C-130 Hercules still going strong

[Andy44]

An article about the Hercules. Not only has the model been in production since 1954(!), Lockheed Martin is about to start producing civilian versions of it again, the L-100J.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a20513/new-c-130-lockheed-lm100j/

The latest version of the Hercules has vast improvements over the original; stronger, more efficient engines and 6-bladed props, better materials, FADEC avionics, but at heart it's still a Herc.

I've always had a spot for this airplane. I used to go running past the end of a runway at an airfield that serviced them, and getting buzzed by a loaded Hercules taking off at full power over your head just never gets old.

When the last B-52 airframe is retired, the Stratofortress design will be about 90 years old. So will the Hercules, but the Hercules may still be in production. How's that for a long-lived design?

 

[Urwumpe]

Still, it is sad that the AC-130 family is not getting updated as well... against the current insurgencies, those had been really effective.

 

[boogabooga]

Our local museum once had a traveling exhibit of recovered artifacts from Pompeii. One of the artifacts was a table. Other than being 2000 years old and having once been buried by a volcano, there was nothing remarkable about the table whatsoever. It would not have looked out of place in anyone's home today.

The C-130 is like that. Given its mission, there is literally nothing that you can do to improve much upon it, even over long periods of time as other technologies advance around it.

 

[gertz]

Agree, the frame and aerodynamics are hardly upgradable, unlike equipment and gear, that is why it is the same old airplane.
Pretty much this is being done with An-32 -> An-132

 

[birdmanmike]

Then there's the A400 - ah no, forget it . . .

 

[Thunder Chicken]

I've always had a spot for this airplane. I used to go running past the end of a runway at an airfield that serviced them, and getting buzzed by a loaded Hercules taking off at full power over your head just never gets old.

My dad was 1st sgt. in an AF C-130 unit back in the 1970-1980s. I literally grew up with the drone of taxiing and flying Hercs in my ears and the smell of burning jet-A in my nose every day while visiting my dad at work and running around the base. They were still a friendly acquaintance when I went into the service and flew to a lot of places in a C-130 jump seat.

It wouldn't be the Air Force if we didn't have C-130s IMO. What a solid aircraft.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-epxdQnFMw"]C-130J Demo Paris 2011 _In Cockpit_.flv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hutchison66]

Ac-130

Look at the B-52 its gonna still be flying in 2050 you can't beat a solid design but some times you can't beat stupidity like grounding all the Concorde's because of one crash caused not by the Aircraft but because Air France didn't implement the upgrades British Airways told them to do. same with the Space Shuttle the Shuttle it self wasn't the problem but Politian's and the press it was let down by management not by the vehicle itself yes there was an accident, you fix the problem and move on they did but instead we get the Condorde again grounded and NASA has to start again reinventing the wheel and lose the most capable machine ever sent into space to get a vehicle that might only fly every few years.
you take what you have that works and build on that not throw everything away and start again that's stupidity.
DC-3's are still flying in South America because they work, are easy to repair and nothing can replace them you take what you got an make it better not throw it all away and start again

 

[Treetop64]

Years ago I used to fly as radio/nav in Coast Guard HC-130s out of Sacramento. 1600 and 1700 series (I don't remember the exact numbers of each aircraft). A few years ago one of the 1700s I used to crew was lost in an accident, a mid-air with a Marine helicopter.

Good airplane, though we often joked how long it took to get anywhere in them. Out and back patrols lasted roughly nine to twelve hours, sometimes longer. Good box lunches and coffee were important on those flights. Never worried about the plane during flights, the mechs were highly competent and made the rest of our jobs (tweets, pilots, guys in the back) a lot easier.

Good days.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Years ago I used to fly as radio/nav in Coast Guard HC-130s out of Sacramento. 1600 and 1700 series (I don't remember the exact numbers of each aircraft). A few years ago one of the 1700s I used to crew was lost in an accident, a mid-air with a Marine helicopter.

I remember that incident. 1705, lost in October 2009. The air museum at McClellan had a radio on the pattern frequency, listening, and we heard the call sign for the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and we all looked at each other and went "Oh, ..." It was a big thing in town. Lots of coverage...

The Station put up a rather beautiful memorial just inside the gate a few years later, and they just picked up at least two of the C-27Js they got from the Boneyard. Plenty of activity still going on, and they're still drilling holes in the sky over Antelope. :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Look at the B-52 its gonna still be flying in 2050 you can't beat a solid design but some times you can't beat stupidity like grounding all the Concorde's because of one crash caused not by the Aircraft but because Air France didn't implement the upgrades British Airways told them to do.

WTF

The modifications happened after the crash in Paris. Both French and British Concordes flew for a while after it regained the permission to take-off again, but had then be ultimatively cancelled because too few people still wanted to fly with it. The Concorde was always just marginally profitable, at its end it was a big loss. Also it became more expensive because EADS wanted to increase the prices for the spare parts.

