C-130

Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
This is not about some "A" model or what ever, the planes are flat a bad design, for flying with alot of weight the wings should not be over slung. And if your going to use a high wing design then build them like a cessna with wing struts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-removes-c-130s-from-service-after-finding-cracks-2019-8
The wings look like they are very low surface area, and thus very highly loaded.


Bull. It is an outstanding aircraft. It would unsettle you to know how many different aircraft, such as commercial aircraft, have cracks discovered that need fixed. They'll fix them and get them flying again. There is a reason they inspect aircraft for cracks, and the big one is that they are made with aluminum. All aircraft undergo inspection after a certain number of hours for these kinds of problems. These things are flying trucks, and they get and take LOTS of abuse. And the C130 does not have a particularly high wing loading.
 
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
This is not about some "A" model or what ever, the planes are flat a bad design, for flying with alot of weight the wings should not be over slung. And if your going to use a high wing design then build them like a cessna with wing struts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-removes-c-130s-from-service-after-finding-cracks-2019-8
The wings look like they are very low surface area, and thus very highly loaded.


I'm sorry, you're completely wrong on this.

The C-130 is one of the toughest, most durable, and most versatile airplanes ever built. It first flew in 1956.

A few older ones have crashed, due to poor maintenance, but it's been in service for over 50 years. New models are still being built. No other airplane in the world has ever been in service, or production, for this long.

That's how good the airplane is.

Want to see some serious C-130 flying? Watch the Blue Angels' Fat Albert do a JATO takeoff - simply awesome.
 
Last edited:
The USMC, USAF and USCG are picking up another 50 C-130J variants, the last of which will be delivered in 2025. The following year a customer will take delivery of one when the C-130 line turns 70 years old. There are probably families in Marietta that have had three generations work on the C-130. A badly designed workhorse transport could not last 70+ years.
https://janes.com/article/93674/pentagon-awards-lockheed-martin-c-130j-multiyear-contract
 
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The old DC-6's are a better plane.
Then there is this one that is a recent downing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Chilean_Air_Force_C-130_crash
The stronger airframe was C-97/ KC-97 much better than a C-130.


Sorry dude, you are a lone voice screaming against a torrent of disagreement, it might be time to man up and just admit you are completely wrong in your assertion. You've had multiple US military vets and an active US military pilot tell you that's the case and nobody in their right might would take your impotent posturing over the data they've presented.
 
C130s live on and on like the old DC3... Herky Turds are you're modern day Goony Birds...

[Linked Image]
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by spasm3
Astro, I'm also amazed at how short they can land and stop!


Yeah, they can get in and out of places many planes cannot, particularly with the JATO system on them. Before our local runway was lengthened the only military planes that would land there were C-130's, coming in for training from CFB Trenton. The big Herc is the backbone of our transport operations and a vet I work with spent quite a bit of time in them including some pretty crazy long hauls when he was stationed in Germany.

Couple Canuck vids of the old girl in action. 2nd vid is a plane commissioned in 1965 doing its last flight before retirement.
 
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The old DC-6's are a better plane.
Then there is this one that is a recent downing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Chilean_Air_Force_C-130_crash
The stronger airframe was C-97/ KC-97 much better than a C-130.


The DC-6 had a horrific crash record.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Douglas_DC-6

Notably killing presidents of countries, the UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarakjold, and generally without survivors after in flight fires. The turbo-charged engines had a terrible reliability record, and caught fire or failed with depressing regularity.

Several crashes per year. Several dozen crashes during its brief 12 year production run.

You can't be serious in your claim that the DC-6 was better...
 
The Marines KC-130 that broke apart in flight kind of surprised me.

I do know they do non destructive testing looking for cracks in the aircraft.
 
Short takeoffs and landings? Tough? Take a look at this!


All done while carrying full load and without using the arrestor or catapult. Amazing.
 
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
The Marines KC-130 that broke apart in flight kind of surprised me.

I do know they do non destructive testing looking for cracks in the aircraft.


The USMC C-130 that broke apart was the result of poor maintenance.

Read more here: https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...e-will-make-sure-it-doesnt-happen-again/

Not a problem with the airplane, or its design.

The USAF depot that overhauled propellers cut corners and turned out a shoddy product. That prop failed in flight.

The USAF, USN, and USMC had to ground all of their C-130s to be certain that their props were unaffected by this bad work. They found a lot of bad prop blades during the grounding.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The old DC-6's are a better plane.
Then there is this one that is a recent downing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Chilean_Air_Force_C-130_crash
The stronger airframe was C-97/ KC-97 much better than a C-130.

Countries have numerous options to chose from when it comes to transport airplanes.
When one is choosing planes it is choose combination of variables. C-130 checks most boxes, and serious air forces that have long term vision, or do not have domestically produced transporter choose C-130. I can guarantee you that C130 will stay in production long after A400 or similar planes. It is simple, good logistics, established maintenance, etc. Everything you need for a work horse.
If other planes were better, they would still be in production doing job that C130 is doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4WD
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The old DC-6's are a better plane.
Then there is this one that is a recent downing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Chilean_Air_Force_C-130_crash
The stronger airframe was C-97/ KC-97 much better than a C-130.


