The US Air Force is decommissioning most of the C-130H aircraft due to problems with propellers

The US Air Force is withdrawing most of its C-130 Hercules aircraft from service due to propeller problems. Cracks were found in their cylinders.

This was reported in the American magazine Defense News.

The US Air Mobility Command (AMC) has confirmed that the majority of the US Air Force's C-130H fleet, which at the beginning of fiscal year 2022 (started in October 2021) totaled 128 units, cannot fly. And it is not clear how long it will take to replace all the failed propeller assemblies.

AMC said 116 C-130Hs were taken out of service on Tuesday amid concerns that their propeller assemblies were faulty. Checks scheduled for the coming days will show how many of them are damaged.

In a statement to Defense News, Air Mobility Command said a maintenance crew at the Warner Robins Air Logistics Facility in Georgia discovered a malfunction in the C-130H's propeller during an engine test run. This happened after he went through maintenance. Further checks showed that two more propeller assemblies had the same problem.

This is the second time in the past three years that a significant number of C-130Hs have been taken out of service due to propeller problems. In February 2019, the US Air Force stopped using 60 of these aircraft for several weeks, which at that time amounted to almost a third of the fleet. The command was afraid that the blades of propellers produced before 1971 could crack, so they were replaced.

Comments

[Ryaruav]

maybe it’s still correct not in the screw cylinders, but in the cavities of the screws

[Cat Alexandrovich]

There are probably cylinders in the screws, if VO writes so.

[Ryaruav]

Andrey, I understood you, you meant the reverse hydraulics of the vrsh

[cold wind]

C-130H is an old aircraft, it is being replaced by C-130J. In principle, they may not be returned to operation.

[Fizik13]

Quote from cold wind

C-130H is an old aircraft, it is being replaced by C-130J. In principle, they may not be returned to operation.

The C-130H will be overhauled to become the C-130J.
As a rule, the glider itself is intact without any serious violations.
During the overhaul of such aircraft at the enterprise, they strip it to the bare, remove everything: the inner skin, wires, engines, electronics .... Then they put new engines, electronics, wires, they can even put new wings with a different profile.

[cold wind]

Quote from Fizik13

The C-130H will be overhauled to become the C-130J.

No, It is Immpossible. The aircraft are too different, the C-130J is a new aircraft only similar to the C-130H.

[UAZ 452]

And such a repair will definitely cost less than building a new side, if the predicted resource of a new and repaired aircraft is taken into account in the equation?

[Sergey3]

As the saying goes, greedy pays twice. They tried to prove this very many times to officials ordering a major overhaul, but they are more stubborn than any maniacs put together, repair and that's it. And then the grass will not grow ...

[orionvitt]

Quote from cold wind

In principle, they may not be returned to operation.

Shouldn't the screws be replaced? If I have a tire puncture on my car, then I don’t put it in the garage, but change the wheel. So there is something else, and the screws, it is, an excuse.

[Thrifty]

That is, is it a problem to make new screws? ??

[Kelevra]

"Cracks found in propeller cylinders." What kind of dude wrote this?
"propeller" - only happens with Carlson.

[Cat Alexandrovich]

Duc, after all, woodpeckers, it seems, do not know how to write. They are illiterate!

[Boycott]

But they can knock on the keys, and illiteracy is not a hindrance to them.

[BedMax]

They hit the glass with Morse code, and the journalist writes ..

[DymOk_v_dYmke]

So the Carlsons overstrained themselves by dragging "gifts" into 404.

[Asad]

They were created for this, but such volumes of traffic really deplete resources.

[free]

propeller blades produced before 1971

Hercules is their workhorse of military transport aviation, and if the propellers are over 50 years old, nothing surprising. As of January 22, 2021, 327 C-130 military aircraft were lost (3466 people died) and 48 L-100 civil modification aircraft (264 people died). The plane is interesting especially the modification of the flying battery. They say we are developing on the basis of the An-12 transporter (also a turboprop) with 57 mm caliber guns

[Lara Croft]

Quote: Free

Hercules is their workhorse of military transport aviation

This is the workhorse of all NATO countries and US allies in the Asia-Pacific region and Australia and Oceania ...

[UAZ 452]

A flying battery is a pvoshnik’s dream, it can only be used against barmaley, who don’t even have MANPADS. And after Ukraine, any barmaley who is not completely poor will be able to afford a shaitan pipe, not even for a very expensive one. And with the massive introduction of loitering ammunition drones, a flying battery with guns becomes useless and redundant - it would be much more logical to convert it into a uterus for drones.

[AdAstra]

We would have their problems. """""

[ODERVIT]

It turns out that the TVD has a propeller. What a news.

[Bad_gr]

In the photo of the C-130, aircraft with 4-bladed propellers often flash, and there are also 6-bladed ones. What problems?

[cold wind]

With 4 blades - C-130H
With 6 blades - C-130J

[Bad_gr]

Quote from cold wind

With 4 blades - C-130H
With 6 blades - C-130J

Thanks for the information.

[Sebastian Aristarkhovich Pereira]

do we care?! Or is this exactly the Achilles heel of the US Air Force?!

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Sebastian Aristarkhovich Pereira

do we care?!

And I'm just wondering with what screws jambs. Judging by the letters of the alphabet, the problem is with the old, 4-blade ones (and not the topics in the photo in the article).

[Sebastian Aristarkhovich Pereira]

Well, what ... Hurrah ???
Thanks Petrov, respect Boshirov!

[m.cempbell]

that their propeller assemblies are faulty.

Maybe the nodes of their propellers? Or, like, the Word did not underline in red - not a mistake

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Planes don't have propellers, they have propellers.

[DymOk_v_dYmke]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Planes don't have propellers, they have propellers.

Wiki:

Large planes move forward due to powerful engines that rotate the propeller. A rapidly rotating propeller throws out huge masses of air behind itself, providing the forward movement of the aircraft.

PS And the wood splitter also has a screw.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Sorry, but I didn’t study aerodynamics from Wikipedia.

[Kuzmitsky]

I think both are right.

Indeed, pilots do not say "propeller", but say "propeller" or "propeller". Like, for example, truckers say "truck" and not "truck tractor." They see better.

But still...

The meaning of the word "propeller"
PROPELLER, -a, m. A device that creates thrust in the form of several blades rotated by an engine; air propeller. Aircraft propeller.

[Engl. propeller from lat. propellere - drive forward]

Source (printed version): Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes / RAS, Institute of Linguistics. research; Ed. A. P. Evgenieva. - 4th ed., erased. — M.: Rus. lang.; Polygraphic resources, 1999

PROPE'LLER, a, m. [from Latin. propello - I drive forward]. A device for propulsion of airplanes, airships, as well as gliders, snowmobiles, in the form of several blades rotating on an axis with a strongly curved surface.

Source: “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” edited by D. N. Ushakov (1935-1940)

In other words, the same thing can have different names. But professionals (pilots, drivers, etc.) categorically avoid using some of these names.

Therefore, taking into account the specifics of the publication, which is read, among other things, by former or current pilots, aircraft designers, aircraft builders, for example, in the future I will avoid the word "propeller" in relation to an aircraft. Not because it is wrong, but simply out of respect for professionals.

[Kuzmitsky]

And the news itself is good. Out of order American aircraft, which can transport goods, including military, including for Ukraine. And not two or three planes, but more than a hundred.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Indeed, pilots do not say "propeller", but say "propeller" or "propeller". Like, for example, truckers say "truck" and not "truck tractor." They see better.

Aerodynamics as an exact science requires clear terminology. And for the "propellers" in the first year, they immediately sculpted failures in the classroom.

[Maxim G]

They used to say, during the Second World War and before it.

[Zadok]

what "cylinders" in the "propellers" ?! author, take a breath.