Seaplanes for the Air Force, maybe.

woodreau

Well-Known Member
We had Army guys come out to do DLQs for a month. CH-47s, OH-6s, UH-60s out there flying patterns in port and starboard delta on a 2-spot LPD deck.

I liked working the OH-6s that month - we’d have 9 OH-6s spotted on deck in the space where we normally have just 2 helo spots. then proceed to do a simultaneous 9 helo launch off the back end of the ship.

Dont know of any practical application of that specific evolution though.
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
We had Army guys come out to do DLQs for a month. CH-47s, OH-6s, UH-60s out there flying patterns in port and starboard delta on a 2-spot LPD deck.

I liked working the OH-6s that month - we’d have 9 OH-6s spotted on deck in the space where we normally have just 2 helo spots. then proceed to do a simultaneous 9 helo launch off the back end of the ship.

Dont know of any practical application of that specific evolution though.
Bitchen stock photo/video for the ARSOA recruiting videos they make every year.

That’s about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

///AMG

Well-Known Member
was in early 1991, just as Desert Storm was ending. Both planes and all crew members from VP-50 at Moffett.


Do you remember the USCG HC-130 out of Sacramento and the USMC AH-1W Cobra that hit each other in nearly the same area?
That's terrible, and yeah, so was the Herk midair.
 

Wardogg

Meat Popsicle
Not to argue, but has been previously mentioned the P-3 and C-130 shared basically the same engine/prop platform, including the propellor control. The P-3 had a prop control that allowed it to unfeather and the C-130 didn't. I don't know if it's possible to unfeather a C-130 prop inflight, but it didn't have the same provision designed into the prop system.
Yes the C-130 could unfeather the prop in flight. You had to be able to airstart the motor. Basically you just pushed the prop back into windmilling and the physics of jet engines did the rest.

 

USMCmech

Well-Known Member
USAF HU-16 Albatross birds. Served as combat rescue birds in the early years of the Vietnam war and had a number of saves of downed aircrew, including under fire, from the Tonkin Gulf. One rescue of which earned the Air Force Cross.

View attachment 60932
C-130 seaplanes sound like a solution looking for a problem. Actually more like a 2 star who needs a project to manage.

A pair of V-22s will deliver the same amount of payload just as easily. A CH-53 or CH-47 with refueling will also work (and has been done several times).

OTOH, landing a seaplane at an unsurveyed location, with unknown sea state, presumably at night, potentially under combat conditions, what could possibly go wrong? However, I'm sure Lockheed will happily spend 10 million taxpayer dollars for an engineering study.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
C-130 seaplanes sound like a solution looking for a problem. Actually more like a 2 star who needs a project to manage.

A pair of V-22s will deliver the same amount of payload just as easily. A CH-53 or CH-47 with refueling will also work (and has been done several times).

OTOH, landing a seaplane at an unsurveyed location, with unknown sea state, presumably at night, potentially under combat conditions, what could possibly go wrong? However, I'm sure Lockheed will happily spend 10 million taxpayer dollars for an engineering study.
agreed. I don’t think it’s any kind of viable solution. As you point out with the helo technology. I was letting Cherokee know that indeed at one time, the USAF was in the seaplane business.

To your second point, the last user of the HU-16, the USCG, retired them in 1983, and I remember an old timer telling me years ago that the USCG had restricted them from water landings 5 or more years prior to that, for the risk reasons you mention. For those last years, the HU-16s were basically medium-long range patrol and search planes.
 

CFI A&P

Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
Sea planes for the Air Force? Isn't that called Navy? ;)
The Navy isn’t the only service that’s into water sports, the Army also has boats.

1632176503328.jpeg


The USAF is also into helicopters:

 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
agreed. I don’t think it’s any kind of viable solution. As you point out with the helo technology. I was letting Cherokee know that indeed at one time, the USAF was in the seaplane business.

To your second point, the last user of the HU-16, the USCG, retired them in 1983, and I remember an old timer telling me years ago that the USCG had restricted them from water landings 5 or more years prior to that, for the risk reasons you mention. For those last years, the HU-16s were basically medium-long range patrol and search planes.
Wait until somebody tells him the Navy has its own satellites….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

knot4u

Repeat Offender
Yes the C-130 could unfeather the prop in flight. You had to be able to airstart the motor. Basically you just pushed the prop back into windmilling and the physics of jet engines did the rest.

The -77 prop controls for the P-3s had provisions that would unfeather the prop, the C-130s didn't. The P-3 was able to unfeather without any rotation from the engine. I can't imagine feathering an engine on a C-130 was/is common practice, but apparently it was for the P-3.
 

Wardogg

Meat Popsicle
The -77 prop controls for the P-3s had provisions that would unfeather the prop, the C-130s didn't. The P-3 was able to unfeather without any rotation from the engine. I can't imagine feathering an engine on a C-130 was/is common practice, but apparently it was for the P-3.
Im telling you, without a doubt, you can drive a C130 prop from 92.5 degees blade angle(feather) to -6 degrees blade angle (full reverse) without any rotation of the prop and motor. In-flight, on the ground, doesn't matter. Same mechanism.
 

knot4u

Repeat Offender
Im telling you, without a doubt, you can drive a C130 prop from 92.5 degees blade angle(feather) to -6 degrees blade angle (full reverse) without any rotation of the prop and motor. In-flight, on the ground, doesn't matter. Same mechanism.
I don't doubt that at all, the pump housing has an aux pump, I'm telling you there are differences between the P-3 and the C-130, I don't know why they're different but the fact that they are is a fact.
 

Adler

Low-Level Individual

USAF Test Pilot School often has them evaluate "unconventional" airplanes, which is where this blast from the past came from.
Cool!

I got to play on that Albatross a long time ago, in my backyard, in a different paint scheme.

1632183969136.png
 
Top