Have you ever seen a C-130 Hercules trying to do a hover over the runway ?

"C.D.Damron" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"C.D.Damron" wrote:
I don't know but it could have been after the a/c was on the deck
and even before with some futzing with the squat switch circuits
that normally prevent that. I've seen both of the tapes. How do
you know that they didn't use reverse?

I meant reversed pitch prior to touchdown, but I could be wrong. I recall
reading that they reversed pitch upon touchdown. I don't recall the source
being definitive.



Ok, thanks...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:37:22 GMT, Gord Beaman
wrote:

(John Dallman) wrote:

In article h7mwd.768167$8_6.703195@attbi_s04,
(William W. Plummer) wrote:

Iwan Bogels wrote:
Forward pointing rockets were installed to provide reverse thrust
during landing, as well as downward pointed rockets to cushon the
landing.
There was a famous experiment to prove that a fully loaded C-130 could
land on a carrier. The roll-out was 270 feet. Thrust reversers were
used before it was on the deck.

On a carrier deck, you can at least rely on the wheels for some of your
braking. On a soccer (=mud) field, presumably you have to assume you'll
just slide, and won't get any braking?

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

Well, I'd think that wheel brakes aren't gonna do much, most of
the braking is provided by the prop reverse anyway, but in the
soccer field they needed humungous braking which even the prop
reverse couldn't supply so they tried those high output rocket
motors.

I'll bet there was a pretty good wind over the deck for that carrier
trial, too.

Bill Kambic

I'll bet...a lot of it supplied with ship's power at 'balls to
the wall settings' likely...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
"Larry" wrote

Uhm- Scuse me! I don't think I heard that right.
Aircraft landing on a carrier DO NOT use their brakes for any part of
the arrested landing. Once they come to a full stop (slowed by the
arresting wire) then and only then they use their brakes (as directed
by the Yellow Shirt) to hold position.

Larry...Uhm- Scuse us!
The topic is a C-130 making UN-arrested landings
on the Forrestal. I'll bet that he DID use the brakes.

Bob Moore

As described he http://www.cgaux.com/C-130carrierlanding.htm
One of the very few times brakes are used.

Larry

Gord Beaman wrote:
"C.D.Damron" wrote:


"William W. Plummer" wrote in
message news:h7mwd.768167$8_6.703195@attbi_s04...

Iwan Bogels wrote:
There was a famous experiment to prove that a fully loaded C-130 could
land on a carrier. The roll-out was 270 feet. Thrust reversers were
used before it was on the deck. I'll bet those landings left something
to be desired for comfort. I think I can find a short video of the
landings and will be happy to post it if someone can tell me where.

I don't think that pitch was reversed in those trials.


I don't know but it could have been after the a/c was on the deck
and even before with some futzing with the squat switch circuits
that normally prevent that. I've seen both of the tapes. How do
you know that they didn't use reverse?
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Smoky Stover told me that they used pitch reverse, and that the squat
switches had been bypassed to allow it without WOW.

I never knew on how many of the landings they used it or not.

Rick

Yofuri wrote:

Gord Beaman wrote:
"C.D.Damron" wrote:


"William W. Plummer" wrote in
message news:h7mwd.768167$8_6.703195@attbi_s04...

Iwan Bogels wrote:
There was a famous experiment to prove that a fully loaded C-130 could
land on a carrier. The roll-out was 270 feet. Thrust reversers were
used before it was on the deck. I'll bet those landings left something
to be desired for comfort. I think I can find a short video of the
landings and will be happy to post it if someone can tell me where.

I don't think that pitch was reversed in those trials.


I don't know but it could have been after the a/c was on the deck
and even before with some futzing with the squat switch circuits
that normally prevent that. I've seen both of the tapes. How do
you know that they didn't use reverse?
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Smoky Stover told me that they used pitch reverse, and that the squat
switches had been bypassed to allow it without WOW.

I never knew on how many of the landings they used it or not.

Rick

Thanks Rick...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

More moons ago, Gator Chunning, after retiring from the Navy and heading up
Lockheed's Navy Projects division told me no mods were done to the prop
pitch. The only mods done were to the brakes, they installed new anti skid
brakes and a smaller nose gear. All external tanks were removed

The aircraft was taken directly out of the USMC stock, a KC130F, sent to
Lockheed for the mods. Then Lt., James Flately III was qualed in the
aircraft by Lockheed's chief test pilot, whose name escapes me right now.

There was a measured 40kt head wind over the bow during the trials. 21 full
unassisted landings and take offs were made before the end of the tests.

Flately was awarded a DFC.

All other stories about rocket assists, modified pitch, downward thrust are
all fairy tails.

Jake

PS On a lighter side - On the fuselage below the cockpit was painted "Look
Ma, no hook!"
"Yofuri" wrote in message
...
Gord Beaman wrote:
"C.D.Damron" wrote:


"William W. Plummer" wrote in
message news:h7mwd.768167$8_6.703195@attbi_s04...

