User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

C-130 as a commercial freighter

Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:55 am

Lockheed has offered the C-130 as a commercial freighter, but it is not a market success. Also, few people are operating used C-130s as commercial freighters. I imagine the problem is economics, but in what way?

Capital cost, fuel burn, parts support .. what is wrong with the C-130 as a commercial freighter?
Last edited by SQ22 on Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Title updated
 
FGITD
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 2:56 am

Very difficult to make a military cargo lifter design into a commercial one. The abilities and strengths of the c130 are just not needed by most (if not all) civil cargo operators.

It's designed for large, outsized and unusual loads. Vehicles, equipment, etc. Civil cargo is not usually that. It fits on pallets that are then very easy to load and unload.

No need for its ability to air drop, unprepared landing fields, etc.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:06 am

Delta had a small fleet of L-100, ten I think, back in the ‘60s. 4,000 pounds per hour to carry 10 463L pallets is expensive.

GF
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:32 am

What are the main differences between C-130 and L-100? Some air forces even use the civilian version. Is the civilian version significantly cheaper?
Last edited by afterburner on Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
COSPN
Posts: 1723
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:53 am

Time is money c130 is SLOW and can’t carry much compared to a jet
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 4:14 am

I've often wondered if the Herk couldn't work as a freighter in a place like Hawaii, where the ability to transport packets as well as outsized loads, the odd vehicle, etc., might prove worthwhile.
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 4:26 am

COSPN wrote:
Time is money c130 is SLOW and can’t carry much compared to a jet

Typical types of cargo C-130/L-100 carries don't need the speed of jet aircraft. And to what jet aircraft you are comparing C-130 to? Yes, An-124 and 747F are larger and carry more. However C-130/L-100 can land and take off at many runways/airfields where the other two can't.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 4:46 am

But you don’t need a 130 to do that—FDX has a fleet of Caravans and soon Sky Courier for that work. There’s about two dozen Herks chartering around the globe, probably all that’s needed. Safair in South Africa and Lyndon Air Cargo our of ANC being the biggest

GF
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1294
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:05 am

Aptivaboy wrote:
I've often wondered if the Herk couldn't work as a freighter in a place like Hawaii, where the ability to transport packets as well as outsized loads, the odd vehicle, etc., might prove worthwhile.

Unless in an absolute hurry these needs can be satisfied via ocean transport with ease - it's about 4-5 days' transport from LA so not too bad, but it will be FAR cheaper than air transport will ever be.

Michael
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1661
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:06 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But you don’t need a 130 to do that—FDX has a fleet of Caravans and soon Sky Courier for that work. There’s about two dozen Herks chartering around the globe, probably all that’s needed. Safair in South Africa and Lyndon Air Cargo our of ANC being the biggest

GF


Hercs aren't going to be carrying small packages and the like that the Caravans do. It will be lengths of pipe, heavy machine parts, etc. It is a specialised aircraft, there won't be a big market as has been said, but to the clients that will charter them, they are indispensable. So unless you have access to a AN-12, which no doubt you'd probably get to charter cheaper, you'll go for the aircraft best suited to the role, which for these types of customers will mean the C-130.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:15 am

FGITD wrote:
Very difficult to make a military cargo lifter design into a commercial one. The abilities and strengths of the c130 are just not needed by most (if not all) civil cargo operators.

It's designed for large, outsized and unusual loads. Vehicles, equipment, etc. Civil cargo is not usually that. It fits on pallets that are then very easy to load and unload.

No need for its ability to air drop, unprepared landing fields, etc.


Of course I understand that Amazon does not do too many airdrops, and does not need outsized cargo capability.

But my question is an economic one. You *could* use C-130s instead of 767s. Where does it go wrong? Is the fuel burn to high? The capital cost? MX? What's the economic problem?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2890
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:54 am

kitplane01 wrote:
But my question is an economic one. You *could* use C-130s instead of 767s. Where does it go wrong? Is the fuel burn to high? The capital cost? MX? What's the economic problem?


It's economic. The L-100 burns too much fuel. It has 4 whopping great and thirsty turboprops, but only carries roughly the same payload as a 737-400.

