Talk:Lockheed C-130 Hercules/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

C-130J problems?

I remember reading a story on serious problems regarding the C130J, along with its undeserved likeability in Congress, due to the amount of jobs it creates, or something like that. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? --24.118.77.253 17:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-130j.htm near the bottom. "The Pentagon's inspector general in a 34-page report [dated 23 July 2004] that substantiated the allegation that the C-130J aircraft does not meet contract specifications and therefore cannot perform its operational mission. The Air Force conditionally accepted 50 C-130J aircraft at a cost of $2.6 billion even though none of the aircraft met commercial contract specifications or operational requirements. The Air Force also paid Lockheed Martin more than 99 percent of the C-130J aircraft's contracted price for the delivered aircraft. As a result, the Government fielded C-130J aircraft that cannot perform their intended mission, which forces the users to incur additional operations and maintenance costs to operate and maintain older C-130 mission-capable aircraft because the C-130J aircraft can be used only for training." --165.134.132.123 14:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing engines in format change

What's the deal with the other engines that were listed in the old infobox? I thought that was supposed to be one of the big advantages of using a list rather than an infobox, but this worked just fine in the infobox but now is missing in the list format.

• 4 × Rolls-Royce AE 2100 turboprops
• Power 4 × 4,910 hp 4 × 3,600 kW
  

Gene Nygaard 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Gene - note that my revision was the C-130H only. That's what the new imperial figures are for, and that's why there's only one engine type. The "Models" section should be where the various engines are. -eric ✈ 03:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Leftover images

I've rearranged (slightly) the flow of the article and I removed two of the pictures, which I've left here in case they're needed again:

Inside of a French troop transport C-130

French C-130 Hercules on the tarmac of Mostar in 1996, bringing a French IFOR unit back home.

This article could still use better flow and formatting, so this is just a start.

Crashes (Supplementary)

The RAF crash in Iraq was by a bullet from a guerrilla machine gun.

There was a crash of Indoneisan military force in Kai Tak Airport, Hong Kong check the crash on Sept 23, 1994.

Added information about July 15th, 1996 crash of Belgian Airforce C130 at Welschap Airport in Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

crashes

Are all of these notable? Why are we listing so damn many? Just curious. ericg ✈ 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fat Albert

I come from an RAF family and all Hercules have been given the affectionate nickname of 'Fat Albert', not just the C-130T used by the Blue Angels. I don't have any documentary evidence of this, but at the Royal International Air Tattoo this weekend, the commentators again referred to the Herc as 'Fat Albert', so it's not just me! Does anybody have any more solid evidence for this? Are any other nicknames used by other air forces? --Bryces 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Link between C-130 Hercules and Howard Hughes' Hercules?

I'm not sure, but I mean to remember that Howard Hughes built the first airplane of this specific type (was able to transport large loads), and it had the same name, too. His Hercules couldn't match the ones that followed, but I think he deserves a mention and a link with the new Hercules on these pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spruce_Goose

The C-130 Hercules and the Hughes H-4 Hercules are completely unrelated aircraft. If anything, we should provide a link on this page "not to be confused with the Hughes H-4 Hercules". Willy Logan 14:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

More like, Lockheed chose the Hercules name as the most appropriate galaxy-related name for the C-130, in keeping with their company pattern (Orion, Vega, Lightning, Constellation, et al). Mark Sublette (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbased but I had also heard it was named hercules in retrospect of Hughes vision for the army requirments. Noserider 21:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldest operational Hercules?

I have been told in the past that the Royal New Zealand Air Force flies the oldest operation hercules, I once even asked the current air vice marshal if it was true, to which he replied that he had heard that too.

Is this worthy of adding to the article, if it can be confirmed?

--Oldest?--

The first RNZAF C-130 was/is c.n. 4042, NZ7001, delivered March 1963. There are MANY Hercules still in service that were built earlier with lower c.n.s, according the Lars Olausson's Production List. Mark Sublette (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

C-130A MSN 3004 is still flying with the Mexican Air Force was the fourth production Herc so probably delivered about 1958 (was serial 53-3132) - only 49 years old. MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be probably the oldest one... Yup! Mark Sublette (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Four Horsemen

Perhaps a snippet should be added to the article about "The Four Horsemen" -- A C-130 demonstration team a la the Thunderbirds. 147.145.40.43 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of Design Entries

The article states: The remaining five companies tendered a total of nine designs: Lockheed two, Boeing one, Chase three, Douglas three, Airlifts Inc one.

