Ocean Sentry vs. the Herc

[PropStop]

Is there anyone who is on here who has flown both the P-3 and the C-130? I'd be curious to know the handling differences between the two when one or two engines are out.

In the Warpig we practice two engine landings all the time (two to idle of course, not shut down). We also routinely shut down one engine in flight for practice and to save gas on missions. There are procedures to shut down the two outboards in flight to save gas on a mission, but I've never done that other than for practice. During instructor training we shut down two on the same side at altitude just to see what it's like to fly with two engines FX - it flies quite well. All of this provides us with great confidence in how the plane handles when things aren't going your way.

I guess i'm surprised at how restrictive the other services are on this type of training - hence my question about C-130 handling in a two engine out asymmetric configuration.

 

[HercDriver]

Sounds similar to us- we can shut down two engines for SAR (I've only done it once), and for our semi-annuals for pilot/first pilot we do two engine/no flap landings, so at least twice a year we see it. Three engine practice is pretty routine-usually a three engine instrument approach to a three engine go around, enter the pattern to a three engine T&G (four on the go). For two engines, the two on the left are "failed", as that is more critical side aerodynamically and it leaves you without nosewheel steering, anti-skid braking and the ability to move your gear or flaps hydraulically.

 

[scoolbubba]

During instructor training we shut down two on the same side at altitude just to see what it's like to fly with two engines FX - it flies quite well.

160 knots at 7000 feet and 1 and 2 shutdown, and she's still a nice warpig. 160 knots at 1000 feet in the pattern with those two out and I'm cursing the plane, my instructor, his family, my squadron, the US Navy, the fact that my legs are the same length, and the assclown at Lockheed who didn't make the rudder any larger.

 

[Gatordev]

So here's a question... Is it really fair to compare the engine loss capabilities of a plane with an engine drastically different than that with a series of aircraft that has continued engine problems? Obviously losing an engine with only one to spare over water is bad, but the T700/CT7 is a pretty damn reliable engine and they rarely die in flight. The anecdotal evidence here says that's not true for the Allison.

I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but seems like worrying about the Casa's potential to lose an engine based on the HC-130's troubled history isn't necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[scoolbubba]

So here's a question... Is it really fair to compare the engine loss capabilities of a plane with an engine drastically different than that with a series of aircraft that has continued engine problems? Obviously losing an engine with only one to spare over water is bad, but the T700/CT7 is a pretty damn reliable engine and they rarely die in flight. The anecdotal evidence here says that's not true for the Allison.

I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but seems like worrying about the Casa's potential to lose an engine based on the HC-130's troubled history isn't necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison.

I think you might be reading more into the anecdotal stuff here than is warranted. Yea, they break sometimes, but in the millions of flight hours logged between 130s and P-3s, they're pretty damn reliable. The engines are great...props can be finicky and a pain in the dick to deal with when they don't work, but once they're up and online, engines are usually pretty solid. If one isn't....well, that's what the other 3 are for.

 

[MasterBates]

My in flight shut downs have been one uncommanded, the other due to massive oil leaks. I've been unable to restart after an FCF shutdown multiple times due to NP2K issues, and had to shut an engine down in the downwind at the boat (AT NIGHT ) that took it's damn sweet time to feather (we were about to start Fail to Fx procedures when it finally did it).

The -427 variant of the T56 has a problem with blowing oil lines off the case, and has for a while. The -425s in the COD don't seem to have the same problems.

 

[MasterBates]

And for the other T-56 guys, it's not the #4 scavenge line. While that makes a mess, it takes a LONG TIME to lose your oil that way. I'm talking the big lines out of the scavenge pumps the size of my thumb (and I have big hands)

 

[HooverPilot]

I've got > 1,500 hours flying with a T-56 in the COD. I've only had to shut down 2 for actual failures. However, I have had more than a dozen single engine landings/field traps due to no relight on an FCF shutdown. NTS is more often than not to blame...

Edit: those are in a 4 blade COD. the NP2K has always relight for me so far.

 

[Gatordev]

I think you might be reading more into the anecdotal stuff here than is warranted. Yea, they break sometimes, but in the millions of flight hours logged between 130s and P-3s, they're pretty damn reliable. The engines are great...props can be finicky and a pain in the dick to deal with when they don't work, but once they're up and online, engines are usually pretty solid. If one isn't....well, that's what the other 3 are for.

Perhaps. It's actually similar to the T700, in a different way. If you have any sort of indication/water intrusion issue, don't expect the engine to work right, but once it's online, it's pretty solid.

I was just commenting (or commentating) on Hercdriver's post about engine loss performance. Again, it's anecdotal, but it seems like there's lots more in-flight Allison failures (engine or prop) compared T700 failures.

 

[HercDriver]

It might be the C-130 transport way of thinking - taking off on short runways or in mountainous terrain is predicated on three engine performance in the climb. Most of our EPs involve shutting down an engine, and we often work well off shore, so any EP is going to involve a discussion on how much fuel will I need to dump to stay flying and if I dump that much fuel, can I make it back to shore.

 

[MasterBates]

The T-56-427 and NP2K are perfect examples of fucking with something too much and screwing up the stuff that made the engines bulletproof in the first place. I wonder if the -401D T700s will have a similar issue.

If they ever come out. Or the 701D. Whatever the hell they call it now.

 

[Gatordev]

It might be the C-130 transport way of thinking - taking off on short runways or in mountainous terrain is predicated on three engine performance in the climb. Most of our EPs involve shutting down an engine, and we often work well off shore, so any EP is going to involve a discussion on how much fuel will I need to dump to stay flying and if I dump that much fuel, can I make it back to shore.

Gotcha.

The T-56-427 and NP2K are perfect examples of fucking with something too much and screwing up the stuff that made the engines bulletproof in the first place. I wonder if the -401D T700s will have a similar issue.

If they ever come out. Or the 701D. Whatever the hell they call it now.

Both have been out for some time, just not in a Navy helo. I'm sure some of our Army dudes can give some info, but then they'd have to come into a Coast Guard thread.

 

[careerO-3]

The only things I can think of I prefer on the Ocean Sentry are the avionics suite, and the eventual choice of units...

Just curious what rumors you have heard about eventual choice of units. I have heard west coast eventually, maybe PT Magu?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Just curious what rumors you have heard about eventual choice of units. I have heard west coast eventually, maybe PT Magu?

There's Coasties at Mugu? I thought the West Coast CG heavies were at Sacramento.

 

[careerO-3]

I only heard a rumor for future plans. It might be old gouge though.