C-130

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
I was reading the aircraft profiles at www.globalsecurity.com and It says that the C-130 has many roles such as cargo, attack, refueling and etc. Followed by that it said that the C-130 also succesfully atempted a carrier takeoff and landing without use of arrestor cables or catapult. I find this hard to believe. Read the article
 
Incredible.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps one of the most amazing accomplishments of the plane was described by Lockheed pilot Ted Limmer, who had qualified test pilot LT Flatley to fly the C-130. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted."

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply incredible.
shocked.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Incredible.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps one of the most amazing accomplishments of the plane was described by Lockheed pilot Ted Limmer, who had qualified test pilot LT Flatley to fly the C-130. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted."

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply incredible.
shocked.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Very incredable.

IIRC the problem with the C-130 COD program was that it couldn't carry as much weight for that size aircraft. Those test flights had no cargo, and were a really light weight. I belive that for carrier ops, the C-2 could actually carry more cargo than the C-130.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Very incredable.

IIRC the problem with the C-130 COD program was that it couldn't carry as much weight for that size aircraft. Those test flights had no cargo, and were a really light weight. I belive that for carrier ops, the C-2 could actually carry more cargo than the C-130.

[/ QUOTE ]

More info from the website Copaman listed:
[ QUOTE ]
All told, the flight tests included 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights ranging from 85,000 lb (38,555 kg) to 121,000 lb (54,885 kg). At the lower weight, the aircraft managed to come to a complete stop in only 267 ft (81 m), which is little more than double the plane's wingspan. Even at maximum weight, the C-130 required only 745 ft (227 m) for takeoff and 460 ft (140 m) for landing. Landings were made shorter by reversing the propellers while the aircraft was still a few feet above the flight deck.

Based on these tests, it was determined that the C-130 could carry 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) of cargo and personnel to a carrier at a range of 2,500 miles (4,020 km). However, the risks of operating such a large aircraft in the hectic day-to-day carrier environment were considered too great, and the idea of using the C-130 as a COD aircraft was abandoned.

The C-130 has never been operated from a carrier since, and the much smaller C-2A Greyhound was later selected to fulfill the COD role.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the C-2A can haul around 10,000 pounds.
 
Another major problem is if the C-130 breaks on the flight deck, there's no option but to roll it overboard due to space limits.
 
Plus, for a 'deck run' as it's called, all the aircraft of the airwing would have to be stowed in the hangar bay, crammed to the sides, or flying in order to make room....MAJOR HASSLE!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, for a 'deck run' as it's called, all the aircraft of the airwing would have to be stowed in the hangar bay, crammed to the sides, or flying in order to make room....MAJOR HASSLE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless they're delivering fresh strawberries, or beer after being underway for 90 days....I'll bet everybody from the MARDET to the AIMD is spotting planes below!!!
grin.gif
 
Wow. That is really cool. I wonder how much wind they put over the deck for it. It looks like it is going so slow.
 
Judging by the quality of the video this was probably done a long time ago. I wonder why they gave up? Probably because it would take too much space to store it on deck?





brazil.gif
 
If you read on the link it said because there was too much risk in using such a large aircraft on a CVN. Some other people pointed out other problems as well. you certainly aren't going to land that thing with planes spotted on deck. If it breaks you are hosed. It won't fit in the hanger deck. I guess if it broke it would have to dumped overboard if flight ops needed to get back underway.
 
Class Alpha fire. Now don't ask me what that is because I can't remember from my carrier days.
 
Was that on Enterprise Chunk? We had an S3 get crashed into on deck by an EA-6B. The guys in the S3 ejected just before they were hit. Only 1 guy was found from the EA-6B and he was dead. After everything salvagable had been taken from the S3 they pushed it over the side.

I don't think it would be a class A fire. That is flammable solid type material such as wood, paper, etc. Not a lot of class A material to burn on a ship. Bravo on the other hand. Look out. JP5 anyone???
 
Class A as in Class A mishap. Any damage over $1 million or a loss of life....not to be confused with Class A fire!

Yes, that was the S-3 I was talking about...I remember reading the MIR...it was mandatory for all aircrew. Serious mistakes were made that cost 4 men their lives. Same mistake happened a few days later, the nearly-lost aircraft was from the same squadron. Skipper (of the VAQ squadron) refused to fly until CAG Paddles, DCAG, and the mini Boss were replaced is what I heard. They had to fly another squadron from Whidbey to cover their OSW frags...BIG TIME contraversy.

Shooter...send me your email address and I'll send you the photos of the Hoover getting pushed overboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top