The L-100 was designed to fly in and out of rough airfields while taking fire, so the airframe is beefed up and it has heavy actuators for the tail ramp. The engines are significantly more powerful than they need to be, fuel economy was never a consideration in the first place. They are really expensive to buy and crew too, whereas used 737s are cheap and plentiful.

You also see a bunch of An-12s plying the freight-routes. The same applies to them in terms of operating costs, but these operators offset it with cheap maintenance, acquisition costs and hiring really cheap Russian and Ukrainian crews.


COSPN wrote:
Time is money c130 is SLOW and can’t carry much compared to a jet


Which is not true. ATR freighters are often put on absurdly long flights, because they burn so much less fuel than anything else. When the fuel prices topped about 10-5 years ago, at least one integrator put a few contracted ATRs on flights between Europe and Asia.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:07 am

afterburner wrote:
What are the main differences between C-130 and L-100? Some air forces even use the civilian version. Is the civilian version significantly cheaper?


The main differences are equipment and politics. Air forces with L-100s usually bought them commercially because FMS wasn't available to them at the time. Since they were buying small batches at retail prices they were undoubtedly more expensive than slipstreaming in on a big USAF order, but that was the only option.

L-100s usually had paradropping and other military-specific gear omitted so were a little lighter

There was also an intermediate 2.54 metre stretch in the L-100-20 model that wasn't seen on any military variant.

VSMUT wrote:
It's economic. The L-100 burns too much fuel. It has 4 whopping great and thirsty turboprops, but only carries roughly the same payload as a 737-400.


Fuel burn at cruise for the old T56-engined L-100-30 was 2.3 tonnes / hour at max cruise and 1.9 tonnes / hour at economical. A B734 was about 3.3 and 2.4 tonnes / hour respectively.

The L-100 would lift 23 tonnes of payload max, or 15 tonnes with full tanks. The B734 could lift 17 or 13.

So say we're moving 13 tonnes over 2,000nm:
L-100-30 6.9 hours at 279 knots for 13.1 tonnes of fuel
B734 4.7 hours at 429 knots for 11.2 tonnes of fuel

Considering you couldn't get a B734 freighter conversion until the late 1990s that's not particularly convincing as an argument.
 
Canuck600
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:25 am

As far as a sales success, wiki (I know I know) says 114 L-100's were sold, I would say that's not bad for a niche aircraft.

The new version is supposed to go into production next year I believe. Does anybody know if this new version is under the old type certificate or did it require a new type certificate since the civilian model hasn't been produced in several years.

One would assume that the civilian model is cheaper to build then the military model because it lacks all the modifications the military model needs like para drop doors & the more expensive avionics that are required for aircraft defense in the military model?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2890
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:47 am

ELBOB wrote:
Fuel burn at cruise for the old T56-engined L-100-30 was 2.3 tonnes / hour at max cruise and 1.9 tonnes / hour at economical. A B734 was about 3.3 and 2.4 tonnes / hour respectively.

The L-100 would lift 23 tonnes of payload max, or 15 tonnes with full tanks. The B734 could lift 17 or 13.

So say we're moving 13 tonnes over 2,000nm:
L-100-30 6.9 hours at 279 knots for 13.1 tonnes of fuel
B734 4.7 hours at 429 knots for 11.2 tonnes of fuel

Considering you couldn't get a B734 freighter conversion until the late 1990s that's not particularly convincing as an argument.


As per Eurocontrol, the C-130 will achieve around 3 tons per hour. They list the 737 Classics at around 2.4 to 2.7 tons per hour. Being in figures by the hour, you will have to figure in that the 737 will also get to the destination somewhat faster.

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/defau ... Tables.pdf

And thats before you factor in additional maintanence and the 2 vs 4 engine arguments.


If the C-130 truly was more economical, you need to start explaining why airports are full of 737 freighters, and not C-130s, especially when the USAF started parking them up by the hundreds in the 1990s.


Lockheed did try to market a civilian version to the market at one point. They simply removed 2 engines. Says tons about how economical that aircraft is:

Image
 
Viper911
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:29 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:08 am

afterburner wrote:
COSPN wrote:
Time is money c130 is SLOW and can’t carry much compared to a jet

Typical types of cargo C-130/L-100 carries don't need the speed of jet aircraft. And to what jet aircraft you are comparing C-130 to? Yes, An-124 and 747F are larger and carry more. However C-130/L-100 can land and take off at many runways/airfields where the other two can't.


