C-130 landing on USS Forrestal June 13, 2006 Posted by Murdoc Via ACE: I’d heard of this experiment many times but never seen video. Updated: June 13, 2006 at 1:19 pm ◀ Ding Dong, the Fitz is dead Got Groceries? ▶ Comments MO, Well it doesn’t seem such a stretch. They’re built to land rough and short, so why NOT a carrier? But that makes me wonder- if a C-130 can do it, that means an AC-130 can do it, nu? Yeeeaaaahhh…… [Jaw drops] Bloody brilliant! They’ve got that and several more videos of the C-130 here. I heard a rumor Lockheed recently tried to talk the Navy into using the C-130J as a COD airplane. The best thing, no hook or catapult required. You want to keep a positive margin for your wing tip though. This would be my favorite new C-130 (via Hercules Headquarters). It’s long overdue for a nose job. Hey, it was the basis for a JAG episode. Outlandish thought – Thinking of the logistics and dangers involved – You might get the risks down to an acceptable margin by really going back to the future. Make a C-130 BiPlane variant. Reduce the wingspan while maintaining or even increasing the low speed lift characteristics. C-130 may fit onto the flight deck but what about the elevators? And if it will fit on the elevators, will it fit into the hangar deck? How tall is that tail? Sure, you could restrict it to missions of land-to-sea and return, but, occasionally, if it couldn’t get back off of the carrier, somebody is gonna have to push it over the side to let normal carrier ops continue. The October ’97 issue of Popular Mechanics had something like what you’re describing. Maybe the concept was to fold the wings, I’m not sure. You couldn’t get it below deck that way, but you could move it so it wouldn’t stop operations while you were loading and unloading. Maybe you guys remember the back cover of some issues of ‘The Hook’ back in the 80’s when MD was trying to sell a COD version of the short body DC-9, complete with hook. The problem with the DC-9 and C-130 is that there is no way to continue flight ops if the COD breaks down on deck (there’s no way you can strike either on below to the hangar deck!) These limitations are why the Navy has stuck with the C-2 even though they aren’t thrilled with its lift capacity, speed, or range. Can you imagine the hinge fitting required to fold the C-130 wing? Of couse, if you folded it just outboard of #2 and #3 engines, it might not be too bad. You’d need a big actuator to make the outboard wing panels do their thing with those engines hanging out there. I wonder if the engines can take negative g’s for a long time? It would never get below deck. Not even with a hinged vertical, I don’t think. It is one thing to make a landing in good weather with a clear deck and another do fit it into the run of normal carrier operations. The bigger candidate for COD in my mind would be the Army Future Combat Aircraft, a baby C-130 about the size of the Sherpa and the existing C-2. With some minor variations, this might be very workable. Hmm I fyou put the wind on a swivel – like the laminar flow air wing- that would solve the wing folding problem. You just swivel the wing so its in line with the birds body. You would have to move the engines to swing out Full shrouded pods attached to the body. A variation of the original Osprey design. The use of pods would have the side benefit of giving the plane STOL capabiliy. The bird wuold be marvel to behold, but there would be issues with metal fatigue. The problem with the C-27 and C-295 for COD is they carry about the same weight as the C-2 and they don’t have the structure for the tail hook. The C-130 comes in slow because the 4 engines create lift by blowing the wing. The C-130J would have been a better COD candidate if they’d counter rotated the engines. The twist in the flow from the AE2100 + 6 bladed props changed the stall characteristics of the plane to be a little worse than the older models. They still would need to fold the wing. I like the oblique wing idea.