C-130 Hercules

[PR19_Kit]

That's a screenshot from an FS9 C-130, can't remember who did that, but it's been out a little while.

AFAIK that was a real world proposal from Lockheed, goodness knows why when they had the Pantobase version already planned.

[deathjester]

That's a screenshot from an FS9 C-130, can't remember who did that, but it's been out a little while.

AFAIK that was a real world proposal from Lockheed, goodness knows why when they had the Pantobase version already planned.

What's that then?  oh, I know, it's when they airdrop a tank behind some bad guys,and fly past, shouting, "He's behind you!!"

[PR19_Kit]

Hehe, not exactly!

Lockheed proposed a Herk version that had a sealed hull with only a vestigial waterborne hull shape to operate from water as well as land. It also had tip floats to keep it upright, and to cap it all the thing was also designed to operate from snow and ice as well. It had retractable skis in various places to do that, but they never built the full-size aircraft, limiting themselves to a very large scale model which apparently worked quite well.

The Pantobase system was designed by Stroukoff Corp. who fitted the system to a C-124, which was re-designated the YC-134 and that one really did fly, but the USAF didn't want piston engined stuff to do that job. I don't know why the Panto C-130 wasn't proceeded with, seems like a great idea to me.

[deathjester]

I'm surprised they didn't combine that with the retro rocket idea too!!  Seriously, it sounds great, a Herky Bird that can literally operate from anywhere with enough room to lift off - the US Coastguard would love such a beast.....sudden thought; what if?  This was combined with the huge turbines from earlier in the thread, and a jet flap system, would it be feasible to make an aircraft that size perform like the jet flap test aircraft built by Hunting years ago?

[kitnut617]

Hehe, not exactly!

Lockheed proposed a Herk version that had a sealed hull with only a vestigial waterborne hull shape to operate from water as well as land. It also had tip floats to keep it upright, and to cap it all the thing was also designed to operate from snow and ice as well. It had retractable skis in various places to do that, but they never built the full-size aircraft, limiting themselves to a very large scale model which apparently worked quite well.

The Pantobase system was designed by Stroukoff Corp. who fitted the system to a C-124, which was re-designated the YC-134 and that one really did fly, but the USAF didn't want piston engined stuff to do that job. I don't know why the Panto C-130 wasn't proceeded with, seems like a great idea to me.

The USMC went a bit further, actually commissioning a large scale model of this below for water tank testing which did fine, this pic comes from the USMC website or something like that.  As you can see the floats are enormous, much bigger than dragonslayer's version

[GTX]

I wonder how one would go doing a VSTOL/ESTOL C-130 using a similar concept to that originally planned for the G.222.

Fiat G.222 V/STOL:




Do the same but with lift jets on all four engine positions.

Regards,

Greg

[McColm]

Hi,
The floatplane and the one step hull ideas were tested on models during the 1980's. One of the many reasons that the project failed was the drag factor. Forecasters predicted that in order that the aircraft to have the same range and payload as a C-130 H model the Herc would have to be 25% bigger.

[Mossie]

Here's an answer to that drag issue, ACLS Herc.  Found these on Combat Reform while searching for stuff on XC-8A ACLS.
http://www.combatreform.org/c130.htm

[rickshaw]

How much load capacity does that lose because of the extra engines?   How much range does it lose?  Anybody care to guess?

[kitnut617]

I'd be quite surprised if any design that includes dedicated lift engines will ever get excepted.  Considering they would only be used during a take-off or landing, 98% of the time they would be just 'dead-weight'.  My thinking would go along the lines of a newer and more powerful Pegasus type engine and I've been thinking along those lines about maybe a RR RB-211 with cold and hot nozzles

[MAD]

A rough jet C-130 (made up engines):



Regards,

Greg

Hey I like your jet-C-130 Greg!
How did I miss this
Any chance of an over-wing (upper-surface blowing (USB) jet-engine variant of the C-130 (aka Boeing YC-14 style)?

M.A.D

[rickshaw]

I'd be quite surprised if any design that includes dedicated lift engines will ever get excepted.  Considering they would only be used during a take-off or landing, 98% of the time they would be just 'dead-weight'.  My thinking would go along the lines of a newer and more powerful Pegasus type engine and I've been thinking along those lines about maybe a RR RB-211 with cold and hot nozzles

The obvious answer to that is to either bleed air from the normal engines or to ensure that the lift engines provide something other than just undercarriage alternatives.   I suspect the T56s though might be a bit pushed to provide horsepower and bleed air.  The lift engines though, could give much added thrust, perhaps decreasing the take off run appreciably and the airspeed of the aircraft.

[kitnut617]

I'd be quite surprised if any design that includes dedicated lift engines will ever get excepted.  Considering they would only be used during a take-off or landing, 98% of the time they would be just 'dead-weight'.  My thinking would go along the lines of a newer and more powerful Pegasus type engine and I've been thinking along those lines about maybe a RR RB-211 with cold and hot nozzles

The obvious answer to that is to either bleed air from the normal engines or to ensure that the lift engines provide something other than just undercarriage alternatives.   I suspect the T56s though might be a bit pushed to provide horsepower and bleed air.  The lift engines though, could give much added thrust, perhaps decreasing the take off run appreciably and the airspeed of the aircraft.

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make, what you say is all true, but there's still the point that for 98% of the time all the equipment for it is dead-weight which would restrict the carrying capability of the aircraft.  My thinking for a larger Harrier type engine is after studying the Hawker P.1216 kit I got from Martin, setting up the RB.211 along those lines would be relatively easy and the power would be used 100% of the time.

[rickshaw]

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make, what you say is all true, but there's still the point that for 98% of the time all the equipment for it is dead-weight which would restrict the carrying capability of the aircraft.  My thinking for a larger Harrier type engine is after studying the Hawker P.1216 kit I got from Martin, setting up the RB.211 along those lines would be relatively easy and the power would be used 100% of the time.

Mmm, something along the lines of the AW.681.  Shame no one makes a kit but you could use a Hercules as a starting point, I suppose.

[Mossie]

The idea behind the ACLS is not for VSTOL, but to give an all-surface landing capability.  They aren't lift engines in the normal sense, just there to provide an air cushion like a hovercraft.  The air cushion might help it get it into the the air quicker due to reduced drag, but that's not it's primary purpose.

The added weight argument still applies, although it's a trade off for a go-anywhere capability.  It'd have an advantage over floats in reducing drag & meaning you could land on both land & water.  As Dunc said, practicallity be damned, the XC-8A ACLS had a lot of problems to overcome that are outlined in the link I provided.