffKeryk - 04/07/20 11:09 AM
Samsung Quitting LCD Business
by SubLGT - 04/07/20 10:59 AM
Moisture inside double pane glass doors.
by Cujet - 04/07/20 09:51 AM
When did mechanics start using rubber gloves?
by atikovi - 04/07/20 09:33 AM
Gearless ratchet
by Farnsworth - 04/07/20 09:22 AM
Troy bilt Zero turn hydrostat fluid?
by racin4ds - 04/07/20 09:20 AM
Bad experience with Monroe strut assembly
by sasilverbullet - 04/07/20 09:16 AM
Hitachi CG22EASSLP
by passgas55 - 04/07/20 09:03 AM
Update: Oil turns dark quickly
by NavyVet88 - 04/07/20 08:48 AM
Do you eat cold pizza or warm it up?
by ZZman - 04/07/20 08:43 AM
This is the turning point...
by Navi - 04/07/20 07:55 AM
accidental fake fraud
by joaks - 04/07/20 07:10 AM
Anyone here try or use Brickell men's shampoo?
by aquariuscsm - 04/07/20 06:49 AM
Adding A Quart for Mustang GT
by ddhmax1973 - 04/07/20 06:29 AM
Victory 106 C.I. filter replaced. . .
by Robster - 04/07/20 06:09 AM
Monaco GP 1992 Senna/Mansell Battle
by IMSA_Racing_Fan - 04/07/20 03:03 AM
RV's for MD's
by 02SE - 04/07/20 01:42 AM
Crawfish, It's A Louisiana Thang!
by BlueOvalFitter - 04/07/20 01:01 AM
M&P .40 Magazines $12.99
by BlueOvalFitter - 04/06/20 11:30 PM
Newest Members
bigboychunky, maleesha2000, baker269, BludRacing, Cacciatore
71119 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
110 registered members (ABerns, 53' Stude, 1978elcamino, 928, 007, Alaskanmont, 10 invisible), 2,109 guests, and 16 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics303,717
Posts5,240,549
Members71,119
Most Online4,538
Jan 20th, 2020
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 5 1 3 4 5
Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5337158 01/31/20 10:03 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,557
tom slick Offline
Offline
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,557
It’s possible for an to engine ingest enough smoke to stall but it should be recoverable. It used to happen on occasion to my unit’s c-130’s during MAFFS missions, we never lost any birds though.

As a side note; in a C-130 with a T-56 engine, the pilot controls the propeller and the propeller controls the engine. The only engine RPM control is a button that puts the engine in “Ground Idle” that opens the bleed air valves and the RPM drops to 80% for taxiing.


You get what you pay for...
So keep in mind how much you paid for this advice.
Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5337646 01/31/20 08:00 PM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,187
BusyLittleShop Offline
Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,187
Serving 20 years in the USAF I always love the sound of a piston
popping reciprocating engine more than the whoosh of a turbine but the
power to weight ratio always favored the turbine and that is why
they are now the choice of aircraft aeronautical engineers...

Allison T-56
Dry weight: 1,940 lb
Maximum power output: 4,350 shp
Power-to-weight ratio: 2.75 shp/lb

Pratt Whitney 4360
Dry weight: 3,870 lb
Power output: 4,300 hp
Power-to-weight ratio: 1.11 hp/lb


Last edited by BusyLittleShop; 01/31/20 08:05 PM.

Larry L
Have a Wheelie NICE day
94 RC45 #2 58,000 on 30 Grade, Currently Mobil 1 5W30 SN
2002 Camaro Mobil 1 5W30
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk



Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5338196 02/01/20 02:02 PM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 298
S
Surestick Offline
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 298
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
This is not about some "A" model or what ever, the planes are flat a bad design, for flying with alot of weight the wings should not be over slung. And if your going to use a high wing design then build them like a cessna with wing struts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-removes-c-130s-from-service-after-finding-cracks-2019-8
The wings look like they are very low surface area, and thus very highly loaded.


I'd be interested to see and explanation of the reasoning you used to form this opinion.
Where a wing attaches to the fuselage has nothing to do with its strength. There are low-wing aircraft that require wing struts as well, the Piper PA25 for example. A wing strut (like a low or high wing) is a design decision with its own set of tradeoffs that in some cases can be useful and in others a detriment (In general it's a feature that adds drag but saves structural weight which is why you see struts on lower speed aircraft like GA Cessnas, Piper Cubs, etc. but not on higher speed aircraft).
Wing loading has nothing to do with wing strength either, it probably has the biggest effect on stall speed, all else being equal.

As others have said, the Herc has a long record of exceptional performance. You keep posting opinions without any data or reasoning to back them up. I have to wonder if you're not just trolling.

Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5338449 02/01/20 08:33 PM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 319
E
Exhaustgases Offline OP
OP Offline
E
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 319
The folding up wings are the data. Low wings? Its surprising that DC-3 wings hold as good as they do, as there is no spar that goes through from the outboard wings into the center section that holds the engine nacelles. Attachment is by small angles forming a flange with a bunch of bolts. With a laminar flow on top and bottom I can see where that system works fine, but then when it comes to high G's ???

Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5338522 02/01/20 10:11 PM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 298
S
Surestick Offline
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 298
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The folding up wings are the data. Low wings? Its surprising that DC-3 wings hold as good as they do, as there is no spar that goes through from the outboard wings into the center section that holds the engine nacelles. Attachment is by small angles forming a flange with a bunch of bolts. With a laminar flow on top and bottom I can see where that system works fine, but then when it comes to high G's ???


The C-130 isn't the first aircraft (of any wing location) to have a structural failure of the wing so your point is? There is a reason airplanes come with G-limits and there's a reason it's generally a bad idea to exceed the limit by any significant margin. Over G any plane enough and a wing folding up is the likely result.

If I had to guess Lockheed most likely chose a high wing design to keep the props away from the ground and up higher where they're less likely to be damaged by FOD on non-paved runways. The fuselage can then be closer to the ground making it easier to load the military cargo the plane is designed to transport.

I'm not sure what laminar flow has to do with this but laminar flow has nothing to do with wing location or strength. I also doubt the DC3 has laminar flow anywhere near its wing roots!

in engineering, everything is a tradeoff. A wing spar going through the fuselage uninterrupted is likely a lighter design (for a given strength) than interrupting the spar and attaching the wings on either side of the fuselage but the spar takes up a lot of room that can be used for cargo. If designed properly neither design is inferior in strength, they just make different tradeoffs (weight for cargo room).

Who knows though, you seem to think helicopters are inherently dangerous as well so I might but be a shill for the mighty high-wing & helicopter pilot-killing cabal.

Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5338662 02/02/20 01:21 AM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,187
BusyLittleShop Offline
Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,187
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Its surprising that DC-3 wings hold as good as they do, as there is no spar that goes through from the outboard wings into the center section that holds the engine nacelles


Negative... Donald Douglas's DC3 employs a triple spar...
[Linked Image]


Larry L
Have a Wheelie NICE day
94 RC45 #2 58,000 on 30 Grade, Currently Mobil 1 5W30 SN
2002 Camaro Mobil 1 5W30
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk



Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5341033 02/04/20 05:44 PM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 319
E
Exhaustgases Offline OP
OP Offline
E
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 319
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFafJCK3sKw

There is no spar that goes from wing to center section, I know that very well as a kid I helped work on DC-3's.
All that holds them to the center section and takes the load is that little tiny angle iron flange.

Last edited by Exhaustgases; 02/04/20 05:45 PM.
Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5341108 02/04/20 06:58 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,915
Malo83 Offline
Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,915

Coast-Guard-C-130H-Number-1706-being-worked-on-at-Robins-AFB-March-13-2012-US-Air-Force-photo-by-Sue-Sapp.jpg
Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5342388 02/06/20 04:25 AM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 319
E
Exhaustgases Offline OP
OP Offline
E
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 319
And why piston airline size planes not allowed, they are orders of magnitude less cost to maintain and operate there is a reason places like Everts still uses them . It seems the goal is to make the costs go as high as possible when it comes to Govrnmt. Remember the toilet seat deal in the past.

Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5343861 02/07/20 05:11 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,639
Astro14 Offline
Offline
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,639
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
And why piston airline size planes not allowed, they are orders of magnitude less cost to maintain and operate there is a reason places like Everts still uses them . It seems the goal is to make the costs go as high as possible when it comes to Govrnmt. Remember the toilet seat deal in the past.


If what you said was even remotely true, then all of the major airlines would be flying piston planes. Cost is their primary concern.


32 Packard 15W40
01 Volvo V70 T5 0W30 AMSOIL SS
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W30 Edge
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra
Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5344015 02/07/20 08:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 14,973
53' Stude Online Content
Online Content
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 14,973
Astro14: thank you for enlightening him. I always learn something great about aviation from you sir thumbsup


2009 Toyota Camry LE

161,669 miles

Valvoline Maxlife Synthetic 5w20 Dexos 1 Gen 2 SN+
Fram tough guard 4386 filter
Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5344173 02/07/20 11:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 9,331
E
edyvw Offline
Offline
E
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 9,331
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
And why piston airline size planes not allowed, they are orders of magnitude less cost to maintain and operate there is a reason places like Everts still uses them . It seems the goal is to make the costs go as high as possible when it comes to Govrnmt. Remember the toilet seat deal in the past.

True. Boeing wanted to put piston engines on 747, but government said: [censored] no.


