Author Topic: C-130T Nr 5011  (Read 3641 times)

LionFlyer

  • Timawan
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
C-130T Nr 5011
« on: October 12, 2018, 10:55:56 PM »
https://www.philgeps.gov.ph/GEPSNONPILOT/Tender/SplashBidNoticeAbstractUI.aspx?menuIndex=3&refID=5711791&highlight=true

Quote
Nomenclature/Activity: PB-PAFBAC-301-18 Procurement of Propeller of Eight (8) ea Propeller Blades for Use of C-130T Aircraft with Tail Nr 5011
Approved Budget for the Contract: PhP24,800,000.00
Price of Bid Documents: PhP25,000.00

jetmech

  • Guest
Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2018, 01:08:57 AM »
   Does this mean the PAF have the capability to overhaul propeller assembly? The requisition was for 8 blades, not assembly (end item). The 4 blade model requires the whole assembly removed & replaced when any of the blades are damaged. The newer versions (6-8 blade propeller assy), you can replace individual blades (when damaged) and just requires on wing balancing. Unless somebody made a mistake on the proper nomenclature and part number to use when it was ordered.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 01:21:38 AM by jetmech »

sbhntr

  • Timawan
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2018, 02:05:27 AM »
that is interesting. there is no mention of "associated consumables" (bearings, packings, etc) on the itb. could they be "government furnished parts" when sent to an overhaul contractor? somewhat like how the -404 engines were a separate buy from the fa-50 (based on sipri).

while the transparency may be good, I think its a negative broadcasting to the world which asset maybe down/unavailable. is it really necessary to put identifiers (tail number in this case). blade for 54H60 may suffice in this case.

jetmech

  • Guest
Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2018, 04:41:04 AM »
that is interesting. there is no mention of "associated consumables" (bearings, packings, etc) on the itb. could they be "government furnished parts" when sent to an overhaul contractor? somewhat like how the -404 engines were a separate buy from the fa-50 (based on sipri).

while the transparency may be good, I think its a negative broadcasting to the world which asset maybe down/unavailable. is it really necessary to put identifiers (tail number in this case). blade for 54H60 may suffice in this case.

    I was giving some benefit of the doubt that finally, a capability upgrade on repairs. Of course, we'll see. Hopefully, this is in preparation for a major phase, high time, perhaps. Instead of waiting on the last minute?

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 14040
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2018, 04:56:45 AM »
that is interesting. there is no mention of "associated consumables" (bearings, packings, etc) on the itb. could they be "government furnished parts" when sent to an overhaul contractor? somewhat like how the -404 engines were a separate buy from the fa-50 (based on sipri).

while the transparency may be good, I think its a negative broadcasting to the world which asset maybe down/unavailable. is it really necessary to put identifiers (tail number in this case). blade for 54H60 may suffice in this case.

    I was giving some benefit of the doubt that finally, a capability upgrade on repairs. Of course, we'll see. Hopefully, this is in preparation for a major phase, high time, perhaps. Instead of waiting on the last minute?

It'll be interesting to see how this works out.

http://defenseph.net/drp/index.php?topic=3083.msg12766#msg12766

Taking a page out of the Airod playbook?

jetmech

  • Guest
Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2018, 08:59:04 AM »
   If they acquired the capability, they're missing a lot of consumables from the requisition, like what sbhntr mentioned. I guess there's lining of relief not having to order from a computer system. if this was a bad input leading to a bad output, they can cancel the bid and do it over. One shop supervisor I know got fired (sent very far away from the shop) for not paying attention to details. The shop needed 10 pieces of rivets to fix an engine cowl, so he ordered ten without looking at the unit of issue (UI). On the computer, default issue/ order was 1000 pounds (there's drop down menu). Guess how many crates of rivets came rolling down our site after 1 week?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 09:11:07 AM by jetmech »

sbhntr

  • Timawan
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2018, 09:28:56 AM »
they might just have the capability. I remember seeing a requisition list of support equipment on the old forum. I commented that they were missing a few items to do a dome repack. we were even having discussions on staging the equipment on two sites: clark and mactan. the show stopper was that there was only one hoist....

mamiyapis

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2018, 07:53:47 PM »
There is the possibility the USAF is supporting the upgrades through JUSMAG. The 8-blade propeller upgrades were done by the USAF themselves with a little support from Lockheed. It wouldn't be impossible to impart the knowledge if the replacement was a relatively straightforward affair.