With a 20 ton payload of a C-130 i would hardly even try to compare it to a 747 that can take up to 128 tons (on the 400F), more suitable comparison would be a 737-400. Furthermore as stated in previous posts in the civilian market there is no benefit of the tactical landing or take off capabilities of a C-130, you either fly a big plane to a big airport and then truck your cargo to/from your destination or you use some kind of feeder service from small remote airports like Fedex doing with their Cessna Caravans and ATRs.

Viper911
 
COSPN
Posts: 1723
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:08 pm

Basically it’s 30% slower than a jet but not more than 30% cheaper ..a money burner .lynden aircargo had a few in Alaska to carry trucks and things for the Oil (energy ) business .. anther L-100 flies around “classified” electronics to places around the world that need to be “in and out “ quickly.. the AN-12 is also a good plane but the cargo bay is unpressurized.. so that limits what it can haul and it is slow and expensive
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:41 pm

Viper911 wrote:
afterburner wrote:
COSPN wrote:
Time is money c130 is SLOW and can’t carry much compared to a jet

Typical types of cargo C-130/L-100 carries don't need the speed of jet aircraft. And to what jet aircraft you are comparing C-130 to? Yes, An-124 and 747F are larger and carry more. However C-130/L-100 can land and take off at many runways/airfields where the other two can't.


With a 20 ton payload of a C-130 i would hardly even try to compare it to a 747 that can take up to 128 tons (on the 400F), more suitable comparison would be a 737-400. Furthermore as stated in previous posts in the civilian market there is no benefit of the tactical landing or take off capabilities of a C-130, you either fly a big plane to a big airport and then truck your cargo to/from your destination or you use some kind of feeder service from small remote airports like Fedex doing with their Cessna Caravans and ATRs.

Viper911

I'm talking about oversized cargo. Not the palleted ones. Not something we order from Amazon or Ebay.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8678
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:55 pm

afterburner wrote:
Viper911 wrote:
afterburner wrote:
Typical types of cargo C-130/L-100 carries don't need the speed of jet aircraft. And to what jet aircraft you are comparing C-130 to? Yes, An-124 and 747F are larger and carry more. However C-130/L-100 can land and take off at many runways/airfields where the other two can't.


With a 20 ton payload of a C-130 i would hardly even try to compare it to a 747 that can take up to 128 tons (on the 400F), more suitable comparison would be a 737-400. Furthermore as stated in previous posts in the civilian market there is no benefit of the tactical landing or take off capabilities of a C-130, you either fly a big plane to a big airport and then truck your cargo to/from your destination or you use some kind of feeder service from small remote airports like Fedex doing with their Cessna Caravans and ATRs.

Viper911

I'm talking about oversized cargo. Not the palleted ones. Not something we order from Amazon or Ebay.


Say what? You don't buy your Hummer via Amazon?

C130 / C160 find use as rural transport in "2.5" world countries. Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, .
( any accidents there and invariably lots of civilians on the hurt or dead list.)

France Postal Service used to have some C160 for moving postbags.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Accord
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:36 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:06 pm

ELBOB wrote:

The L-100 would lift 23 tonnes of payload max, or 15 tonnes with full tanks. The B734 could lift 17 or 13.




According to Cargoair and their site - https://cargoair.bg/#section-18 - B734F max payload is 20 tonnes, not 17 and the max payload for B733F is 18 tonnes.
 
COSPN
Posts: 1723
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:39 pm

Again time is money 30% slower is really bad takes 10 hours not 7 so that’s 2 crews hotels overbite parking increase costs of many thousands of dollars.. If it made money someone would be doing it
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:43 pm

I could imagine the L-100 has a future in northern Canada since the 737-200s with gravel kits won't last forever. The L-100 is perfectly capable of gravel runways, it was built for rough terrain. The military often flies the C-130 out of dirt strips that can hardly be called an airfield. However other than that, I can't see much need for it. For normal cargo operations where good runways are available, other cargo aircraft can do the same job cheaper.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6307
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:57 pm

This is anecdotal, but when a 737 F/O 30 years ago, I used to fly with guys that flew the Herc at Pacific Western Airlines. They said that yes, it was extremely capable, by design, but in their words, they said it carried about the same load as a 737-200C but at 50% greater cost. When PW had to rationalize the fleet when they had 707s, 727s, 737s and Hercs ... it was the 727s and Hercs that left.

PatrickZ80 wrote:
I could imagine the L-100 has a future in northern Canada since the 737-200s with gravel kits won't last forever. The L-100 is perfectly capable of gravel runways, it was built for rough terrain.

Three airlines that flew Hercs in Canada's arctic replaced them with 737s. Likely the accountants measured the extreme capability of the aircraft against the cost to operate it and decided that for the rare time it could do something the 737 could not, it wasn't worth keeping around such an expensive venture. Remember, it's not just fuel. The Herc has a three man crew, 4 engines, 4 props, etc. ... it's not cheap to run.

Compare how many civil Hercs are carrying freight against how many civil commercial jet freighters. There's your answer.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Cunard
Posts: 2424
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:43 am

There have been several operators of the commercial version of the L100 Hercules including the following although it's not a full list as there are several more especially from Canadian operators, the names of which I can't recollect.

Air Contractors
Air Algerie
Delta Air Lines
First Air Canada
Lybian Air Cargo Airlines
Lynden Air Cargo
Pacific Western Airlines
Pakistan International Airlines
Safair
SFAir France
Saudi Arabian Airlines
Transafrike Airlines
Trans International Airlines
Uganda Airlines
94 Countries, 327 Destinations Worldwide, 32 Airlines, 29 Aircraft Types, 182 Airports, 335 Flights.
 
KICT
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 5:06 am

There are 70 year-old freighters flying in Alaska. Surely those will need to be replaced at some point.
People are saying. Believe me.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 5:49 am

jupiter2 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But you don’t need a 130 to do that—FDX has a fleet of Caravans and soon Sky Courier for that work. There’s about two dozen Herks chartering around the globe, probably all that’s needed. Safair in South Africa and Lyndon Air Cargo our of ANC being the biggest

GF


Hercs aren't going to be carrying small packages and the like that the Caravans do. It will be lengths of pipe, heavy machine parts, etc. It is a specialised aircraft, there won't be a big market as has been said, but to the clients that will charter them, they are indispensable. So unless you have access to a AN-12, which no doubt you'd probably get to charter cheaper, you'll go for the aircraft best suited to the role, which for these types of customers will mean the C-130.

Lynden carriers mail in Alaska with the c130 but that’s different.
 
Viper911
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:29 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 9:27 am

afterburner wrote:
Viper911 wrote:
afterburner wrote:
Typical types of cargo C-130/L-100 carries don't need the speed of jet aircraft. And to what jet aircraft you are comparing C-130 to? Yes, An-124 and 747F are larger and carry more. However C-130/L-100 can land and take off at many runways/airfields where the other two can't.


With a 20 ton payload of a C-130 i would hardly even try to compare it to a 747 that can take up to 128 tons (on the 400F), more suitable comparison would be a 737-400. Furthermore as stated in previous posts in the civilian market there is no benefit of the tactical landing or take off capabilities of a C-130, you either fly a big plane to a big airport and then truck your cargo to/from your destination or you use some kind of feeder service from small remote airports like Fedex doing with their Cessna Caravans and ATRs.

Viper911

I'm talking about oversized cargo. Not the palleted ones. Not something we order from Amazon or Ebay.


In that case, you don't have enough oversized cargo to justify this specific airplane for an airline, what i mean is, yes if someday in a small airfield you have some oversized cargo, and the 747 cannot operate from it, yes the C-130 is a viable option, but any other day, because of its limited payload, the company better use a 737 instead, the 747 on the other hand, is a jack of all trades, on the days without oversized cargo, you can take regular cargo instead, or even together with the oversize, increasing your profits. Now you need to take into account how much oversize cargo you're dealing with yearly and how much of it comes from some rural small places, which at the end will come to the trucking solution as they offer a cheaper solution, Just a note though, palletised cargo doesn't necessarily means amazon or small packages, nowadays most of the cargo that comes from factories is palletised for ease of transportation, be it in the sea, air or land.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1560
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 9:59 am

VSMUT wrote:
Lockheed did try to market a civilian version to the market at one point. They simply removed 2 engines. Says tons about how economical that aircraft is:

Image

Cool picture!