11' BMW 328i xDrive 6MT (Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W40+ MANN filter)
11' VW Tiguan 2.0T (Castrol 0W30+OE filter)
15' Toyota Sienna AWD (Mobil1 5W30 EP+OEM filter).
Re: C-130 [Re: Astro14] #5345018 02/09/20 01:30 AM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 319
E
Exhaustgases Offline OP
OP Offline
E
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 319
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
And why piston airline size planes not allowed, they are orders of magnitude less cost to maintain and operate there is a reason places like Everts still uses them . It seems the goal is to make the costs go as high as possible when it comes to Govrnmt. Remember the toilet seat deal in the past.


If what you said was even remotely true, then all of the major airlines would be flying piston planes. Cost is their primary concern.



This day and age they would not fly them. Its not because of cost but, passengers would refuse to fly on them because of preconceived ideas about them. Though if fuel was in very short supply, they could come back in the form of diesel type engines.
I guess you never saw how much fuel a jet engine burns in a very short span. Flying could end up reverting back to what it was in the old days, that is only a luxury that the very wealthy could afford. The way the future looks is that planes will end up being build much smaller than they are now. Especially if they wish to electrify them. I think the jet or turbine engine is going to someday be eliminated, they are too fuel hungry.

Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5345234 02/09/20 11:36 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,317
W
wings&wheels Offline
Offline
W
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
And why piston airline size planes not allowed, they are orders of magnitude less cost to maintain and operate there is a reason places like Everts still uses them . It seems the goal is to make the costs go as high as possible when it comes to Govrnmt. Remember the toilet seat deal in the past.


Modern turbine aircraft are much more economical to operate under most conditions than any recip. They are also much more reliable. High powered, multi row radials are beautiful and impressive machines, but aren't exactly user friendly or inexpensive to maintain or anywhere near as reliable as a modern turbine.

The C5 'toilet seat deal' was simple economics, and a good deal of political sophistry. Take any item that needs significant R&D and the capital to produce it, then amortize those costs plus the other direct and indirect costs, and profit, over a very short production run and there you have the '$35K toilet seat' or whatever. Add in an opportunistic politician, selling a simplistic message to their nodding supporters....

There are many better and truthful examples of govt. waste.


'05 Lotus Elise S/C
'85 Land Rover 90 diesel
'74 Triumph TR6
'74 BMW 2002
'72 Land Rover Series III 88"
'99 Porsche 996 (Wife's)
'01 Porsche Boxster S (mostly Wife's...)
Piper Pa28-236


Re: C-130 [Re: Exhaustgases] #5345302 02/09/20 01:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,639
Astro14 Offline
Offline
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,639
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
And why piston airline size planes not allowed, they are orders of magnitude less cost to maintain and operate there is a reason places like Everts still uses them . It seems the goal is to make the costs go as high as possible when it comes to Govrnmt. Remember the toilet seat deal in the past.


If what you said was even remotely true, then all of the major airlines would be flying piston planes. Cost is their primary concern.



This day and age they would not fly them. Its not because of cost but, passengers would refuse to fly on them because of preconceived ideas about them. Though if fuel was in very short supply, they could come back in the form of diesel type engines.
I guess you never saw how much fuel a jet engine burns in a very short span. Flying could end up reverting back to what it was in the old days, that is only a luxury that the very wealthy could afford. The way the future looks is that planes will end up being build much smaller than they are now. Especially if they wish to electrify them. I think the jet or turbine engine is going to someday be eliminated, they are too fuel hungry.



In my 35 years of flying everything from piston singles, to the 747, along with the F-14 and F/A-18, I HAVE seen how much each type uses.

In all flight regimes.

It’s a cost/mile thing for airlines. Fuel is one aspect. Maintenance matters. 56 sparkplugs on each engine, for example, four engines, the poor reliability, and the downtime for maintenance killed the recip airliner a long time ago.

“Fuel hungry” is both specious and simplistic.

Modern jet engines, and modern jet airliners, are incredibly fuel efficient where it matters: cruise flight.

The 787 burns about 6,000 lbs per hour (about 900 gallons) total in cruise. At 0.85 Mach.

The DC-6 burned about the same amount of aviation gasoline per hour.

But it was going half the speed.

Carrying 1/3 the passengers.

With 1/4 of the range.

Flying down in the weather and turbulence.

Burning fuel that’s three times as expensive as jet fuel, which is basically kerosene.

So, nine or ten times more expensive per mile (fuel/seat/mile) on fuel alone, with much higher maintenance, while going half the speed, with limited range, fuel stops to get across the US, incapable of crossing the Atlantic or Pacific without stopping.

But at least it was noisy and slow....


32 Packard 15W40
01 Volvo V70 T5 0W30 AMSOIL SS
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W30 Edge
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra
Page 4 of 5 1 3 4 5
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™