Rockwell Collins to support Pakistani C-130 fleet

[Super Falcon]

Time to buy bigger birds and similar like C 130 There are many countries selling it is open market dont know why PAF sleeping since 80s after getting them

 

[Viper0011.]

No mechanical/structural enhancements are included in these mods. Just avionics so that the C-130 can operate in International airspace on airways with commercial traffic (RVSM).

You've just compared a turboprop handling/flying to a jet here:

(note you typed 'C-130 jets' here)

You should heed your own advice before criticising others.

A cockpit upgrade, as much as it may look like an airbus/boeing product will not alter the basic flying qualities of the C130 turboprop.

Here we go. Another one of those "experts" who doesn't want to understand the meaning behind someone's post. But wants to jump in and sounds like the Chief Program Officer of the C-130!!!!

Yes, I DID compare it to the layout and the cockpit design of the C-130 (new ones) with Boeing's plane's as an example to ILLUSTRATE that the primary function of these upgrades isn't to upgrade the engines or anything, but the pilot workload inside the cockpit. The modern layout will make the pilot feel that they are flying a nicer Boeing commercial plane because of the digitization that will change the cockpit. That's it.

What's "mechanical" to you? You realize automating a manual lever with a button to pull and close IS consider Mechanical Automation correct? And a 10 year old knows that flying a turbo-prop vs. a jet has a huge difference, primarily in handling, controls and noise. Trust me, I know because I've flown in both!!!!

 

[Blue Marlin]

Here we go. Another one of those "experts" who doesn't want to understand the meaning behind someone's post. But wants to jump in and sounds like the Chief Program Officer of the C-130!!!!

Yes, I DID compare it to the layout and the cockpit design of the C-130 (new ones) with Boeing's plane's as an example to ILLUSTRATE that the primary function of these upgrades isn't to upgrade the engines or anything, but the pilot workload inside the cockpit. The modern layout will make the pilot feel that they are flying a nicer Boeing commercial plane because of the digitization that will change the cockpit. That's it.

What's "mechanical" to you? You realize automating a manual lever with a button to pull and close IS consider Mechanical Automation correct? And a 10 year old knows that flying a turbo-prop vs. a jet has a huge difference, primarily in handling, controls and noise. Trust me, I know because I've flown in both!!!!

dont lockheed martin manufacture the c130? not boeing.

 

[Viper0011.]

dont lockheed martin manufacture the c130? not boeing.

You'll need to read my posts above posts to understand the topic and the issue. I made a statement that the advance cockpit inside C-130's, makes a pilot feel like they are flying a Boeing 767. It was a metaphor I used to explain how a pilot's workload is lessen with the newer upgrades and digitization inside the C-130.

As you can imagine on this forum, some genius decided to take that and interpret it that I was suggesting they'll remove the propeller system and will put in jet system like Boeing's commercial jets . We have some real smart people who don't read posts, but they are quick to respond without context

 

[Blue Marlin]

You'll need to read my posts above posts to understand the topic and the issue. I made a statement that the advance cockpit inside C-130's, makes a pilot feel like they are flying a Boeing 767. It was a metaphor I used to explain how a pilot's workload is lessen with the newer upgrades and digitization inside the C-130.

As you can imagine on this forum, some genius decided to take that and interpret it that I was suggesting they'll remove the propeller system and will put in jet system like Boeing's commercial jets . We have some real smart people who don't read posts, but they are quick to respond without context

ohhhh you want to play mr smarty pants now do you? ok........... i can play too.
the 767 came into service over 30 years ago.
back then it took 3 people to fly the plane. 2 pliots and the flight engineer.below is an image of the engineeres panel.

if you wanted to out smart me you could have said the the 787 or the a350. because were talking boeing here i shall stick to the 787. a 787 cockpit is below and the engineeres panel is gone and the entire pane is controlled the two screens just in front of the thrust levers.

now moder c130'j are not like that.below is somthing you should have been talking about.
from this

to this

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Pakistan previously upgrade 06 of its C130E models with C130 AMP(avionics modernisation program) by Collins. That is being bought back, and now all aircraft are being upgraded to RC Proline21 based Glass Cockpit. This will be a complete revamp of the avionics for all PAF C130s.

Pro Line 21

Additionally, the 06 pair of outer wings are likely to be US Airforce surplus from AMARC, which PAF shall use to replace its existing FY73 wings to these supplied FY84 H Star wings. This means that C130 outer wings, the structural item with least or limited life, will be replaced with longer or additional hours wings, hence adding at least 20 years life to 06 aircraft.

This is an ambitious program, in which the Proline21 C130 configuration is opted which is without precedence of service in any major Air Force, including USAF. Pakistan would have likely asked for in-country installation of the Avionics and for outer wings. However, it may also imply that Pakistan will become one of the few countries in the world who will be able to undertake a C130 Proline 21 AMP on their own.

