Lockheed C-130 Hercules Prototypes, Variants & Projects

[TJDougherty01]

Photos of a C-130J in Airshow Demonstration. I took these around 2014 & 2016. Part of the Rhode Island National Guard aircraft.

 

[Pioneer]

Well, bugger.

Guess it's a C130 seaplane or US2 or nothing. And since the US2 isn't anywhere near as big a fuselage as a C130 despite the same engines (plus an extra for BLC)...

And I think this is one of a few principles people aren't seeing:
-The C-130 is inherently designed and built as a transport aircraft - unlike the US-2;
-As a designed and built transport aircraft, it's tail ramp configuration will allow much more versatile loading and unloading (hence the float configuration of the proposed C-130 Floatplane [the flying boat configuration of the US-2 negates a loading ramp and although it might be able to have large fuselage cargo doors incorporated, such a configuration doesn't allow/give ease of roll on, roll off of vehicles and equipment];
-The use of a C-130 Floatplane design would give a high commonality with existing U.S. military ORBAT. Where as the adoption of the US-2 add another logistic, training issues...


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Firefinder]

And I think this is one of a few principles people aren't seeing:
-The C-130 is inherently designed and built as a transport aircraft - unlike the US-2;
-As a designed and built transport aircraft, it's tail ramp configuration will allow much more versatile loading and unloading (hence the float configuration of the proposed C-130 Floatplane [the flying boat configuration of the US-2 negates a loading ramp and although it might be able to have large fuselage cargo doors incorporated, such a configuration doesn't allow/give ease of roll on, roll off of vehicles and equipment];
-The use of a C-130 Floatplane design would give a high commonality with existing U.S. military ORBAT. Where as the adoption of the US-2 add another logistic, training issues...


Regards
Pioneer

Issue is that a C130 floatplane will need...

Basically new EVERYTHING to be safely used. Engines, ectronics, gear, frame, even training to handle the downright hellish change of handling characteristics.

Like this WOULD NOT be an easy modification. Generally planes that can get floats addedare either specially made for that or are small enough to fit in the C130 cargo bay. Heck as is the biggest Floatplane Im aware of is the DC3 which was a third of the size and was hard enough to do that they only made 2 of.

At best a C130 float plane be a C130 in name only at double the price.

It will be cheaper to either build a specialized Seaplane version ala Tradewind or buy off the self like the new Turboprop Albatross.

 

[Pioneer]

Good and valid points you make Firefinder.

I wouldn't worry about the issues of price either, after all, when has the Pentagon given a crap about price - especially if it's related to Special Forces and on top of that the bipartisan politcal/military "pivot to the Pacific" to face off their newly founded and endorce idelogical enemy - China.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

Issue is that a C130 floatplane will need...

Basically new EVERYTHING to be safely used. Engines, ectronics, gear, frame, even training to handle the downright hellish change of handling characteristics.

Like this WOULD NOT be an easy modification. Generally planes that can get floats addedare either specially made for that or are small enough to fit in the C130 cargo bay. Heck as is the biggest Floatplane Im aware of is the DC3 which was a third of the size and was hard enough to do that they only made 2 of.

At best a C130 float plane be a C130 in name only at double the price.

It will be cheaper to either build a specialized Seaplane version ala Tradewind or buy off the self like the new Turboprop Albatross.

Hell, just flying off of water is complex enough that it's considered a whole separate rating civilian-side. You got the right certs for a Cessna 182RG? (complex, high power, retractable gear)

Well, if you want to fly a 182 on amphibious floats, you need about as much training time as getting your pilot's license in the first place.

 

[Apophenia]

... Heck as is the biggest Floatplane Im aware of is the DC3 which was a third of the size and was hard enough to do that they only made 2 of...

Only two twin-float Douglas/Edo XC-47Cs were built because they were no longer needed operationally. And those two XC-47C prototypes were far from the largest floatplanes ever flown.