2+1+3+3+1 = 10, not 9. What is the correct number? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.96.14 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

LAPES

An article on C-130's without a mention of LAPES? This airplane made LAPES a reality... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Altitude_Parachute_Extraction_System SeattleRetro 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...so add it? Akradecki 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Units/ Operators

Should the list of Operators be removed and merged with the external article List of units using the C-130 Hercules, then perhaps renamed List of operators of the Hercules. MilborneOne 12:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of C-130 Hercules operators follows the standard format (also: yes). ericg ✈ 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Falklands War

C-130s played a very important (and dangerous) role in daily re-supply flights to the Argentine garrison in the Falklands, among other roles. Only one was lost during the war. I think this should be mentioned. Grant | Talk 02:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• One of the first couple of paragraphs in the Operational use section looks like the place to add that. -Fnlayson 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Name Origin

Does the number 130 have any meaning? - 74.120.3.178 06:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very unlikely. Looks like it was the next number available. See designation sequence near bottom of article. Also look at 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system for general info on the current US system. -~

Additional Photos

I have access to a large number of early C-130 photographs from operational missions - ski-equipped JATO take-offs from the ice-cap, for instance. My father was a very early operational pilot and something of a shutterbug. Would any of these be of value?24.252.199.248 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Probably so. This article has a lot of images, but maybe some can be replaced by similar better ones... -Fnlayson 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I must voice concern over how many pictures are in this article. Almost the entire right hand side of the article is filled with pictures. It seems that we are adding pictures for the sake of adding pictures. I suggest that we go through the pictures and decide which ones are actually valuable, and move the rest to Commons. Keep only a handful of pictures, just to illustrate some of the examples shown. ThePointblank 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are probably too many images in this article. We could perhaps alleviate this somewhat by alternating right and left (which we should be doing anyway per the Manual of Style). Also, instead of just throwing good images to the commons, we could consider keeping some in a gallery. --Scott Wilson 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started the process of moving pictures out of the article, selecting ones that I think appear are the best illustrators of the various sections. Some more work can be done here. ThePointblank (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Compass Call Redirection

Should compass call actually redirect to the page for the actual aircraft and not to this page? Someone else want to confirm this and then we can make the necessary changes. I find it terribly inconvenient to have to find the page through this one. TauntingElf (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

COuld you list the exact links you're refering too? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC-130H_Compass_Call TauntingElf (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, Compass Call now redirects to EC-130H Compass Call. Was that all that needed updating? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could also use someone who knows something more about compass call, many of the sections are incomplete and I am not an expert in any way. TauntingElf (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I updated the sectioning and clean-up a couple things. I don't know anything about it. Check the external links to see if they can supply more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mexico

Is mexico in negotiations to purchase 3 more C-130's?? user:homan05 —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cost?

What is the cost/value of a C-130? For example, a C-130H. Possibly US$15 million in 1980 or so?--TGC55 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First flight serial number - vandalism?

The first flight serial number appears to be the subject of vandalism.

1.1 First flight The first flight of the YC-130 prototype was made on 23 August 1954 from the Lockheed plant in Burbank, California. The aircraft, serial number 23-2323, was the second prototype but the first of the two to fly.

Normally, the first two numbers of a USAF aircraft serial number are the last two digits of the US Government fiscal year that the aircraft was authorized. In the case of an aircraft which first flew in August 1954, it could have well been authorized in 1952 or 1953. I submit that the correct serial number would start out 52-xxxx or 53-xxxx.--TGC55 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected it the second prototype was 53-3397. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New C-130J article?

Is there any interest in having an article on the C-130J Super Hercules at this point? I know we already have 5 varaint articles (Lockheed AC-130, Lockheed EC-130, Lockheed HC-130, Lockheed MC-130, and Lockheed WC-130), but I think we could use this one too. According to most sources, the J is a completely new aircraft unnder the skin, with new engines, avionics, and most ofther systems. While this article is not very long at this point (37 KB total), I do think it can be expanded alot more - moving out the J with make room for expansion, while allowing more space for new info on the J to be added, as this is now the major in-production model. I've seen a number of articles linking to the J section in this article, but that doesn't list on "What links here", so we have no way of tabulating those links. (As for name, I believe the "Super" part is unofficial, but using it in the title will help to disambiguate the page from the main one, and the text can state it is most likely unofficial.) Thoughts and comments? - BillCJ (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• No objections, so I've created the new article at C-130J Super Hercules. - BillCJ (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little over a year late on this one, but I don't believe that a separate article is necessary. Although it has new engines, new avionics, etc, it's still a Hercules. Take, for example, B-17 Flying Fortress and B-17 Flying Fortress variants. On the other hand, AC-130s, EC-130s, and MC-130s all have completely different roles from the remainder of the fleet; but, as these aircraft are being "upgraded," is it worth it to create a new article for the EC-130J and all the other J variants? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the split has worked very well, and your's is the first opposition that I know of. Other than certain users adding India as aa operator to the main C-130 page, there have been no problems with editors ajusting to the split. Granted they do have the same roles, but I believe the differences warrant a separate article. In the B-17's case, a "variants" article was used because the list was getting too long, but no one variant really warranted it own page. The C-130's case is quite different, though 8 variant articles (at my last count), may seem a bit much, they all perform differnt roles (J excepted). So far, the J-sub-variants have been covered with the otehr variants, and this seems to work well also. I don't foresee any of the other variant pages getting even half as long as the main page, but there well may be other reasons in the future that warrant separating a J form the others. Time will tell. - BillCJ (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The MC-130 is nothing but a C-130 with advanced equipment. It's mission is the same as any other C-130 - haul troops and cargo. It was developed in the 1960s as a vehicle to support clandestine operations inside hostile territory. AC-130s are variants. As for EC-130s, they are basic C-130s equipped with advanced electronics equipment but there is no major modification to the airframe. SamMcGowan (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any information to include about the proposed sale of this aircraft to "Red" China, purportedly for oil spill cleanup in the ocean? Pfbonney (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Variations

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it, but the section that talks about using the C-130 for air to ground operations mentions the Green Berrets as a movie it was used in, but was it not also used in The Dark Knight? It's been a little bit since I've watched it, but I believe it was a reference to the same system and that it was a C-130 that was used for the pick up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.222.119 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is mentioned on the Fulton surface-to-air recovery system page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system) in the "In popular culture" section, although there is no specification as to the type of aircraft used. Gil gosseyn (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A MATS ARRS HC-130H was used in the Green Berets. SamMcGowan (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge Lockheed L-100 Hercules here

I propose that the stub article Lockheed L-100 Hercules, which is a mere ~120 words and a single source reference, be merged into this article. The contents of that page would be much better as a section here than as a little read stub. The L100 version is already mentioned here so expanding it into a section similar to that of the C130 variants makes a lot of sense to me. Roger (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - This article has existed basically as an orphan since it was created 3-4 years ago - other than you, none of the users that have worked on the article are regular WP:AIR editors to my knowledge, nor do I recognize any of the users as those who regularly work to improve aircraft articles. I've done a lot of work on the C-130 family articles, including starting the C-130J page, and I didn't even know the L-100 page existed! There are know links to this page in the main article to my knowledge. As such, this article probably already has more content on the L-100 page than the stub does, at least what it has appears to be more up-to-date. While we already have 6-8 daughter articles, I do think the L-100 page can be expanded beyond stub form, using much of the material already on the C-130 page. If after a few months there is no significant improvement, then I'd support re-merging it back to the C-130 page. - BilCat (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral - Either way seems OK. But given all the other variants mentioned, I'd rather see the L-100 text merged to Lockheed L-100 Hercules instead of the other way. I'm for giving Bill's suggestion a couple months or so to work and then we can decide which way. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As the proposal has served to prompt the development of the L100 article so that it is no longer a small stub, I withdraw the merge proposal. Roger (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarying Kelly Johnson quote