The new safer kind of tires developed for the Concorde is now flying on the A380.

The safety modifications had not been as important as it sounds, the final report already declared that the same kind of accident would have ended "likely fatal" for most airliners. That is why it is important to keep the runways clean.

same with the Space Shuttle the Shuttle it self wasn't the problem but Politian's and the press it was let down by management not by the vehicle itself

The shuttle itself was also the problem. It was a prototype until the end of its life. But that is getting a much more complicated and political discussion.

 

[Andy44]

Then there's always this neat trick:

 

[Thunder Chicken]

And then this from 1963. The C-130 is the largest, heaviest aircraft ever to land on a carrier. No tail hook, no catapult. You can also see the aircraft back up under its own power after landing to make room for takeoff.

C-130 Aerial Achievement - YouTube

I love how the first landing run seems amazingly short, but then every subsequent landing run is shorter.

 

[Notebook]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RqqNTDYzYk

Was also used during the testing for operation credible sport:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Credible_Sport

N.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Fat Albert no longer does the JATO bottle trick... The bottles were getting too old to be used safely.

 

[kamaz]

The Concorde was always just marginally profitable

Concorde was a net loss because the initial R&D cost was never recovered, even if operation was above breakeven (which it probably wasn't). Concorde was designed assuming an oil price of $20/bbl (2014$), because this is what the oil price was for decades before the project was even initiated:

The oil crisis immediately rendered the operation cost unafforable causing cancellation of orders by commercial customers and the project remained on life support ever since. This is also the reason why no other passenger supersonic airplane has been deployed since Concorde: the time saving does not justify the increased energy expenditure... especially in the era of telecommunication.

In contrast, a propeller cargo plane (i.e. C-130) is pretty much optimal in terms of energy/performance ratio, which is why it will continue flying for decades to come:

Can you see that of all flying things the turboprop has the lowest energy expenditure per kg?

 

[llarian]

This bird has a place in my heart forever. After initial training, I spent my CAF (later, thank God, the RCAF) career servicing this bird. She if unlike no other. Relatively easy on maintenance, unless you have to switch out the inverters under and behind the flight deck (a dwarf would find it tight).

I well remember one particular incident that speaks to the Herc's toughness. A certain young pilot was practicing LAPES drops on a drop zone a quarter mile from the main runway. On the cockpit tape later you can plainly hear: "One minute to drop" then the sound of the rear ramp opening, "30 seconds to drop", "10 seconds to drop" followed by a loud thump and the loadmaster saying "Oh, !". Pilot felt that he was coming down too quickly so at the last second he raised her nose and put her tail into the dirt. He was able to recover sufficiently to swing her over and land on the runway. The bird was able to fly again, occasionally, though she had a 17° bend in her tail.

The pilot never flew a CAF craft again.

 

[Andy44]

There is a legend about Desert 1, the failed mission to rescue American hostages from the captured US embassy in Tehran in 1980, that has it they intended to land a C-130 right in the heart of the city, using JATO bottles to come to a screeching halt, pick up the rescued people, and then use a second set of JATO bottles to get airborne again.

They did practice this maneuver, and wrecked an airplane in the process. You absolutely have to watch this video. It looks like an episode of Mythbusters; they strapped rockets on deployable fairings all over this airplane. This is one of the coolest things I have ever seen.

Of course thanks to the midair collision the mission was aborted before it ever got going.

 

[hutchison66]

WTF

The modifications happened after the crash in Paris. Both French and British Concordes flew for a while after it regained the permission to take-off again, but had then be ultimatively cancelled because too few people still wanted to fly with it. The Concorde was always just marginally profitable, at its end it was a big loss. Also it became more expensive because EADS wanted to increase the prices for the spare parts.

The new safer kind of tires developed for the Concorde is now flying on the A380.

The safety modifications had not been as important as it sounds, the final report already declared that the same kind of accident would have ended "likely fatal" for most airliners. That is why it is important to keep the runways clean.



The shuttle itself was also the problem. It was a prototype until the end of its life. But that is getting a much more complicated and political discussion.

