|
Description
| Notes: High wing, medium range transport (4 CREW, 92 TROOPS, OR 70 LITTERS) . | |||
| Manufacturer: | Lockheed |
| |
| Base model: | C-130 | ||
| Designation: | C-130 | ||
| Version: | A | ||
| Nickname: | Hercules | ||
| Designation System: | U.S. Air Force | ||
| Designation Period: | 1925-1962 | ||
| Basic role: | Transport | ||
| See Also: | |||
Specifications
| Length: | 97' 9" | 29.7 m | |
| Height: | 38' 3" | 11.6 m | |
| Wingspan: | 132' 7" | 40.4 m | |
| Wingarea: | 1,745.0 sq ft | 162.1 sq m | |
| Empty Weight: | 59,328 lb | 26,906 kg | |
| Gross Weight: | 108,000 lb | 48,979 kg | |
| Max Weight: | 124,200 lb | 56,326 kg | |
Propulsion
| No. of Engines: | 4 | ||
| Powerplant: | Allison T56-A-1A (or -9) | ||
| Horsepower (each): | 3750 | ||
Performance
| Range: | 2,090 miles | 3,365 km | |
| Cruise Speed: | 328 mph | 0 km/h | 0 kt |
| Max Speed: | 384 mph | 618 km/h | 334 kt |
| Climb: | 2,570 ft/min | 783 m/min | |
| Ceiling: | 41,300 ft | 12,588 m | |
Known serial numbers
Examples of this type may be found at
| Museum | City | State |
| Dyess Linear Air Park | Dyess AFB | Texas |
| Little Rock AFB | Little Rock AFB | Arkansas |
| Museum of Aviation | Warner Robins AFB | Georgia |
| Pima Air & Space Museum | Tucson | Arizona |
| Selfridge Military Air Museum | Selfridge ANG Bas | Michigan |
C-130A on display
Museum of Aviation | Pima Air & Space Museum | Selfridge Military Air Museum |
Recent comments by our visitors
| scott taylor Wallowa, OR | I flew these birds for 25 years and started out on A models. Why do the photos show four props?
Just thought they would stay true to it's original design. Hey but what do I know , I was only a Loadmaster who was flown around the world by three college graduates and a highly trained engineer. LOAD'S CLEAR!!! 04/25/2008 @ 11:37 [ref: 20716] |
| Frank Foster Coolidge, AZ | We at International Air Response are operating three C-130A Herc's. Serial Number 54-1631, 56-0511, and 57-0512. We will shortly be placing a forth in operation. Serial Number 56-0534. When I get a chance I will upload a photo or two.
Frank Foster Maintenance Control. 04/18/2008 @ 05:50 [ref: 20603] |
| Kristen Backman , WA | Most Enlightening & Enjoyable. Thank You. cheap viagra cialis buy viagra levitra cialis buy paxil buy generic viagra 03/19/2008 @ 05:00 [ref: 20159] |
| Tony Ryan Wingham NSW Australia, OTH | Thanks Bob, your info regarding the RAAF C130A is accepted. My info is generally in agreement with yours and as I indicated in my previous comment the 13.54 to 1 reduction ratio applied to all RAAF aircraft up until the 'J' model. With the permissable operating RPM limits inflight the 4 RPM differential (at 100% Engine RPM) between the early 13.6 to 1 gearbox and the 13.54 to 1 version was considered by Aeroproducts to be of no consequence. I am aware that mods were made to the fuel nozzles (Simplex replaced by duplex nozzles) and also the FCU from the -7 engine was used in the RAAF -11 engines in order to improve engine starting. Some mods were made to the torquemeter housing to incorporate a lubricated mid baearing, safety coupling and airinlet housing as well as to the extension shaft.
Souinds as though you are well and truly settled in the USA. Good to hear that the C130A is still soldiering on. As far as I am aware Earl Cherry is operating the only flying C130A (ex A97-212) fitted with Aeroproducts props. These days the largest things I fly are single engined Cessna and Piper aircraft out of Taree. If you would like to send anything by e-mail you can reach me on ary61359@bigpond.net.au 01/14/2008 @ 01:38 [ref: 19285] |
| Bob Maddern Tucson, AZ | In response to Tony Ryan's reply to my note regarding the -11 engine and prop reduction ratios, my information came from Allison Manuals 11R-1 thru4. These manuals were the ones written specifically for the T56-A-11 series engines by Allison. The -11 engine is not a -9 engine fitted with a -7 gearbox as such. It is a 501D-13 civilian engine (as fitted to the Convair 580, has a fuel control unit modified for use with "kerosine-type fuel" (quoted from Lockheed's own handbook written specifically for the RAAF version of the A model) and fitted with the -7 gearbox therefore turning the prop at 4 rpm faster than the -9 engine (ie the same as the H-S prop).