The Kely Johnson quote early in the article is flagged for clarification. I suggest adding a citation to:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2004/articles/aug_04/hawkins/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

C-130 AMP cancellation

In a few days I'll add AMP, most likely just before J.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/support/maintenance/c130/index.html http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4278693

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/10/morning-smoke-pentagon-estimates-jsf-could-cost-17-billion-more-than-expected-prompts-staffers-to-ca.html as can be seen from their non-response to the cancellation of C-130 AMP. Boeing squanders $1.5 billion and walks away with $150 million of pure profit on a program they bought by bribing a government official and no one has anything to say about it. But you want defense workers to put their careers on the line reporting waste, fraud, and abuse, right? Hcobb (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

POGO is not a relaible news source, especially a blog page. Btw, I didn't see anything related to the C-130/AMP there - can you give a more direct link? The defensenews story is amonth old. Manufacturers don't generally change the product pages immediately, sometimes not for months; responses are generally posted on their News pages. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The program is/was to recompete the full production contract. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

'List of Operators' section discrepancies

The list of the operators of the C-130 is supposedly based on a separate article giving the list (with references). However, I see that India is listed in the article whereas it is not listed in this section. When I went to add the name to the list, I saw a comment which said '<!-- India will only use the C-130J, which has a separate article -->'. Now, I observe that Qatar is listed as an operator here, who have only ordered only the C-130J yet.

My point is, a distinct guideline is required to specify exactly which operators should be mentioned in this list. I recommend that all operators of all C-130 variants be listed here, because that's the natural expectation of the reader since this is more or less a parent or umbrella article of all C-130 variants. VirajParipatyadar (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed Qatar from the list for consistency (with a hidden note) until there is consensus. Ng.j (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The List of operators in this article should only list operators of models actually included in this article. Thus operators (future or current) of the J model do not belong here as this article does not include discussion of the J model, it has a separate article. The civil L100 version also has a separate article that lists its users. Roger (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Survivors information

I've restored the history on the aircraft that just went on display at the Air Force Museum. I agree that the history of this aircraft, as well as the one above it, and the even longer description of the first aircraft on the U.S. list, are a bit long for a aircraft on display. The problem isn't the aircraft's history as written, as much as that we don't have a seprate article on notable C-130 combat incidents, which forces these very important accounts to be placed in the "Survivors" section. We do have an article on C-130 accidents, and another on C-130 losses, but nothing on combat incidents that did not result in the loss of the aircraft. I'm not too terribly worried at this time, as these incidents do seem to fit okay under the "Survivors" section, but I have to think that we are missing out on many notable combat incidents not involving aircraft on display that should be in a section of their own. If anyone would care to make an article on notable combat incidents involving C-130 (preferrable where medals were awarded) it would be welcome, and would help to clean up "survivors" section. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are examples of single events becoming articles. The overwhelming amount of detail is not necessary to identify the importance of the aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

I actually trimmed that down from an article on the action that was about four times longer. I looked and looked, but couldn't find anything else I could cut without loosing vital aspects of the incident. I wish I could be more detailed on this crew's heroics, but I had to limit it to the bare necessities. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All that text is not really needed in the survivors section it only takes a few lines to say why that aircraft was preserved. Combat losses are rarely notable for military aircraft it is part of the job they do, which is why other than recentism that combat losses are not normally covered in articles. So really most of the recently added text can be removed from the survivors section and links provided to notable actions and persons if they have articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Check out the pruning I've done, despite K's admonitions, it is still veeeery long. I created a note to readers as the entire list of the crew is not really needed, but there is reference to a death and wounding. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

I cleaned it up just a bit, though its only a couple of words longer. I think it's important to identify the casualties. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MilborneOne, in cases like this the aircraft is notable because of its combat history. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See again, the object is to pare down to just the essentials. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Looks good, though I'm not sure using the "Aircraft on display" heading is a good idea since it limits the list to only aircraft currently on display, and omits aircraft in private collections, or undergoing restoration. We developed the heading "Survivors" in 2005 while creating the P-61 article because two of the four surviving P-61s were not on diaplay, and we wanted to include them on the list. I wouldn't want any preserved C-130s to be ommited because they're not on public display. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Survivors may be a catch-all term for aircraft out of service that would identify all surviving airframes, but in the case of C-130, the "aircraft on display" title may be more useful, even though it is not the standard for a section title. FWiW, who has a C-130 in a private collection? it isn't a Cessna ... Bzuk (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