I'm wondering what the takeoff performance would be with only two engines. Probably similar to a jet. Was that with the H model?

It would be interesting if they removed two engines off the new stretched J model and fitted a 2 man cockpit. That would definitely improve the economics.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7612
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:01 am

Is the C27J available in a civilian version ?


It has impressive field performance, good payload/ range and cruise speed


It would seem ideal for remote areas requiring a rugged airframe and only two engines making it far more economic than a C130 which it’s basically a 50% version of
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:56 am

The arguments why the C-130/L100 was never a real Commercial success have all been said. In my many years as a freight forwarder I remember only one charter which could, at that time in the 70s, only the C130 could have done the Job.

That was the ships spare consignment with a case weighing 13500 kg and dims which just could make it through the door. There was no alternativde. A couple of years later the alternative became reality when the Il76 was available for charters in the "West" .
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:01 am

And there has to be a good reason for the truck that transport the valuable, outsized cargo to a C130, not to drive on 1 or 2 days, to the end destination. As a door to door service. For a quater of the costs. A niche market indeed.


Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
yzfElite
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:02 pm

KICT wrote:
There are 70 year-old freighters flying in Alaska. Surely those will need to be replaced at some point.


Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it will be with Hercs. After the sale of 7F's two hercs, a lot of that flying in Canada's arctic has been moved to various other available options - the Buffalo fleet (Electra/DC4/C46), DH1/ATR and 732/734C. With the significant reduction in the building of new mines in the north, the need perhaps isn't what it used to be either to justify special fleets. There's still a fair bit of activity in western Nunavut, but not much otherwise that isn't served by road or ice road.
 
User avatar
DrPaul
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 3:03 pm

VSMUT wrote:
You also see a bunch of An-12s plying the freight-routes. The same applies to them in terms of operating costs, but these operators offset it with cheap maintenance, acquisition costs and hiring really cheap Russian and Ukrainian crews.


This and other threads have explained to me something about which I had long wondered, why military transports have only rarely been used as civilian freighters: were they economical to run, I imagine that Lockheed (for example) would have sold good numbers of C-130s, C-141s and C-5s over the years.

That being the case, I have wondered about why there have been over the last few years frequent An-12 and An-26 flights into various British airports. The above quote provides a clue. They must be much cheaper in respect of crew and maintenance to make their use worthwhile. One hopes that cheap maintenance does not come at the expense of safety (not least as some of them fly over my house).
 
TomFoolery
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:10 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 3:47 pm

Hi All,

It is important to note that the newer C130J/LM100J platform has significant enhancements over the older models (C130H and older). Some of the improvements include:

Avionics have been modernized.
More efficient engines are used.
New 6 bladed props that further enhance the efficiency of the engines.
Reduction of weight through use of composites.
Increased speed, range and ceiling.

To this end, it is helpful to specify if we are using the data for the LM100J or the older L100 models. The big markets are oil, gas, mining, drilling, etc. As noted earlier, 4 engines (no matter how fuel efficient) are always more costly to maintain than 2 engines.

Also, since the production rates of the C130J/LM100J are not nearly the same as those of the 737, Lockheed is not necessarily losing their shirts off of the demand for the LM100. They are in the business of building C130's.

There have been so many 737s produced, the used market for older models is still favorable for freighter conversion. The availability of spares improves the financial favor toward the 737.

Tom
Paper makes an airplane fly
 
TW870
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:01 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:01 pm

DrPaul wrote:
This and other threads have explained to me something about which I had long wondered, why military transports have only rarely been used as civilian freighters: were they economical to run, I imagine that Lockheed (for example) would have sold good numbers of C-130s, C-141s and C-5s over the years.