The Modifications your talking about where the fitting of Kevlar protection to the fuel tanks they where not required that was because something had to be done, the modifications I was talking about was the rear wheel covers that British Airways advised the French to add to the rear gear to stop debris being flung into the underside of the wings and BA had noted that potentially could pierce the tanks Air France never carried out the modification and the aircraft was lost as BA had predicted. (the Accident investigation was a white wash so as to reduce the bad press to Air France a National Air line) when the aircraft was grounded the BA aircrafts where making a profit and flew fully loaded all the time it was Air France Concorde's that where flying at a loss but due to politics as usual the National Airline couldn't be seen to ground the Aircraft and the BA ones still flying safely. Virgin tried to buy the Concorde's to continue flying them as they believed that they where still a profitable aircraft but politics intervened. my friend worked as an engineer for BA on the Concorde and that due to BA's pro active safety policy where they look for problems before they cause an accident the same accident would never have happed to the BA Concorde.
A group is in the process of getting the funding to get a Concorde flying again for shows and rich clients to rent. but all the BA aircraft are on loan to museums but the Air France ones are sitting in hangers doing nothing but will Air France sell them to a British consortium we'll see.
As for the shuttle all spacecraft are prototype's the Soyuz is constantly being modified NASA itself didn't want to get rid of the Shuttle and say SLS flies once every 2 years won't that always be a prototype as nothing is reused, will it get any safer and what if something goes wrong then that's the end of the program. SLS's mission is too vague nothing seems to be fixed in concrete so can be changed or cancelled by each new administration that comes in, lest the Shuttle had a decent job description
SLS could end up the biggest white elephant and we end up in low earth orbit with nothing but an empty pad

 

[Urwumpe]

The Modifications your talking about where the fitting of Kevlar protection to the fuel tanks they where not required that was because something had to be done, the modifications I was talking about was the rear wheel covers that British Airways advised the French to add to the rear gear to stop debris being flung into the underside of the wings and BA had noted that potentially could pierce the tanks Air France never carried out the modification and the aircraft was lost as BA had predicted.

Sorry, but that is conspiracy hoggish. BA never modified their undercarriage themselves. And such a rear wheel cover would never have worked on a plane like that anyway. All concordes have, like all many other planes, only water spray deflectors. Such a protection against blown tires can not even work on truck tires (A common cause for the really bad accidents here) and those are at a much lower pressure than aircraft tires. The concorde main landing gear bogie tires were at twice the pressure of a truck tire, 16 atm.

All articles about "installing a mudguard" on the Concorde landing gear in the year 2000 talk about the Kevlar liners in the fuel tank.

Much more critical is the theory, that Air France forgot to install an important part of the landing gear, a spacer, after a maintenance a few flights before the crash, which ultimatively resulted in the landing gear on one side blocking and skidding over the runway. Which could also have blown up the the tires, instead of the Titanium part found.

But the proponent of this theory also has many things wrong against available evidence - the copilot did not shutdown two engines, but just one, and this one was shutdown on command by the captain, contrary to the claims of the alternative theory. Also his claims about the length of the take-off run being longer than usual had been wrong, the BEA did simulate it and got a perfect match for wind conditions and MTOW. Which also fits to the evidence and the checklists: The damaged light was 2800 meters down the runway, the minimum take-off distance is 2770 meters in favorable conditions and with low MTOW. But with tailwind and high MTOW, like in this flight, the take-off distance is near its safe maximum of 3700 meters - the take-off run (on the ground) is only 300 meters shorter. And contrary to his claims, the BEA report did NOT ignore the MTOW or wind conditions, just like the captain didn't (before take-off run, he speaks exactly about these factors on the CVR). And the BEA report also talks about the missing spacer on page 150 and gives its effect a number: 1000N more drag on that side, not enough to cause the aircraft to get out of control. Also the wheels could not block and there is no evidence of a wobble or oscillation.

https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf

• Repeating the calculations for the flight preparation showed that the estimated weight of the aircraft on departure was in accordance with operational limits.
• Taking into account the fuel not consumed during taxiing, the aircraft’s takeoff weight in fact exceeded the maximum weight by about one ton. Any effect on takeoff performance from this excess weight was negligible.

Because many of the victims of the crash had been Germans, the German public TV broadcaster Phoenix had produced a very recommendable three part documentary about the crash.

BTW, I really recommend reading this long history of Concorde accidents:

http://www.concordesst.com/accident/past.html

In total statistics, the Concorde had 57 blown tires without such issues and one major case in 1979 (In Washington-Dulles) of a left landing gear tire explosion leading to a similar consequences as during Paris. Contrary to the event in Paris, the fuel did not catch fire and the plane landed again in Washington without further problems.

Yes, that is the upper side of the wing that was also pierced.

 

[n122vu]

I wish I had fonder first memories of the C-130, but I don't. This incident was the first I'd ever heard of the plane. I was 16, a Junior in high school when this took place.

Out of the Sky

Once the investigation completed, and pilot error was determined to be the cause, I became interested in the C-130 itself, and more interested in aviation than I already was. I've always been an analytical thinker, and I wanted to deeply understand what caused this accident, and what could have been done to prevent it. I'm still like that to this day. I get the General Aviation News e-newsletter each weekday morning, and the first thing I do is scroll to the end to the featured accident case, read about what caused it, and ask myself if I'd honestly have done anything differently in the moment, then think about what could/should have been done to prevent it.