We tend not to use survivors for aircraft types currently still in service, so really any aircraft not on public display are not likely to be notable unless the warrant an article of there own. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MilborneOne , now that the world's militaries are using their aircraft for longer periods of time (over 50 years in some cases), this isn't correct anymore. The number of active military aircraft that are also in private collections is increasing rapidly. You can now find privately owned MiG-29, MiG-23, F-4 Phantoms, and even a F-111. There are even a couple of Tu-95 Bears in private hands. The term "Survivors" is more appropriate, as it isn't limiting. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft in private collections are unlikely to be notable enough to be listed if operational examples still exist. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule that only "notable" surviving aircraft should be listed (we have a lot of B-52s listed that aren't notable). The purpose of the "Survivors" section is to list all surviving aircraft that are on government display, or no longer owned by the military. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Cessna 150s, here I come ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

But we do have project guidance that says Survivors should be information on aircraft that have survived following the retirement of the aircraft type from normal military or commercial use. It should include airworthy aircraft and any non-airworthy aircraft not on public display but otherwise notable. so really you are wrong we should not list every surviving aircraft we have enthusiast sites for that not an encylopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Who came up with that, and when? "Notable" is too vague a term to be used here. Our original intention in 2005 was to exclude common aircraft like the Cessna 150s. The problem with this text is that you can have an argument over whether a rare Waco, or Spartan Executive in someone's hangar is actually "notable" enough to be listed. The original intention was to err on the side of inclusion rather that create a rule that excluded an important aircraft. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Things have changed since 2005 whatever the original intention but like all things it works in 99% of aircraft articles so clearly not an issue. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Notability is anything but "too vague a term to be used here", it is in fact very clearly and specifically defined. Roger (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nickname

The skydivers often call the C-130 the "Dirty Herc" or the "Four-Fan-Trash-Can" permission to add that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadplatypus (talk • contribs) 04:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not without a reliable source, you cannot. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lockheed C-130 Hercules/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Bold text As a former Royal Australian Air Force Flight Engineer I am disappointed that the fact that Australia was the first non United States operator of the Hercules is not mentioned in the C130 Hercules article. The RAAF first acquired C130A Hercules in 1958 with 12 examples being bought. These were augmented with 12 C130E models in 1966. The C130A aircraft were replaced by the C130H during 1978. The C130E aircraft were replaced by the C130J-30 a few years ago. The C130 continues to play a major role in the RAAF and will do for many years to come.What is significant is that the RAAF will celebrate 50 years of continuous C130 operations next year. Having operated the "A", "E" and "H" models I was also disappointed to find the F/E had been replaced by computers, as is the 'norm' in all modern aircraft. RAAFHerkman 02:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 02:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

C-130 is NOT a STOL aircraft

By Wikipedia's own definition of STOL the C-130 is NOT a STOL aircraft. It nominally needs 4700 feet to take off over a 15 meter obsticle and 2550 feet to land over a 15 meter obsticle. ref. These specifications are for the new J model which out performs any of the previous models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtabaco (talk • contribs) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It can get somewhat close: "Takeoff Run using max. effort procedures 1,800 ft / 549 m". -Fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your source is obviously incorrect; no realistic aircraft requires a 1 mile takeoff roll, let alone a rough-field capable one. That's a mis-translation. It actually is both in practice and according to this source. They routinely takeoff within 1,200' and land within 800'. Takeoff is shortened even further by the use of RATO.I have re-assigned it to the STOL Aircraft category. Zoltar 8 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-reassigned to STOL Aircraft category and corrected erroneous takeoff distance info IAW source. It obviously doesn't need 3,000' to takeoff, as there is a picture of it sitting on a 1,000' aircraft carrier deck in the article. Please do not alter the article in this regard without prior discussion. Zoltar 8 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You changed the cited takeoff distance without referencing it. This is against policy (WP:V, WP:CITE) on wikipedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your cited reference is incorrect. Please correct it.