I've wondered something similar as well - as to why we didn't see more of those types being converted for civilian use after their military retirement similar to the way we saw so many C-47s, C-131s, C-121s, and C-118s converted decades earlier. The way I have thought about it is that civilian jetliners got so many more performance improvements during operations than military aircraft. A JT9D-7A motor is far less efficient and far less powerful that a -7Q for a 747F. But they didn't keep updating the TF-39 on the C-5 in the same way. So by the 1990s, you could pick up 747Fs with -7Q or -7R power very cheap. Thus, there was very little business case for civilian conversion of a military jet freighter.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:07 pm

The civil certification on the C-5 was not possible without major hurdles-performance being the main one. There just isn’t a large market for outsize lift. It’s been looked at a number of times, but most of the outcomes was a market far too small to justify the development costs. That and the military won’t release types to the market.
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:48 pm

VSMUT wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
But my question is an economic one. You *could* use C-130s instead of 767s. Where does it go wrong? Is the fuel burn to high? The capital cost? MX? What's the economic problem?


It's economic. The L-100 burns too much fuel. It has 4 whopping great and thirsty turboprops, but only carries roughly the same payload as a 737-400.

The L-100 was designed to fly in and out of rough airfields while taking fire, so the airframe is beefed up and it has heavy actuators for the tail ramp. The engines are significantly more powerful than they need to be, fuel economy was never a consideration in the first place. They are really expensive to buy and crew too, whereas used 737s are cheap and plentiful.

You also see a bunch of An-12s plying the freight-routes. The same applies to them in terms of operating costs, but these operators offset it with cheap maintenance, acquisition costs and hiring really cheap Russian and Ukrainian crews.


COSPN wrote:
Time is money c130 is SLOW and can’t carry much compared to a jet


Which is not true. ATR freighters are often put on absurdly long flights, because they burn so much less fuel than anything else. When the fuel prices topped about 10-5 years ago, at least one integrator put a few contracted ATRs on flights between Europe and Asia.


Uh wrong. All the way through the post. C130 all the opposite of what you said. The C130/LM100 can carry stuff civilian airliners can't. But no one is going to fill up a C130 for hops everyday, or need it's capability, hence the prevalence of civilian freighters.
Last edited by neutronstar73 on Sun Dec 02, 2018 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21168
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:59 pm

TomFoolery wrote:
Hi All,

It is important to note that the newer C130J/LM100J platform has significant enhancements over the older models (C130H and older). Some of the improvements include:

Avionics have been modernized.
More efficient engines are used.
New 6 bladed props that further enhance the efficiency of the engines.
Reduction of weight through use of composites.
Increased speed, range and ceiling.

To this end, it is helpful to specify if we are using the data for the LM100J or the older L100 models. The big markets are oil, gas, mining, drilling, etc. As noted earlier, 4 engines (no matter how fuel efficient) are always more costly to maintain than 2 engines.

Also, since the production rates of the C130J/LM100J are not nearly the same as those of the 737, Lockheed is not necessarily losing their shirts off of the demand for the LM100. They are in the business of building C130's.

There have been so many 737s produced, the used market for older models is still favorable for freighter conversion. The availability of spares improves the financial favor toward the 737.

Tom

LM100J also eliminates the navigator / flight engineer requirement too.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:09 am

The C230, L382, and L100 are specialized aircraft for specialized missions, and unlike most aircraft flying freight today, still require a third cockpit crew member. They're slower, designed for short landing capability, and designed to go places that many others can't.

J Models are expensive, and don't offer a lot of competitive features, performance, price, over aircraft in use for freight operations today. They continue to work in specialized applications, charters, and contracts.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2207
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:54 am

yzfElite wrote:
KICT wrote:
There are 70 year-old freighters flying in Alaska. Surely those will need to be replaced at some point.


Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it will be with Hercs. After the sale of 7F's two hercs, a lot of that flying in Canada's arctic has been moved to various other available options - the Buffalo fleet (Electra/DC4/C46), DH1/ATR and 732/734C. With the significant reduction in the building of new mines in the north, the need perhaps isn't what it used to be either to justify special fleets. There's still a fair bit of activity in western Nunavut, but not much otherwise that isn't served by road or ice road.


