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

[Iwan Bogels]

Check out http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm

This video is about a (then) highly classified project to land a C-130 at a
soccer field, and get it back airborne from the same field with even more
load than during landing. The landing test caused the Herc to virtually
hover over the site, and the video is almost inbelieveble.

[Pechs1]

<< Check out http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm >><BR><BR>

Why these guys get flight pay...holy ****!!
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[nafod40]

Pechs1 wrote:
> << Check out http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm >><BR><BR>
>
> Why these guys get flight pay...holy ****!!

I can just picture the view out of the cockpit, as the retros are firing
early. "This is gonna hurt...!"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
...
>
> Check out http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm
>
> This video is about a (then) highly classified project to land a C-130 at
> a
> soccer field, and get it back airborne from the same field with even more
> load than during landing. The landing test caused the Herc to virtually
> hover over the site, and the video is almost inbelieveble.
>

It isn't mentioned on the site or in the video, but this wasn't just some
experiment to see how short a C-130 can land. The goal was to get in and
out of a sports stadium in Teheran to rescue the American hostages held in
Iran in 1979-1980.

[Iwan Bogels]

This was the full story that I posted on other groups:

On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in
Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This terrorist act
lasted 444 days and during this period the US tried to think of several ways
to set the hostages free.

One revolutionary idea was to land a C-130 Hercules at a soccer field near
the hostage site and set the hostages free with military force. As a soccer
field in the middle of a city is virtually impossible to use as a landing
site, the USAF had to make drastic conversions to their aircraft in order to
even think of a chance of success.

The result was the "Credible Sport" project, in which four regular C-130H
aircraft were converted into YMC-130H specials with ESTOL (Extremely Short
Take Off and Landing) capabilities. In order to achieve the ultra short
landing and take-off, several rockets had to be installed to force the
aircraft to a quick stop and get it back airborne with a full load of people
within 300 feet. It was determined that 180,000 of thrust, equal to nearly
20 times the C-130's standard turboprop engines, would be required to get a
C-130 off in the length of a soccer field and over the surrounding
obstructions. The plane would be 300 feet in the air after traveling 300
feet forward and with a take off roll of just 100 feet.

Forward pointing rockets were installed to provide reverse thrust during
landing, as well as downward pointed rockets to cushon the landing. In order
to bring such a heavy aircraft to a quick stop, the amount of rocket power
was unprecedented. Needless to say that this aircraft had to be tested
before it could be used in action, and unfortunately the first test flight
did not go as planned.

See the test for yourself at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm




"Steven P. McNicoll" > schreef in bericht
k.net...
>
> "Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Check out http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm
> >
> > This video is about a (then) highly classified project to land a C-130
at
> > a
> > soccer field, and get it back airborne from the same field with even
more
> > load than during landing. The landing test caused the Herc to virtually
> > hover over the site, and the video is almost inbelieveble.
> >
>
> It isn't mentioned on the site or in the video, but this wasn't just some
> experiment to see how short a C-130 can land. The goal was to get in and
> out of a sports stadium in Teheran to rescue the American hostages held in
> Iran in 1979-1980.
>
>

[William W. Plummer]

Iwan Bogels wrote:
> This was the full story that I posted on other groups:
>
> On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in
> Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This terrorist act
> lasted 444 days and during this period the US tried to think of several ways
> to set the hostages free.
>
> One revolutionary idea was to land a C-130 Hercules at a soccer field near
> the hostage site and set the hostages free with military force. As a soccer
> field in the middle of a city is virtually impossible to use as a landing
> site, the USAF had to make drastic conversions to their aircraft in order to
> even think of a chance of success.
>
> The result was the "Credible Sport" project, in which four regular C-130H
> aircraft were converted into YMC-130H specials with ESTOL (Extremely Short
> Take Off and Landing) capabilities. In order to achieve the ultra short
> landing and take-off, several rockets had to be installed to force the
> aircraft to a quick stop and get it back airborne with a full load of people
> within 300 feet. It was determined that 180,000 of thrust, equal to nearly
> 20 times the C-130's standard turboprop engines, would be required to get a
> C-130 off in the length of a soccer field and over the surrounding
> obstructions. The plane would be 300 feet in the air after traveling 300
> feet forward and with a take off roll of just 100 feet.
>
> Forward pointing rockets were installed to provide reverse thrust during
> landing, as well as downward pointed rockets to cushon the landing. In order
> to bring such a heavy aircraft to a quick stop, the amount of rocket power
> was unprecedented. Needless to say that this aircraft had to be tested
> before it could be used in action, and unfortunately the first test flight
> did not go as planned.
>
> See the test for yourself at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm
>
>
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > schreef in bericht
> k.net...
>
>>"Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Check out http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm
>>>
>>>This video is about a (then) highly classified project to land a C-130
>
> at
>
>>>a
>>>soccer field, and get it back airborne from the same field with even
>
> more
>
>>>load than during landing. The landing test caused the Herc to virtually
>>>hover over the site, and the video is almost inbelieveble.
>>>
>>
>>It isn't mentioned on the site or in the video, but this wasn't just some
>>experiment to see how short a C-130 can land. The goal was to get in and
>>out of a sports stadium in Teheran to rescue the American hostages held in
>>Iran in 1979-1980.

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.

[Andrew Venor]

William W. Plummer wrote:
> Iwan Bogels wrote:
>
>> This was the full story that I posted on other groups:
>>
>> On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States
>> Embassy in
>> Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This
>> terrorist act
>> lasted 444 days and during this period the US tried to think of
>> several ways
>> to set the hostages free.
>>
>> One revolutionary idea was to land a C-130 Hercules at a soccer field
>> near
>> the hostage site and set the hostages free with military force. As a
>> soccer
>> field in the middle of a city is virtually impossible to use as a landing
>> site, the USAF had to make drastic conversions to their aircraft in
>> order to
>> even think of a chance of success.
>>
>> The result was the "Credible Sport" project, in which four regular C-130H
>> aircraft were converted into YMC-130H specials with ESTOL (Extremely
>> Short
>> Take Off and Landing) capabilities. In order to achieve the ultra short
>> landing and take-off, several rockets had to be installed to force the
>> aircraft to a quick stop and get it back airborne with a full load of
>> people
>> within 300 feet. It was determined that 180,000 of thrust, equal to
>> nearly
>> 20 times the C-130's standard turboprop engines, would be required to
>> get a
>> C-130 off in the length of a soccer field and over the surrounding
>> obstructions. The plane would be 300 feet in the air after traveling 300
>> feet forward and with a take off roll of just 100 feet.
>>
>> Forward pointing rockets were installed to provide reverse thrust during
>> landing, as well as downward pointed rockets to cushon the landing. In
>> order
>> to bring such a heavy aircraft to a quick stop, the amount of rocket
>> power
>> was unprecedented. Needless to say that this aircraft had to be tested
>> before it could be used in action, and unfortunately the first test
>> flight
>> did not go as planned.
>>
>> See the test for yourself at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > schreef in bericht
>> k.net...
>>
>>> "Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Check out http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm
>>>>
>>>> This video is about a (then) highly classified project to land a C-130
>>
>>
>> at
>>
>>>> a
>>>> soccer field, and get it back airborne from the same field with even
>>
>>
>> more
>>
>>>> load than during landing. The landing test caused the Herc to virtually
>>>> hover over the site, and the video is almost inbelieveble.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't mentioned on the site or in the video, but this wasn't just
>>> some
>>> experiment to see how short a C-130 can land. The goal was to get in
>>> and
>>> out of a sports stadium in Teheran to rescue the American hostages
>>> held in
>>> Iran in 1979-1980.
>
>
> 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.

Air and Space Smithsonian Magazine has footage of a C-130 landing and
launching from the Forestall on their web site.

http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/asm/web/site/QT/menu.html

ALV

[Gord Beaman]

"Iwan Bogels" > wrote:

>This was the full story that I posted on other groups:
>

Christ on a crutch!!...heroic attempt anyway...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[John Dallman]

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.

[Larry]

"John Dallman" > wrote in message
...
> 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.




> On a carrier deck, you can at least rely on the wheels for some of your
> braking.

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
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
USN 'Retired'

[Bob Moore]

"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

[Gord Beaman]

(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.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

"Larry" > wrote:
snip
>
>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
>AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
>USN 'Retired'
>
>
>
Larry, didn't the 130 use prop reverse either?...or do you
know?...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Dave in San diego]

Bob Moore > wrote in
. 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

Yes, they certainly did. That was the singular mod to the bird for the
project, beefing up the brakes. I worked for someone who was in the
squadron at the time and he gave us lots of background on the whole deal.

Dave in San Diego

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:00:45 -0800, "Larry"
> wrote:

>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

But if you READ - you'll see this is all in reference to a C-130 and
the oh-so-famous KC-130F landing on a carrier. In that case the
aircraft MUST have used brakes, since it DID NOT make an arrested
landing.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[C.D.Damron]

"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.

[Bob Moore]

"C.D.Damron" > wrote

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

It sure-as-hell was! I observed the official USN film at
the time and the narator stated that the co-pilot had
used the over-ride for the reverse lock-out and reversed
the engines at about 3' above the deck while the pilot
flew to touchdown.

Bob Moore
Naval Aviator 1958-1967

[Gord Beaman]

"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)

[[email protected]]

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

[C.D.Damron]

"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.

[Gord Beaman]

"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)

[Gord Beaman]

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)

[Larry]

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

Larry

[Yofuri]

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

[Gord Beaman]

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)

[Jake Donovan]

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

[Iwan Bogels]

"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

[Yofuri]

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/military/systems/aircraft/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

[Gord Beaman]

(Pechs1) wrote:

>Jake-<< Flately was awarded a DFC. >><BR><BR>
>
>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)

[Tex Houston]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (Pechs1) wrote:
>
>>Jake-<< Flately was awarded a DFC. >><BR><BR>
>>
>>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

[Gord Beaman]

"Tex Houston" > wrote:

>>
>> 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
>
For sure...yes, as you say two tasks. I suppose there must have
been very solid reasons...and likely quite heated opinions on
both sides during the planning stages...the Military isn't known
for doing serious things like this willy-nilly.

It was likely as you say, although I'm sure some might think that
there were ulterior motives, I doubt it on second thought.
Thanks.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[w4okw]

Hi Jake, et al,

Actually the Herk has no "lockout "(the P-3 does however) to prevent going
into beta inflight. Just lift the power levers over the ramp. The big blue
sleeping pill sez don't do it! Good call.

I can't imagine a pitchlocked prop while coming over the ramp - that would
really wreck your lineup!

BTW back in the 70s NATC Pax actually did some FCLPs in the P-3, but cool
heads prevailed and the project never went to the boat!

Tom Clarke
Herks at Pax
"Jake Donovan" > wrote in message
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
>
> 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
>
>