Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 6739
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:40 am

As far as the the US military is concerned which model have they taken the most deliveries of, the standard body length or the ‘stretch’ version ?

Is that ratio (whatever it is ) likely to continue ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2864
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:30 am

Max Q wrote:
As far as the the US military is concerned which model have they taken the most deliveries of, the standard body length or the ‘stretch’ version ?

Is that ratio (whatever it is ) likely to continue ?


So the ratio in January 2014 was
United States Air Force – 125 aircraft (10 C-130Js, 76 C-130J-30s, three EC-130Js, 11 HC-130Js, 15 MC-130Js, and 10 WC-130Js) in service
United States Marine Corps – 46 KC-130Js in use
United States Coast Guard – six HC-130Js in service
(Taken from the C-130J Wiki page).

In 2016 the US ordered additional airframes in the following mix,

This week, the Department of Defense announced a new award of more than $1 billion in funding for the first 32 aircraft of the multiyear contract. The overall contract, worth $5.3 billion, provides Super Hercules aircraft to the U.S. Air Force (30 MC-130Js, 13 HC-130Js and 29 C-130J-30s) and the U.S. Marine Corps (six KC-130Js).

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/mor ... super.html

It appears that the ratio is split approximately half and half between the two variants. The special mission types tend to be shorter while the general transport versions tend to be the longer.

I’d expect the ratio to continue along that split as the USAF replaces H models transport and special mission varieties.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 6739
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:26 am

Thanks for that Oz

Interesting, what seems to be the preferred model around the rest of the world ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2864
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:42 am

Max Q wrote:
Thanks for that Oz

No worries.

Max Q wrote:
Interesting, what seems to be the preferred model around the rest of the world ?

Far and away the C-130J-30. That makes sense when you consider that the primary mission for most C-130J export customers is military transport and the -30 is a better overall airframe for that role.
 
FrancisBegbie
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:22 am

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:31 am

Ozair wrote:

Max Q wrote:
Interesting, what seems to be the preferred model around the rest of the world ?

Far and away the C-130J-30. That makes sense when you consider that the primary mission for most C-130J export customers is military transport and the -30 is a better overall airframe for that role.


Exactly. I think that for many of the customers, the C-130 is the biggest (tactical) transporter they have. Therefore, getting the longer one gives you extra capabilities you otherwise would not have. The US has the luxury to get some of the shorter ones (for extra range, better agility, lower visibility) as they have plenty other options to haul big loads.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 6739
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:28 pm

Does the stretch version give up much
performance when operating out of unimproved airfields and is it used on that manner ?

Or is that mission left to the short body ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:50 pm

Max Q wrote:
Interesting, what seems to be the preferred model around the rest of the world ?

I can't answer that question, but I have a question regarding body length.
AFAIK prior to the C-130J, all operators world-wide used the same "short" bodied C-130 with one exception. The RAF specified a 4.57m stretch which was undertaken by Marshall's at Cambridge (?), and IMO created a more useful and more aesthetic design. Presumably Marshall's bought in ready made sections from Lockheed, based on the stretch they had already performed for the L-100-30.

For decades, the RAF were the only (military) operators of this stretched version, which then became even more distinctive with the addition of a refuelling boom. The oddity was that they were designated C.130K, placing them out of sequence.

Fast-forward to 1996, and Lockheed unveil the C.130J, with an option to have the same 4.57m stretch featured on civilian L.100-30 and RAF models.

1) Have I got the basic story correct? Wikipedia is a bit vague on these matters.

2) How many here on a.net today realise that the C.130J-30 owes it's stretch to a design dating back to 1968, and thoroughly tested by the RAF (& to a lesser extent by civilian operators)?

On the left, XV304, an original C.130K C.1 from 1976............... On the right, the same a/c (XV304) stretched to C.3, and looking mean! :evil:
I promised myself I'd leave before the party turned ugly. I would quit at 1000 !
Here I am stuck at 994; each time I'm tempted to post, I find myself wondering who will even read it / what is the point?
Or maybe I've just got nothing left to say.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 6739
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:58 pm

I think that’s right SD




I remember when they did the modification
Although I think the original model looks better



As they only have drogue refuellers the RAF have installed booms on some large
aircraft including the C130 and L1011



Why they didn’t incorporate a boom on their A330 tanker like all other operators is puzzling


They have 5 or 6 different large aircraft types in service now that can receive fuel via a boom.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2864
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:50 pm

Max Q wrote:
Does the stretch version give up much
performance when operating out of unimproved airfields and is it used on that manner ?

Or is that mission left to the short body ?