The Italian trimotor Z.506 was about the same size as the XC-47C and CANT built 356 of those during WW2 - albeit, most were patrol aircraft, not transports. But Filippo Zappata's Z.511 was a transport and it was slightly larger than a C-130 - at least in span and wing area.

I'm thinking the big challenges for a float-equipped Hercules would be weight - the empty weight of the C-130 being about the same as the MTOW for the CANT Z.511. Mind you, the C-130 has at least three times as much power to counter that weight increase.

Doubtless, significant modifications would be needed to turn the C-130 into an operational floatplane. And the need for specialized training is a given ... but not a deal-breaker if the operational need was there. I'm thinking that the situation in the South China Sea at least hints at a possible need.

Here's the thing: Lockheed Martin gross profit for FY2023 was USD 8.426 billion. If LM wanted to expedite a float Herk, sounds like they've got the petty cash available to do a PoC demonstrator conversion. So why don't they?

Just for context, Edo designed its Model 78 float gear for the XC-47C with a retractable wheel gear incorporating parts of the original C-47 undercarriage. (So, rather more complicated than simple floats tucked under a C-130.) Neither Douglas nor Edo installed those floats - all mods were performed by American Airlines. Within two weeks of its maiden flight, the first XC-47C was delivered to Wright Field for service tests. Actual conversions happened fast back in the day.

By contrast, LM has proposed/studied/imagineered float C-130s for decades without ever being willing to pony up. I'm thinking that Lockheed Martin should go ahead an build and test such a float conversion or just shut up about it ...

 

[Scott Kenny]

The issue I see with a Herc on floats is loading and offloading cargo.

Those floats are going to put the cargo floor probably 2m above the no-floats Herc floor.

Design a damn seaplane and give it a cargo ramp aft.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

The Lockheed had old project called C-130J,it was developed
from C-130E with increase aileron and rudder chords,wider u/c
track,improved braking system and additional armoured protection;
do you have a drawing to it ?,(of course I know there was a new project
to Lockheed in 1996 called C-130J ).

From Putnam's book.

 

[riggerrob]

Hell, just flying off of water is complex enough that it's considered a whole separate rating civilian-side. You got the right certs for a Cessna 182RG? (complex, high power, retractable gear)

Well, if you want to fly a 182 on amphibious floats, you need about as much training time as getting your pilot's license in the first place.

Transport Canada says that you can add a float rating - to your pilot license - in as little as 7 hours of instruction. Taking off from a smooth lake is only a tiny fraction of the knowledge needed to operate around harbours, rivers, boats, etc. Mind you, most insurance companies want new pilots to have at least 50 hours of float time. That is why some Canadian flight schools offer 15 hour courses or 50 hour courses.

 

[riggerrob]

Issue is that a C130 floatplane will need...

Basically new EVERYTHING to be safely used. Engines, ectronics, gear, frame, even training to handle the downright hellish change of handling characteristics.

Like this WOULD NOT be an easy modification. Generally planes that can get floats addedare either specially made for that or are small enough to fit in the C130 cargo bay. Heck as is the biggest Floatplane Im aware of is the DC3 which was a third of the size and was hard enough to do that they only made 2 of.

At best a C130 float plane be a C130 in name only at double the price.

It will be cheaper to either build a specialized Seaplane version ala Tradewind or buy off the self like the new Turboprop Albatross.

C-130 starts with a huge advantage in that it is already STOL. Seaplanes need STOL performance to slow landing speeds and minimize pounding when operating from rough water. And I am only referring to the rough water inside harbours and atolls. Not even Grumman or Consolidated knew how to make seaplanes survive landings in large ocean waves.

 

[Apophenia]

The issue I see with a Herc on floats is loading and offloading cargo.

Those floats are going to put the cargo floor probably 2m above the no-floats Herc floor.

Design a damn seaplane and give it a cargo ramp aft.

For a Herc on floats, delete the upward folding door section and substitute a new ramp which extends for the entire length of the rear cargo hold opening. With suitably-sized hydraulics, that 2 metres is not going to be a problem.