If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
C-130 on Navy Carrier
Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings and
launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s? WDA end |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sure. Check http://www.theaviationzone.com/facts..._forrestal.asp
"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message ... Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings and launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s? WDA end |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:47:49 -0800, "W. D. Allen Sr."
wrote: Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings and launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s? Taken from http://www.cgaux.com/C-130carrierlanding.htm __________________________________________________ ____________ Not only was it possible, it was done in moderately rough seas 500 miles out in the North Atlantic off the coast of Boston. In so doing, the airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day. When Lt. James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he thought somebody was pulling his leg. "Operate a C-130 off an aircraft carrier? Somebody's got to be kidding," he said. But they weren't kidding. In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations himself had ordered a feasibility study on operating the big propjet aboard the Norfolk-based U.S.S. Forrestal (CVA-59). The Navy was trying to find out whether they could use the Hercules as a "Super COD" - a "Carrier Onboard Delivery" aircraft. The airplane then used for such tasks was the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin piston-engine bird with a limited payload capacity and 300-mile range. If an aircraft carrier is operating in mid-ocean, it has no "onboard delivery" system to fall back on and must come nearer land before taking aboard even urgently needed items. The Hercules was stable and reliable, with a long cruising range and capable of carrying large payloads. C-130 Hercules The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from the U.S. Marines, was delivered on 8 October. Lockheed's only modifications to the original plane included installing a smaller nose-landing gear orifice, an improved anti-skid braking system, and removal of the underwing refueling pods. "The big worry was whether we could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second," Flatley said. As it turned out, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to better this mark by a substantial margin. In addition to Flatley, the crew consisted of Lt.Cmdr. W.W. Stovall, copilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer; and Lockheed engineering flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr. The initial sea-born landings on 30 October 1963 were made into a 40-knot wind. Altogether, the crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft's wing span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet for takeoff and 460 feet for landing roll. The short landing roll resulted from close coordination between Flatley and Jerry Daugherty, the carrier's landing signal officer. Daugherty, later to become a captain and assigned to the Naval Air Systems Command, gave Flatley an engine "chop" while still three or four feet off the deck. C-130 Hercules Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop landings. "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." The plane's wingspan cleared the Forrestal's flight deck "island" control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck on a specially painted line. Lockheed's chief engineer, Art E. Flock was aboard to observe the testing. "The sea was pretty big that day. I was up on the captain's bridge. I watched a man on the ship's bow as that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet." The speed of the shop was increased 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind direction. Thus, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50 knot wind on the nose. "That airplane stopped right opposite the captain's bridge," recalled Flock. "There was cheering and laughing. There on the side of the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, "LOOK MA, NO HOOK." From the accumulated test data, the Navy concluded that with the C-130 Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds of cargo 2,500 miles and land it on a carrier. Even so, the idea was considered a bit too risky for the C-130 and the Navy elected to use a smaller COD aircraft. For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross. Lorence |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Lorence
writes On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:47:49 -0800, "W. D. Allen Sr." wrote: Does anyone know anything about the C-130 that made arrested landings and launches from a Navy aircraft carrier back in the 1960s? Taken from http://www.cgaux.com/C-130carrierlanding.htm _________________________________________________ _____________ Not only was it possible, it was done in moderately rough seas 500 miles out in the North Atlantic off the coast of Boston. In so doing, the airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day. When Lt. James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he thought somebody was pulling his leg. "Operate a C-130 off an aircraft carrier? Somebody's got to be kidding," he said. But they weren't kidding. In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations himself had ordered a feasibility study on operating the big propjet aboard the Norfolk-based U.S.S. Forrestal (CVA-59). The Navy was trying to find out whether they could use the Hercules as a "Super COD" - a "Carrier Onboard Delivery" aircraft. Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into service? -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into service? SNIP On the flight deck - which would have been cleared of all other aircraft in order for the Herc to operate. If you wanted to conduxt air ops you would have to revert to WWII style flight deck ops - park her aft in order to launch over the bow, then drag her forward to clear the landing area, then drag her back aft....you can now see why the angled deck was a "good thing" (admittedly, its primary benefit was to allow a bolter a chance to shoot another approach rather than hit the barrier) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In message , RENABORNEY
writes Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into service? SNIP On the flight deck - which would have been cleared of all other aircraft in order for the Herc to operate. If you wanted to conduxt air ops you would have to revert to WWII style flight deck ops - park her aft in order to launch over the bow, then drag her forward to clear the landing area, then drag her back aft....you can now see why the angled deck was a "good thing" (admittedly, its primary benefit was to allow a bolter a chance to shoot another approach rather than hit the barrier) Obviously on the fight deck! The reason I asked was that I haven't any conception of the size of the C-130 compared with other naval aircraft (I could look it all up, but I'm working today) and the available space on the deck. Sounds like the need to reposition the aircraft could be a major pain from the operational point of view, or would it be no worse that having to shuffle the other aircraft around? -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 10:09:43 GMT, Peter Twydell
wrote: Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into service? SNIP On the flight deck - which would have been cleared of all other aircraft in order for the Herc to operate. If you wanted to conduxt air ops you would have to revert to WWII style flight deck ops - park her aft in order to launch over the bow, then drag her forward to clear the landing area, then drag her back aft....you can now see why the angled deck was a "good thing" (admittedly, its primary benefit was to allow a bolter a chance to shoot another approach rather than hit the barrier) Obviously on the fight deck! The reason I asked was that I haven't any conception of the size of the C-130 compared with other naval aircraft (I could look it all up, but I'm working today) and the available space on the deck. Sounds like the need to reposition the aircraft could be a major pain from the operational point of view, or would it be no worse that having to shuffle the other aircraft around? IIRC this was the main reason the project was not pursued. "Locking the deck" was not something that an Air Boss would like. And what do you do if the aircraft goes "down" and requires maintenance? Particularly heavy maintenance, like an engine or prop change? I also have a vague recollection of the concept of the "clipped wing" C-130 where the wing would be shorted 6-8 feet per side to give some flexibility in deck handling. I don't think this one got much past the discussion stage. The project was intereresting showing what could be done. It might even still be relevant today. I could imagine a "Tom Clancy scenario" where we pull off an "Entebe" type operation from a carrier. Big Mother goes out with a couple of Hercs escorted by an LHD loaded out with lots of Harriers. You would not have to suspend too much disbelief on this one! ;-) Bill Kambic Bill Kambic |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message ... Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into service? -- Peter How about in the normal parking spot on the base where it was stationed on land. Don't think it was ever contemplated to have a carrier based C-130. Think about it. Regards, Tex |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Tex Houston
writes "Peter Twydell" wrote in message ... Where would they have parked it between flights, had it gone into service? -- Peter How about in the normal parking spot on the base where it was stationed on land. Don't think it was ever contemplated to have a carrier based C-130. Think about it. Regards, Tex That would be a good idea, but as Bill Kambic said, what if the a/c is unable to take off again for several hours? That's a lot of hardware clogging up the deck. -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Navy reassigns squadron leader aboard carrier | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 6 | November 2nd 04 04:03 AM |
Four Navy avaitors on San Diego-based carrier listed as missing | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 11th 04 05:03 AM |
Navy commander pilot passes 1,000th ‘trap’ aircraft carrier | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 16th 04 12:25 AM |
Next Generation Aircraft Carrier Contract Awarded | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 6 | May 23rd 04 02:53 PM |
If there is a drive for a "Euro navy," will Germany build a carrier? | David E. Powell | Naval Aviation | 2 | March 6th 04 05:25 PM |