There is little to no difference in the rough field performance between the two variants. The stretch has a longer range than the standard length but typically cruises at a lower altitude with max payload. The additional length doesn’t realistically translate to higher payloads, just more volume which is often the limiting factor.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produ ... 0j-30.html

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produ ... cules.html
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:52 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Interesting, what seems to be the preferred model around the rest of the world ?

I can't answer that question, but I have a question regarding body length.
AFAIK prior to the C-130J, all operators world-wide used the same "short" bodied C-130 with one exception. The RAF specified a 4.57m stretch which was undertaken by Marshall's at Cambridge (?), and IMO created a more useful and more aesthetic design. Presumably Marshall's bought in ready made sections from Lockheed, based on the stretch they had already performed for the L-100-30.

For decades, the RAF were the only (military) operators of this stretched version, which then became even more distinctive with the addition of a refuelling boom. The oddity was that they were designated C.130K, placing them out of sequence.

Fast-forward to 1996, and Lockheed unveil the C.130J, with an option to have the same 4.57m stretch featured on civilian L.100-30 and RAF models.

1) Have I got the basic story correct? Wikipedia is a bit vague on these matters.

2) How many here on a.net today realise that the C.130J-30 owes it's stretch to a design dating back to 1968, and thoroughly tested by the RAF (& to a lesser extent by civilian operators)?

On the left, XV304, an original C.130K C.1 from 1976............... On the right, the same a/c (XV304) stretched to C.3, and looking mean! :evil:


Weren't the two Dutch C-130H-30 bought new in 1993?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: C130J question

Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:44 pm

Dutchy wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
AFAIK prior to the C-130J, all operators world-wide used the same "short" bodied C-130 with one exception.
For decades, the RAF were the only (military) operators of this stretched version, which then became even more distinctive with the addition of a refuelling boom. The oddity was that they were designated C.130K, placing them out of sequence.

1) Have I got the basic story correct? Wikipedia is a bit vague on these matters.


Weren't the two Dutch C-130H-30 bought new in 1993?

In which case, the answer to Q.1 should be "almost correct..." :lol:

I was already aware of a number of Air Forces operating stretched Hercules, but I had mistakenly thought they all came under the L.100-30 umbrella.
e.g. Algerian Air Force 7T-WHA, listed as a C.130H-30, but looking every inch an L.100 ---- and likewise this Republique du Tchad example


Meanwhile, the photo caption for this Moroccan says it's a C.130H-30, except to my eyes it seems to have shrunk in the wash....


However, you are right and I had overlooked a number of genuine C.130H-30 that were delivered to various air forces beginning ca 1990.
I promised myself I'd leave before the party turned ugly. I would quit at 1000 !
Here I am stuck at 994; each time I'm tempted to post, I find myself wondering who will even read it / what is the point?
Or maybe I've just got nothing left to say.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3618
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: C130J question

Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:28 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I was already aware of a number of Air Forces operating stretched Hercules, but I had mistakenly thought they all came under the L.100-30 umbrella.


Generally... The C-130 stretches will have the floor level cockpit windows and troop doors in the back. L-100-30s lack these features.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3034
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: C130J question

Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:09 am

Ozair wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Does the stretch version give up much
performance when operating out of unimproved airfields and is it used on that manner ?

Or is that mission left to the short body ?

There is little to no difference in the rough field performance between the two variants. The stretch has a longer range than the standard length but typically cruises at a lower altitude with max payload. The additional length doesn’t realistically translate to higher payloads, just more volume which is often the limiting factor.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produ ... 0j-30.html

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produ ... cules.html


The only thing to worry about with a stretched Herc is the higher potential for a tail strike; the RAAF had a pretty bad tail strike with a C-130J-30 a while back that required emergency repairs and a careful ferry flight back to depot for full repairs. Also, I believe the Norwegians have had a pair of tail strikes as well with their C-130J-30's.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 6739
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: C130J question

Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:10 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Does the stretch version give up much
performance when operating out of unimproved airfields and is it used on that manner ?

Or is that mission left to the short body ?

There is little to no difference in the rough field performance between the two variants. The stretch has a longer range than the standard length but typically cruises at a lower altitude with max payload. The additional length doesn’t realistically translate to higher payloads, just more volume which is often the limiting factor.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produ ... 0j-30.html

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produ ... cules.html


The only thing to worry about with a stretched Herc is the higher potential for a tail strike; the RAAF had a pretty bad tail strike with a C-130J-30 a while back that required emergency repairs and a careful ferry flight back to depot for full repairs. Also, I believe the Norwegians have had a pair of tail strikes as well with their C-130J-30's.




Looking at the geometry of the stretch I can see how you could do that

I think it would be challenging to induce a
tail strike on the standard body aircraft
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aumaverick, aviatorcraig, par13del and 9 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos