C-130

Astro14: talking to exhaustgases is interesting to say least.
09.gif
 
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
And why piston airline size planes not allowed, they are orders of magnitude less cost to maintain and operate there is a reason places like Everts still uses them . It seems the goal is to make the costs go as high as possible when it comes to Govrnmt. Remember the toilet seat deal in the past.


If what you said was even remotely true, then all of the major airlines would be flying piston planes. Cost is their primary concern.



This day and age they would not fly them. Its not because of cost but, passengers would refuse to fly on them because of preconceived ideas about them. Though if fuel was in very short supply, they could come back in the form of diesel type engines.
I guess you never saw how much fuel a jet engine burns in a very short span. Flying could end up reverting back to what it was in the old days, that is only a luxury that the very wealthy could afford. The way the future looks is that planes will end up being build much smaller than they are now. Especially if they wish to electrify them. I think the jet or turbine engine is going to someday be eliminated, they are too fuel hungry.

In 2007 the US used around 22 million barrels of oil per day.
Today, with bigger economy, more planes in the sky, more cars on the road, more trucks on the road, it is using 17-18 million barrels per day.
World is not going to move to electric planes just like that. Even cars are going to take 30-40 years to make them practical to have all electric minivan for family of 5.
However, if world limits consumption of oil dramatically in personal vehicle sector, trucks etc. electrifying planes in near future is not necessary.The reason is that with EV, price of oil will drop, and with that biggest expense for every airline: fuel. So, maybe one day my grandson or great grandson/daughter will fly on something electric, but it will be long process, and if it is not making commercial sense, it will not live.
 
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases


The same reason some of the good old cars and trucks of the past are not being made now.


Yep... the good old days... when all you needed was 1 horsepower...
[Linked Image]
The Daughter likes crotch rocket types of horses.
12249689_10206208385502585_8569262290652684284_n.jpg
 
"ill designed?"


...and there's lots more articles about this reliable workhorse that heap praise on it's service.
 
Mercy!!! apparently the F35 collided with 3 of the C130 props... I'd be hunting down those prop blades in the fields...

C130vF35B3.JPG
 
Farmer ain't gonna be happy with that fuel dumping, glad to see all survived, this could have been a disaster.
 
Thank God nobody was killed.

Air to air refueling is very risky especially off a KC-130.
 
Wasn't Puff a DC3?
There were several planes used.
AC-47 (DC-3)
C-130
C-119G
We on the ground called them all Puff.
The AC-47 was the original puff.
Puff was bad ass to see in action.
But nothing compared to a B52 strike.
I was about a 1/2 mile away from one at night and it looked like hundreds of flash bulbs going off.
Then the sound and the ground shook.
I was on the coast and one night one of the two battleships started firing 2000 pound shells in and that was quite a light and sound show.
 
Mercy!!! apparently the F35 collided with 3 of the C130 props... I'd be hunting down those prop blades in the fields...

View attachment 30453

Incorrect. There is no way an F35 collided with 3 separate propeller assemblies during any refueling activity unless they were on the ground.

Also, As a former C-130 pilot, I'm unaware of the C-130 ever being called Puff... And it would be really hard to find a piece of these prop blades. They likely shattered into very small pieces.
 
Incorrect. There is no way an F35 collided with 3 separate propeller assemblies during any refueling activity unless they were on the ground.

Negative ground damage... at least 2 of the props were damage during the mid-air... perhaps the third...

Audio recordings also reveal the conversation between the KC-130J pilot and air traffic control as the pilot made the emergency landing after the collision. New images reveal extensive damage to the KC-130J’s engines on the right-wing and the remnants of a refueling pod.

The audio, which emerged online, includes the KC-130J pilot informing air traffic control that the tanker lost two engines after colliding with another aircraft, which was the F-35B.

“LA Center, LA Center — Raider 50 — declare an emergency. Mid-air collision with VOLT-93. We have two engines out. We’re leaking fuel and might be on fire and an emergency descent at this time. Raider 50,” the KC-130J pilot says in the recording.

They likely shattered into very small pieces.

Dowty composite blades don't shatter into very small pieces...
 
Last edited:
I’m curious what happened to collide with 1,3,&4 but skip prop 2. I can imagine colliding with the pair but hitting opposite props ends of the wing with no apparent other damage is interesting.
 
Hi Lads
An interesting debate.
To show just how ahead of its time the C-130 was i will make a comparison.

Back in the 50s us Brits were still designing and building some pretty cutting edged aircraft.

The RAF needed a new heavy transport so tenders were sent out. The result was the Blackburn Beverly. It entered service with the RAF in 1955.

Twelve months later the C-130 entered service with the US military. The comparison is quite comical.



Needless to say the RAF started flying the 'Hercules' in 1967. 52 years later it is still being used.
 
Hi
As for not using overslung wings on transport aircraft.

I am not an aircraft designer so i will defer to those that are. I did notice however that the C17 and the latest A400-M all use an overslung wing design.
 
Back
Top