The DC-6 had a horrific crash record.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Douglas_DC-6

Notably killing presidents of countries, the UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarakjold, and generally without survivors after in flight fires. The turbo-charged engines had a terrible reliability record, and caught fire or failed with depressing regularity.

Several crashes per year. Several dozen crashes during its brief 12 year production run.

You can't be serious in your claim that the DC-6 was better...


Most all crashes in the old days 1950's thru 1970's, was due to lack of air traffic control and navigation system. As we speak DC-6's are working and making money, hauling supplies, fuel and such, daily. And during the time they've been working how many C-130's have bit the dust so to say? Oh and even with the over priced fuel, they are still orders of magnitude cheaper to operate than any turbine powered plane.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The old DC-6's are a better plane.
Then there is this one that is a recent downing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Chilean_Air_Force_C-130_crash
The stronger airframe was C-97/ KC-97 much better than a C-130.


The DC-6 had a horrific crash record.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Douglas_DC-6

Notably killing presidents of countries, the UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarakjold, and generally without survivors after in flight fires. The turbo-charged engines had a terrible reliability record, and caught fire or failed with depressing regularity.

Several crashes per year. Several dozen crashes during its brief 12 year production run.

You can't be serious in your claim that the DC-6 was better...


Most all crashes in the old days 1950's thru 1970's, was due to lack of air traffic control and navigation system. As we speak DC-6's are working and making money, hauling supplies, fuel and such, daily. And during the time they've been working how many C-130's have bit the dust so to say? Oh and even with the over priced fuel, they are still orders of magnitude cheaper to operate than any turbine powered plane.

I am not sure you have read your own post.
There were 704 DC6 made and more than 2,500 C130. C130 is regularly in combat zone. C130 is doing all you said DC6 is doing + more. Actually there are many other planes that are doing much more than DC6 like numerous Russian Antonov versions that are hauling UN troops etc. I am not sure what is your point? What are you trying to say? That DC6 is better plane? OK. Why it is not in service of numerous militaries around the world then? There is always need for more transport planes and helicopters. There is always an air force that will latch on good transport airplane, yet DC6 is not there. There are An26 and 30's in numerous air forces, but not DC6. According to Wikipedia, there are only 47 airworthy DC6. If that plane is such money maker, it would be much more common occurrence.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
The old DC-6's are a better plane.
Then there is this one that is a recent downing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Chilean_Air_Force_C-130_crash
The stronger airframe was C-97/ KC-97 much better than a C-130.


The DC-6 had a horrific crash record.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Douglas_DC-6

Notably killing presidents of countries, the UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarakjold, and generally without survivors after in flight fires. The turbo-charged engines had a terrible reliability record, and caught fire or failed with depressing regularity.

Several crashes per year. Several dozen crashes during its brief 12 year production run.

You can't be serious in your claim that the DC-6 was better...


Most all crashes in the old days 1950's thru 1970's, was due to lack of air traffic control and navigation system. As we speak DC-6's are working and making money, hauling supplies, fuel and such, daily. And during the time they've been working how many C-130's have bit the dust so to say? Oh and even with the over priced fuel, they are still orders of magnitude cheaper to operate than any turbine powered plane.

I am not sure you have read your own post.
There were 704 DC6 made and more than 2,500 C130. C130 is regularly in combat zone. C130 is doing all you said DC6 is doing + more. Actually there are many other planes that are doing much more than DC6 like numerous Russian Antonov versions that are hauling UN troops etc. I am not sure what is your point? What are you trying to say? That DC6 is better plane? OK. Why it is not in service of numerous militaries around the world then? There is always need for more transport planes and helicopters. There is always an air force that will latch on good transport airplane, yet DC6 is not there. There are An26 and 30's in numerous air forces, but not DC6. According to Wikipedia, there are only 47 airworthy DC6. If that plane is such money maker, it would be much more common occurrence.

The same reason some of the good old cars and trucks of the past are not being made now. The higher ups (powers that be) hate piston powered aircraft. And no one building planes wants to go back to the old days and build things the right way.
They prefer to do it this way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxxtzBTxGU
Also manufactures of airliners are used to $5 million or more per engine and hundreds of millions for the planes, no one would pay that for a new propliner that would have sold for a million or less in the day.
 
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases

The same reason some of the good old cars and trucks of the past are not being made now. The higher ups (powers that be) hate piston powered aircraft. And no one building planes wants to go back to the old days and build things the right way.
They prefer to do it this way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxxtzBTxGU
Also manufactures of airliners are used to $5 million or more per engine and hundreds of millions for the planes, no one would pay that for a new propliner that would have sold for a million or less in the day.

Yep, this wins the day.
 
Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
This thread is starting to remind me of the adage "Don't argue with a fool. He'll just drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience."

I thought name calling is not allowed? Because things are said that aren't what some other person doesn't like to hear about a product, it doesn't mean the person saying it is a "fool".
 
Back
Top