Critics of the program say that where there are other options on the market, Rockwell Collins was favoured unfairly by PAF for a prototype configuration and high technical risk, and without open competition, the available USG funding for the Pakistani C130, having put all their eggs in one basket, and not considering other AMP programs such as Honeywell, ASB, L3, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc.

 

[Bilal.]

1. Shaanxi Y-9 from China. PAF already has the similar Y-8F600, so inducting the Y-9 wouldn't require entirely new infrastructure for maintenance.

2. Antonov An-178 from Ukraine. Might be the most affordable of future non-Chinese options. Still in development.

3. Embraer KC-390. If the PAF wants a somewhat affordable Western platform, the KC-390 could be a viable option. It's still in development, won't enter service until around 2018.

And upcoming Y-30 and Y-19.

 

[imiakhtar]

Here we go. Another one of those "experts" who doesn't want to understand the meaning behind someone's post. But wants to jump in and sounds like the Chief Program Officer of the C-130!!!!

I understood perfectly well what you initially intended to say. However, as I and popeye illustrated, your poor choice of words is what led to confusion (for popeye and potentially others) which is why I called you out on it.

the 767 came into service over 30 years ago.
back then it took 3 people to fly the plane. 2 pliots and the flight engineer.below is an image of the engineeres panel.

Actually, using that cockpit pic of the 767 is a poor example as it is atypical. That cockpit pic belongs to a 767 operated by Ansett Australia. Ansett australia was an oddity for 767 ops as their pilot/engineering union didn't allow the airline to operate a 2 crew cockpit. All other 767 airlines are a two crew setup with just two pilots.

Also, the 767 kc-46 fuel tanker will also largely share the same cockpit as the 787 as will some of the Fedex 767F on order.

 

[Blue Marlin]

I understood perfectly well what you initially intended to say. However, as I and popeye illustrated, your poor choice of words is what led to confusion (for popeye and potentially others) which is why I called you out on it.



Actually, using that cockpit pic of the 767 is a poor example as it is atypical. That cockpit pic belongs to a 767 operated by Ansett Australia. Ansett australia was an oddity for 767 ops as their pilot/engineering union didn't allow the airline to operate a 2 crew cockpit. All other 767 airlines are a two crew setup with just two pilots.

Also, the 767 kc-46 fuel tanker will also largely share the same cockpit as the 787 as will some of the Fedex 767F on order.

modern 767-300er's and the 767f's are modern too a they are still in production and the cockpit layout is influenced from the 747-8,787 and 737 max family.
the other guy said 767 so i showed him an old example of one. i see your a new/very old user here. the other guy is very boisterious and best left alone

what exactly is your post about???? I didn't understand why so much winning all of a sudden.

By the way, I don't outsmart anyone. Neither is that my habit nor there is a competition to be honest. No offense.

I am a 12 incher, if you know what I mean. Can't beat me in a Dik competition. Sorry, your rear got burnt because I put you in the same category compared to the first fool who didn't really read and understood my post, but yet, he responded. And JUST like him, you didn't get my point either !! Keep posting more pictures

Do me a favor, before you color the next ten pages out of your ego getting pulled down by gravity, go re-read my posts above three times, take a few deep breathe. Ask your girl friend or wife to teach you a couple of Yoga techniques and try those. When you start to function well, come back and write a response. It'll all clear up in your head. Yoga is an amazing thing for people like you, I've heard. Good luck to you

god help you child, god help you
im not even angry at you, because i feel sorry for you.

 

[Viper0011.]

god help you child, god help you
im not even angry at you, because i feel sorry for you.

God helps those who help themselves, so I am good. There are some pretty hot ladies out there who help me too. So all is well on my end.

But you need to do Yoga. When your head clears up, you'll start to worry about you instead of me . I never said you were angry. I did mention your ego getting pulled by the gravity. For those days, Yoga helps a lot I heard

 

[Paksanity]

1. Shaanxi Y-9 from China. PAF already has the similar Y-8F600, so inducting the Y-9 wouldn't require entirely new infrastructure for maintenance.

2. Antonov An-178 from Ukraine. Might be the most affordable of future non-Chinese options. Still in development.

3. Embraer KC-390. If the PAF wants a somewhat affordable Western platform, the KC-390 could be a viable option. It's still in development, won't enter service until around 2018.

A-400M is also an option. It's expensive though as typically European aircraft are.

 

[imiakhtar]

modern 767-300er's and the 767f's are modern too a they are still in production and the cockpit layout is influenced from the 747-8,787 and 737 max family.

Actually there is no commonality/influence between current in production 767-300ers and 748/787/737max.

As you can see, current build 767-300ers still retain the original cockpit setup. This is a recent sept 2013 build:



Think of it as:

Boeing 757/767-200(ER/F)/300(ER/F) (common cockpit and type rating)

Boeing 767-400 (777 cockpit displays)

Boeing 777 (common type rating with 787)

B787 - totally new design ground up.

Boeing 747-8(00) - cockpit refresh with crt replaced by lcd

Boeing 737 max - retains 737ng cockpit with display refresh