When the A model first flew, it was fitted with Curtiss-Electric props which turned at a higher speed again. Due to problems with these props, the Aeroproducts unit was fitted and the prop rpm was slowed to reduce tip speed. The engine rpm was never altered, only the gear reduction was altered. I have the original Allison manuals for this engine as well as a copy of Lockheed's handbook (ex-A97-213) if Tony would like to see the tech data that I have refenced on this site. I was involved with the certification in the US of several ex-USAF and RAAF A models and went through wringer with the FAA regarding the RAAF aircraft end the Aussie-unique mods. The RAAF A models are the only A's here that are free and clear title and do not require export certificates to fly out of the US. I was the person responsible for bringing A97-207 to the US in '89 and also went through the wringer with US customs upon entry at Honolulu. Tony is welcome to contact me direct if he'd like copies of any of the above info. 01/12/2008 @ 06:43 [ref: 19265] |
| Tom Templeton Cookeville, TN | I had the opportunity to fly C-130 with three and four blade props. I also flew a C-130A 54-1610 (Roman Nose) with Hamilton Standard four blade. How many of those around? We took several of the three blades back to Nam in 72, left them there. I took 54-1610 to England to the International Air Tattoo in 1978. 11/26/2007 @ 10:35 [ref: 18675] |
| Tony Ryan WINGHAM NSW, OTH | I am not sure from where Bob Maddern got his information regarding the Propeller to Engine reduction ratio on RAAF C130A models, however I can assure Bob that the Allison T56 engines are designed to operate at a constant speed of 13820 RPM (at 100% RPM)and use a two stage reduction gearbox (1st stage spur gear with 3.125:1 reduction and 2nd stage planetary gear with 4.333:1 reduction for an overall 13.54 to 1 reduction giving 1020 RPM at the propeller, irrespective of whether they drove the 15 foot diameter Aeroproducts propeller or the 13 foot 6 inch diameter Hamilton Standard 54H60 propeller. The Aeroproduct propeller being not as quite as the Hamilton Standard was due to no syncro-phasing on the Aeroproducts propeller and the shorter distance between passing blade tips.
As far as the problems Bob mentions with propellers overhauled by Air Asia, I cannot comment. I stand by my assertion that the most probable cause of all four propellers failing to enter the reverse pitch range on landing would have been because they were not selected into reverse. 11/09/2007 @ 18:53 [ref: 18486] |
| Bob Maddern Tucson, AZ | Reference the comments regarding the failure of all props to go to reverse on the A model, it was a common problem with props overhauled by Air Asia at the time. That's one of the reasons the C-123 was used in some airfields instead of the A model. Props overhauled by Pacific propellor and in Australia by Qantas and the RAAF rarely failed like this.
In relation to the noise factor, the props on the Aussie A models were only noisier due to being driven by a -7 gearbox, thus turning the prop at 4 bladed speed. The Aussie A models had a very distinctive noise if the power lever was worked right while taxying. A side benefit of the Aeroproducts prop is that it would function just fine with a total electrical failure due to being a true hydromatic governor. I was a framie with 36 and 486 sqns from Jan '73 until Mar '80 and continued to work around them until 212 was certified in the US. I now take care of the disposal and storage of 14 A models adjacent to the boneyard in Tucson. 11/03/2007 @ 12:55 [ref: 18389] |
| Buris Cole , FL | I flew the C130A's from Naha air base from june 1968 and flew the last combat mission from there. I was assigned to the 21st TAS E Flight Special Ops, missions fron Naha to
Fields 5 and 1 were our foward operating locations. from there every thing was classified.And is.. 09/10/2007 @ 17:01 [ref: 17889] |
| Tony Ryan Wingham. New South Wales 2429, OTH | Surely Darvard Smith is mistaken. Never in all my years as a Flight Engineer, many on the C130A, did I witness all four props fail to enter reverse when selected. Now and then one would fail, but all four, never.
My guess would be that the handling pilot failed to select reverse. 08/21/2007 @ 21:13 [ref: 17717] |
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors
