Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)
Discussion
So not amazingly cool but a couple I liked from Coningsby today
DSC_3039 by Dave Goodhand, on Flickr
DSC_2923 by Dave Goodhand, on Flickr
DSC_3039 by Dave Goodhand, on FlickrDSC_2923 by Dave Goodhand, on FlickrRedLeicester said:
tight5 said:
Airbus A380 and a Boeing 737 flying parallel approaches into LAX
Not only did the C-130 land on and take off from an aircraft carrier, but what is even more amazing is that the plane did so unassisted--without using arresting gear to reduce the landing roll or becoming airborne with the aid of the ship's catapult.
The astounding feats occurred from the deck of the USS Forrestal in October 1963 using a Marine Corps KC-130F. The motivation for these tests, ordered by the Chief of Naval Operations, was to determine the feasibility of using the existing C-130 aircraft as a long-range carrier onboard delivery (COD) transport. At the time, the Navy was using the C-1 Trader for COD duties, but the plane was limited to a rather small payload and a 300 mile (480 km) range. When operating far out at sea, carriers were unable to receive desperately needed supplies without steaming closer in to shore. It was hoped that the larger, long-range C-130 would be able to address that deficiency.
The landings on the USS Forrestal are rather interesting, not to say pretty spectacular; especially given the fact that there was a mere 15ft wingtip clearance from the 'Island'. 
When you look at the figures however, it rather shows the lack of carrying capacity in this role (fuel, let alone cargo) of the aircraft and why it was binned as a C.O.D.
Specifically:
[quote]
21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds
[/quote]
Actually prior to that they made 29 'roller' landings including 19 'rollers' (out of 42 approaches) on the first day of the trial.
The CMk1 (the RAF's unstretched version) of the C-130K had an APS weight (Aircraft Prepared For Service) of 73,000lbs (External tanks fitted) or 71,000lbs (External tanks removed). The APS weight is the weight of the aircraft with no fuel and no cargo so straight away, at the initial landing weights trialled, we only have a maximum of 14,000lbs spare capacity available (and I would want that for fuel!).
At the maximum weight trialled, if we took the External tanks off an RAF Albert, we would have 121,000 - 71,000 = 50,000lbs of spare capacity. The fuel tank capacities of Albert are: 34,000lbs (full Mains), 46,000lbs (full Mains and Externals), 62,900lbs (full fuel ie full Mains, Externals and Auxiliaries {the wing shoulder tanks}). You wouldn't fly 50,900lbs (ie full Mains and full Auxilliaries) owing to wing bending relief considerations.
We generally only ever got airborne at these fuel loads owing to the fact that a. they are the most efficient in terms of range vs load and (more importantly) b. they work out as giving the best wing bending relief vs load, although I have flown Albert on short (generally Airdrop or UK Low Level) sorties with 22,000lbs of fuel.
In the case of the Forrestal landings, at 34,000lbs fuel that would leave a mere 16,000lbs available for cargo. Obviously there is a sliding scale of payload vs fuel vs range but even with a minimum departure fuel of 22,000 lbs that only gives you 28,000lbs cargo.
Unfortunately I don't possess a C-130 ODM (Operating Data Manual) so I can't give fuel / range figures, and memory fades as to what our minimum diversion fuel and minimum landing fuel weights were, let alone 'island holding' fuel (and I would want some of THAT flying out over the Oggsplash to a Carrier!).
Now, the Albert used in the trial was a USMC KC-130F with the refueling pods removed. The KC-130F was a variant of the C-130B which had the earlier (and less powerful) Allison T56-A-7A engines, as well as the earlier wing (no ability to mount External tanks). I would imagine, therefore, that the KC-130F was lighter and thus had a lower APS weight than did our CMk1, but by how much I don't know.
Even so, with that quick 'back of a fag packet' calculation it shows that it really isn't practical to use Albert as a C.O.D.
Another interesting fact about the deck landings is the fact that they were selecting full reverse pitch whilst still airborne It's claimed out there in 'Internet Land' that this occurred at 10-15ft above the deck although one of the Lockheed guys told me it was more like 30-45ft.
