Talk:Lockheed C-130 Hercules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

New C-130J article?[edit]

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)

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)

C-130 is NOT a STOL aircraft[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoltar 8 (talkcontribs) 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. - (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC) 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. (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. 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: (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 (talkcontribs) 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. (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


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 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is mentioned on the Fulton surface-to-air recovery system page ( 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[edit]

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[edit]

The Kely Johnson quote early in the article is flagged for clarification. I suggest adding a citation to: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

C-130 AMP cancellation[edit]

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

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[edit]

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)


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 (talkcontribs) 04:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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 necessaryily 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:

    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 NotifyOnline 12:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

bad wording ambiguity[edit]

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 (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

H-4 Hercules omitted?[edit]

Seems like a glaring omission on this page of a link(in "See Also" or in the "for other" section) or mention of the Spruce Goose given that both aircraft were designed with troop and vehicular transport in mind, both had development funding provided by the military, both shared the name "Hercules", and both were from similar time periods(the goose being the earlier "Hercules" named aircraft). Personally I've always wondered if Lockheed used the "Hercules" moniker under instruction/inspiration given the reputation of the Hughes Hercules and their desire to establish a pattern of design(or a specific class of plane). Colliric (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Keyhole (KH) Satellite Film Retrieval[edit]

Why is there no mention in the Operational section of the use of C-130's for mid-air retrieval of Keyhole satellite film packages? This was before the use of electronic imaging in orbital reconnaissance satellites, when they were still using high resolution film cameras. It seems to be a glaring omission, especially since there is a photograph ( illustrating this in the page. Can anyone provide documented text explaining this? Gil gosseyn (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It has been omitted because you have not added it yet. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" is not just an empty slogan, if you have good sources you are welcome to add the missing information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably better in one of the variant articles like Lockheed HC-130. MilborneOne (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)