Iwan Bogels wrote:
There was a famous experiment to prove that a fully loaded C-130 could
land on a carrier. The roll-out was 270 feet. Thrust reversers were
used before it was on the deck. I'll bet those landings left something
to be desired for comfort. I think I can find a short video of the
landings and will be happy to post it if someone can tell me where.

I don't think that pitch was reversed in those trials.


I don't know but it could have been after the a/c was on the deck
and even before with some futzing with the squat switch circuits
that normally prevent that. I've seen both of the tapes. How do
you know that they didn't use reverse?
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Smoky Stover told me that they used pitch reverse, and that the squat
switches had been bypassed to allow it without WOW.

I never knew on how many of the landings they used it or not.

Rick

"Jake Donovan" schreef in bericht
news:223xd.4183$Qk5.3046@lakeread04...
More moons ago, Gator Chunning, after retiring from the Navy and heading
up
Lockheed's Navy Projects division told me no mods were done to the prop
pitch. The only mods done were to the brakes, they installed new anti
skid
brakes and a smaller nose gear. All external tanks were removed

The aircraft was taken directly out of the USMC stock, a KC130F, sent to
Lockheed for the mods. Then Lt., James Flately III was qualed in the
aircraft by Lockheed's chief test pilot, whose name escapes me right now.

There was a measured 40kt head wind over the bow during the trials. 21
full
unassisted landings and take offs were made before the end of the tests.

Flately was awarded a DFC.

All other stories about rocket assists, modified pitch, downward thrust
are
all fairy tails.

Jake


Hi Jake,

Thanks for explaining, but the original message had nothing to do with C-130
carrier landings. It was about a special project to liberate hostages in
Iran in 1980, by landing a C-130 on a soccer field in downtown Teheran. The
video is available at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm and as you will see it
has EVERYTHING to do with rocket assists and downward thrust. See for
yourself, it's an amazing video.

Nevertheless your project and 'mine' make me wonder how many other
undiscosed project have been around with the C-130.

Anyone ?

Cheers,
Iwan

Jake Donovan wrote:
snip


All other stories about rocket assists, modified pitch, downward thrust are
all fairy tails.

Jake

PS On a lighter side - On the fuselage below the cockpit was painted "Look
Ma, no hook!"
"Yofuri" wrote in message
...

Gord Beaman wrote:

"C.D.Damron" wrote:



"William W. Plummer" wrote in
message news:h7mwd.768167$8_6.703195@attbi_s04...


Iwan Bogels wrote:
There was a famous experiment to prove that a fully loaded C-130 could
land on a carrier. The roll-out was 270 feet. Thrust reversers were
used before it was on the deck. I'll bet those landings left something
to be desired for comfort. I think I can find a short video of the
landings and will be happy to post it if someone can tell me where.

I don't think that pitch was reversed in those trials.


I don't know but it could have been after the a/c was on the deck
and even before with some futzing with the squat switch circuits
that normally prevent that. I've seen both of the tapes. How do
you know that they didn't use reverse?
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Smoky Stover told me that they used pitch reverse, and that the squat
switches had been bypassed to allow it without WOW.

I never knew on how many of the landings they used it or not.

Rick



Yep, stories do change over time:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ft/kc-130f.htm

Mine was heard at a meeting in 1969 when LCDR Bob Browning was chosen to
take a maintenance crew to get a Herc off the ice in Antarctica before
winter broke it up. It had taken off a wingtip on a snowbank. The crew
cleaned off the crunched metal, faired off the nub, and it flew out with
one wing 11 feet (IIRC) shorter than the other.

I have no idea how many feet it took on the opposite rudder pedal under
full power. Trim probably wouldn't quite handle it.

Rick

(Pechs1) wrote:

Jake- Flately was awarded a DFC. BRBR

YGBSM..way to many DFCs given out for non combat flyin' if ya ask me.

Flatley was a much better pilot than CAG(VF-33, Independence, late 70s)
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

What amazes me is that they took a fighter pilot (however skilled
at piloting a fighter), checked him out in a C-130 Hercules (a
bird of a QUITE different feather) and let him attempt this
pretty dangerous mission when there's likely many hundreds of
pilots MUCH more skilled in handling a Herc than him.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
news
(Pechs1) wrote:

Jake- Flately was awarded a DFC. BRBR

YGBSM..way to many DFCs given out for non combat flyin' if ya ask me.

Flatley was a much better pilot than CAG(VF-33, Independence, late 70s)
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

What amazes me is that they took a fighter pilot (however skilled
at piloting a fighter), checked him out in a C-130 Hercules (a
bird of a QUITE different feather) and let him attempt this
pretty dangerous mission when there's likely many hundreds of
pilots MUCH more skilled in handling a Herc than him.
--

-Gord.

Two tasks involved, landing on a carrier and landing a C-130...I submit
landing on the carrier may be the more difficult. While assault type
landings are practiced by C-130 pilots they aren't directed toward a moving
target. Purely opinion, mind you.

Tex