Takeoff distance: 1,400 ft (427 m) at 80,000 lb (36,300 Kg) gross weight Landing distance: 1,150 ft (351 m) at 80,000 lb (36,300 Kg)gross weight Source http://www.uscost.net/aircraftcharacteristics/acc130.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoltar 8 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How is that supposed to work? That's less that the C-130H's empty weight (83,000 lb). It'd have to carry negative weight fuel or something. -130.76.96.17 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-c130j-stretch.htm Empty weight 34,275 Kg.Zoltar 8 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• That site appears to somebody's site and may not be a reliable reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the NAVFAC cost engineering website. 71.213.231.193 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your site is inaccurate. Please correct it or explain how an aircraft with a 3,000 foot takeoff roll landed on and got off a 1,000 foot aircraft carrier 21 times without arresting gear or catapults. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sa3OGnFGlA Zoltar 8 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it's a BOOK and the takeoff distance it lists is at MAX weight. I'm aware of the carrier landings, but those were at a light weight. You apparently have no appreciation for what affect almost doubling the takeoff weight has. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If the aircraft is capable of takeoffs and landings within 800' at any weight, it clearly qualifies as a STOL aircraft. Likewise, you must not have any appreciation for the difference between landing roll and abort distance. Yet another reference: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-130j-specs.htm 71.213.231.193 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Posting that J-model specs link a second time in this section does not help. Specs mentioned above are for the C-130H. The 1400 ft @80 klb distance has been added to the specs. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The minimum takeoff distance for the C-130 is NOT 3,000 feet - that is a number that was established in the sixties when 315th Air Division added 500 feet to the 2,500 feet that they decided should be the minimum runway length for forward field operations. The actual takeoff and landing distance is much shorter. You can also get into CFR 14 Part 25 requirements, but they do not apply to military aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamMcGowan (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The C-130's takeoff and landing distances on USS Forrestal are irrelevant. Book distances are in still air. Forrestal was moving at approximately 30 knots into a 20-knot wind, meaning the C-130 was landing and taking off into a 50-knot down-the runway wind. (What this means, for the nonpilots who are obviously writing this silliness, is that had the C-130 been taking off into a hypothetical 100-knot wind, ts takeoff distance would have been zero.173.62.11.221 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier

Hi [1] this BBC article mentioned that the Herc is the largest and heaviest planes able to land on aircraft carriers. I see there is a picture of that in the article, but I could not find any text. Does anyone know if this was a take off under their own power or catapult assisted? Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It is all there, in the first paragraph under Operational history. Paaln (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote needed

I think this article could really do with a hatnote explaining that it excludes the C130J and the L100. The majority of reverted good faith edits of the last year or so have been about those two variants. Roger (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. There are already links in the Variants section that seems to be missed or ignored. I added one at the top. Adjust/improve the wording where needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this earlier today, concerning espec. this article and the ones about F-86. There should be a better way, at the very top, to tell that there are articles about other versions of this aircraft. Also Lockheed F-104/Canadair CF-104 and numerous others. Paaln (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

C130H Life Raft Tubs

The four wing installed lift rafts on the C130H are delivered from the factory with plastic life raft tubs that crack severely after just a few short flights. These plastic life raft plastic tubs can be replaced with much stronger fiberglass life raft tubs wich can be ordered from Lockheed. Each life raft tub has numerous screws that hold it in and it only takes a few short hours for one mechanic to change each one. While awaiting Air Force assets to replace these plastic life raft tubs with much stonger fiberglass tubs they can be removed by removing the numerous screws that hold them into the aircraft and patched used technical order approved materials. Thanks Lockheed you are the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.225.56 (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hercules/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

bad wording ambiguity

Last sentence in first paragraph has what seems conflicting grammar. "The C-130 is one of the only military aircraft to remain in continuous production for over 50 years with its original customer, as the updated C-130J Super Hercules."

Is it "the only military aircraft", or "one of the few"? "one of the only" makes no sense.

I don't know enough about this aircraft or all other military aircraft production to correct the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.234.12 (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)