That's pretty brave. If you had a prop hang up at the low pitch stop (because one of the 3 stop pins failed to disengage) it would be Goodnight Vienna. In fact it would be Goodnight Every Major European Capital!
When you look at the figures however, it rather shows the lack of carrying capacity in this role (fuel, let alone cargo) of the aircraft and why it was binned as a C.O.D.
Specifically:
[quote]
21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds
[/quote]
Actually prior to that they made 29 'roller' landings including 19 'rollers' (out of 42 approaches) on the first day of the trial.
The CMk1 (the RAF's unstretched version) of the C-130K had an APS weight (Aircraft Prepared For Service) of 73,000lbs (External tanks fitted) or 71,000lbs (External tanks removed). The APS weight is the weight of the aircraft with no fuel and no cargo so straight away, at the initial landing weights trialled, we only have a maximum of 14,000lbs spare capacity available (and I would want that for fuel!).
At the maximum weight trialled, if we took the External tanks off an RAF Albert, we would have 121,000 - 71,000 = 50,000lbs of spare capacity. The fuel tank capacities of Albert are: 34,000lbs (full Mains), 46,000lbs (full Mains and Externals), 62,900lbs (full fuel ie full Mains, Externals and Auxiliaries {the wing shoulder tanks}). You wouldn't fly 50,900lbs (ie full Mains and full Auxilliaries) owing to wing bending relief considerations.
We generally only ever got airborne at these fuel loads owing to the fact that a. they are the most efficient in terms of range vs load and (more importantly) b. they work out as giving the best wing bending relief vs load, although I have flown Albert on short (generally Airdrop or UK Low Level) sorties with 22,000lbs of fuel.
In the case of the Forrestal landings, at 34,000lbs fuel that would leave a mere 16,000lbs available for cargo. Obviously there is a sliding scale of payload vs fuel vs range but even with a minimum departure fuel of 22,000 lbs that only gives you 28,000lbs cargo.
Unfortunately I don't possess a C-130 ODM (Operating Data Manual) so I can't give fuel / range figures, and memory fades as to what our minimum diversion fuel and minimum landing fuel weights were, let alone 'island holding' fuel (and I would want some of THAT flying out over the Oggsplash to a Carrier!).
Now, the Albert used in the trial was a USMC KC-130F with the refueling pods removed. The KC-130F was a variant of the C-130B which had the earlier (and less powerful) Allison T56-A-7A engines, as well as the earlier wing (no ability to mount External tanks). I would imagine, therefore, that the KC-130F was lighter and thus had a lower APS weight than did our CMk1, but by how much I don't know.
Even so, with that quick 'back of a fag packet' calculation it shows that it really isn't practical to use Albert as a C.O.D.
Another interesting fact about the deck landings is the fact that they were selecting full reverse pitch whilst still airborne
It's claimed out there in 'Internet Land' that this occurred at 10-15ft above the deck although one of the Lockheed guys told me it was more like 30-45ft.That's pretty brave. If you had a prop hang up at the low pitch stop (because one of the 3 stop pins failed to disengage) it would be Goodnight Vienna. In fact it would be Goodnight Every Major European Capital!
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 4th February 20:20
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Another interesting fact about the deck landings is the fact that they were selecting full reverse pitch whilst still airborne It's claimed out there in 'Internet Land' that this occurred at 10-15ft above the deck although one of the Lockheed guys told me it was more like 30-45ft.
That's pretty brave. If you had a prop hang up at the low pitch stop (because one of the 3 stop pins failed to disengage) it would be Goodnight Vienna. In fact it would be Goodnight Every Major European Capital!
Not to mention making an awful mess of the flightdeck; 30 tonnes of cartwheeling, blazing ex-C130 debris is likely to do a clean sweep of anything on the deckpark. It's claimed out there in 'Internet Land' that this occurred at 10-15ft above the deck although one of the Lockheed guys told me it was more like 30-45ft.That's pretty brave. If you had a prop hang up at the low pitch stop (because one of the 3 stop pins failed to disengage) it would be Goodnight Vienna. In fact it would be Goodnight Every Major European Capital!