When the NWT mining boom was in full swing, First Air acquired a second Herc. However, a few years later when that business dried up, they went back down to a single frame and then a couple of years later sold the sole remaining Herc to Lynden. The commercial Herc is an even more specialized niche than the AN-124.
 
dabc
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:12 pm

Air Algerie is still using 1 C-130 as fresighter, 7T-VHL

Image
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2281
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:13 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But you don’t need a 130 to do that—FDX has a fleet of Caravans and soon Sky Courier for that work. There’s about two dozen Herks chartering around the globe, probably all that’s needed. Safair in South Africa and Lyndon Air Cargo our of ANC being the biggest

GF


Hercs aren't going to be carrying small packages and the like that the Caravans do. It will be lengths of pipe, heavy machine parts, etc. It is a specialised aircraft, there won't be a big market as has been said, but to the clients that will charter them, they are indispensable. So unless you have access to a AN-12, which no doubt you'd probably get to charter cheaper, you'll go for the aircraft best suited to the role, which for these types of customers will mean the C-130.


And as for the fleet that Delta owned? They mostly moved airplane engines, back in the days when engine reliability was an issue.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3181
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:17 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But you don’t need a 130 to do that—FDX has a fleet of Caravans and soon Sky Courier for that work. There’s about two dozen Herks chartering around the globe, probably all that’s needed. Safair in South Africa and Lyndon Air Cargo our of ANC being the biggest

GF


Replacements for 737-200 in northern Canada that have to land on un-prepaired runways.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3181
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:48 pm

eamondzhang wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:
I've often wondered if the Herk couldn't work as a freighter in a place like Hawaii, where the ability to transport packets as well as outsized loads, the odd vehicle, etc., might prove worthwhile.

Unless in an absolute hurry these needs can be satisfied via ocean transport with ease - it's about 4-5 days' transport from LA so not too bad, but it will be FAR cheaper than air transport will ever be.

Michael


He was talking Hawaii inter island freighter ops. Which they would be good with kama'aina time and some outsized needs. Slow, easy & consistent
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3885
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:19 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Lockheed has offered the C-130 as a commercial freighter, but it is not a market success. Also, few people are operating used C-130s as commercial freighters. I imagine the problem is economics, but in what way?

Capital cost, fuel burn, parts support .. what is wrong with the C-130 as a commercial freighter?

Nothing!! Transamerica flew L100-30's in commercial service for some years very successfully. While many were flying the Electra's in commercial the service as freighters. The L100 is tough and reliable. That the B727 and DC-9's were cheaper to acquire is why the C130(L100) wasn't in wider use.As Now the B737-300 can be purchased used at Less than a C130 can be converted to civil use for. And? it has 2 fewer engines to maintain..
 
diverted
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:59 am

Dominion301 wrote:
yzfElite wrote:
KICT wrote:
There are 70 year-old freighters flying in Alaska. Surely those will need to be replaced at some point.


Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it will be with Hercs. After the sale of 7F's two hercs, a lot of that flying in Canada's arctic has been moved to various other available options - the Buffalo fleet (Electra/DC4/C46), DH1/ATR and 732/734C. With the significant reduction in the building of new mines in the north, the need perhaps isn't what it used to be either to justify special fleets. There's still a fair bit of activity in western Nunavut, but not much otherwise that isn't served by road or ice road.


When the NWT mining boom was in full swing, First Air acquired a second Herc. However, a few years later when that business dried up, they went back down to a single frame and then a couple of years later sold the sole remaining Herc to Lynden. The commercial Herc is an even more specialized niche than the AN-124.


IIRC the second Herc was aquired in '06. They both left within a few months of eachother, in, I think early 2015.
 
FlyingSicilian
Posts: 1611
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Fri Dec 14, 2018 3:20 am

Is Pallas Aviation still the only order for the new LM-100J ?
“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:04 am

Was there ever a pax-carrying L-100?
 
ANNEX14
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:30 pm

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:16 am

oldannyboy wrote:
Was there ever a pax-carrying L-100?


(AFAIK) Two examples only, both converted with windows from a 727.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: C-130 as a commercial freighter :-(

Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:48 pm

ANNEX14 wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
Was there ever a pax-carrying L-100?


(AFAIK) Two examples only, both converted with windows from a 727.



OH WOW :shock: amazing!
Thank you! Yes, I kind of thought/remembered something about Indonesia and 'quickly moving people out of the islands?'...

Do we know if there is a picture of the interior anywhere?

d

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