...... waits for the next internet hero to diss the lady.......
Who really does know what she's talking about
And while I'm here,.. what a fabulous job the US pilot did on those trials, makes my squidgy bit squirm even to think of it
Putting the brakes on whilst still in the sky, oh bloody helllllllll
That's an ocean down there
Who really does know what she's talking about
And while I'm here,.. what a fabulous job the US pilot did on those trials, makes my squidgy bit squirm even to think of it
Putting the brakes on whilst still in the sky, oh bloody helllllllll
That's an ocean down there
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
...In the case of the Forrestal landings
...Even so, with that quick 'back of a fag packet' calculation it shows that it really isn't practical to use Albert as a C.O.D.
Really interesting post - thanks. But it leaves me wondering if an un-arrested platform is still a dead duck or not? Essentially: fast forwarding to current types, would something like the smaller (and much lighter) C27J be a viable platform for repeating this experiment with any chance of a more operationally viable outcome? Filling the blanks - the runway requirement at max landing weight for those is apparently almost the exact length of the new Ford class US carriers, so I wonder if that is a goer with a sensible amount of fuel and payload? [Just in your professional opinion - not asking you to go number hunting or anything]....Even so, with that quick 'back of a fag packet' calculation it shows that it really isn't practical to use Albert as a C.O.D.
All a moot point though - these days you would use an Osprey if a Chinook didn't have the range you needed I reckon...?
ChemicalChaos said:
awesome info there GGG, and that airliners on a carrier link was a good read too 
Here's my current desktop background - a gorgeous air to air of the Breitling Super Connie:
There is no like button so I will quote it instead, that really is a lovely looking aircraft.Here's my current desktop background - a gorgeous air to air of the Breitling Super Connie:
DiscoColin said:
Really interesting post - thanks. But it leaves me wondering if an un-arrested platform is still a dead duck or not?
I don't know enough about the C27J Spartan (aside from the fact it is an Alenia G222 with C-130J engies). The G222 is about 2/3 the size of Albert and can carry about 20,000lbs of freight.In many respects the performance of the C27 is similar to that of the C2 Greyhound which is the current USN C.O.D. albeit it is slightly larger.
While the USN have selected the Osprey as the replacement for the E2 (and while Chinook is another viable option), I can't see why it couldn't make a useful C.O.D. a/c as long as you have the deck space.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Friday 5th February 23:48
There is more to it than that. Most airliner windows today are pretty square - so De Havilland were not too wrong. Their error was in the strengthening/reinforcing pieces that were at each corner apex were not strong enough.
In the Comet from which most wreckage was recovered (G-ALYP)it was concluded that the failure was not at a window but in one of the roof apertures under which were placed ADF aerials.
Here is the wording from the AAIB accident report -
"After the equivalent of only 3,000 flights investigators at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) were able to conclude that the crash had been due to failure of the pressure cabin at the forward ADF window in the roof. This 'window' was in fact one of two apertures for the aerials of an electronic navigation system in which opaque fibreglass panels took the place of the window 'glass.'
You can see in this picture that window isn't really !square". It does have radiused corners -
Here is a picture of the window of a modern Boeing 737 for comparison -
In the Comet from which most wreckage was recovered (G-ALYP)it was concluded that the failure was not at a window but in one of the roof apertures under which were placed ADF aerials.
Here is the wording from the AAIB accident report -
"After the equivalent of only 3,000 flights investigators at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) were able to conclude that the crash had been due to failure of the pressure cabin at the forward ADF window in the roof. This 'window' was in fact one of two apertures for the aerials of an electronic navigation system in which opaque fibreglass panels took the place of the window 'glass.'
You can see in this picture that window isn't really !square". It does have radiused corners -
Here is a picture of the window of a modern Boeing 737 for comparison -
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff