HerkPerfMan

To clarify, my ID4 has both traditional defrost (forced air) and electric defrost that can be operated together or separate. Electric defrost works way faster and heats every inch of the windshield without the massive power demand of the heater. It typically melts thick ice or slush snow enough in 5 minutes to wipe away with wipers. And I can sit in my warm car if it takes longer rather than scraping and cursing in the cold. Being "environmentally friendly" is low on the list of reasons to choose an EV. There are also many more American-made options besides Tesla to fit different usage requirements.

^This is spot on, from another actual EV owner. I have a 2023 VW ID4 Pro AWD and live in Illinois. It is quick, quiet, and comfortable - now I hate driving my wife's ICE car. I have over 20,000 miles with ZERO cost beyond electricity. I drive about 30 miles per day commuting and trucking kids, and take regular 200-300 mile trips. My tips for everyone who asks: Only consider an EV if you will do 90%+ of charging at home. Invest in a Level 2 charger. Do not think of public fast chargers as "gas stations" - avoid them since they are still severely lacking in availability, reliability, and speed. I have used a fast charger about 6 times in 20,000+ miles. Don't get the biggest battery available. 200-300 mile range is way more than enough for most people. You don't need to carry around that giant battery and kill your tires. Longer trips require more planning but there are lots of tools like PlugShare and ABRP. Efficiency drops with higher speed and colder weather. Cold is due mostly to the power demand of the cabin heater, so use heated seats and steering wheel if you need to maximize range. I have not seen an impact from hot weather. If you live in a colder climate, the car warms in a few minutes (no engine to warm up). The most underrated cold weather feature is the electric windshield - melts snow and ice in seconds without any scraping!

The process of making TOLD planning data (or any scheduled performance data) is an exercise in approximating and building safety margins. You gather field performance data, curve-fit it, model it, then compute scheduled performance for the -1-1. Trying to dial in to 1 knot is "polishing a turd" as they say. What matters is standardization - everyone should get the same output with the same inputs.

The larger lesson here is worth reiterating: Seeking information and listening to perspectives counter to your own experience are worthwhile and healthy no matter where you stand. And it helps sharpen your BS detector.

Don't you remember the F/A-22?!

USAF used to loan aircraft to Lockheed Martin crews to fly C-130J demos. I think Ramstein tails were used for Paris and/or Farnsborough air shows.

The Royal Air Force has officially retired its C-130 fleet after 56 years of operation. The final C-130Js (Mk 4 and 5) were retired 30 June 2023. No 47 Squadron completed a farewell flypast over the entire country, including the Mach Loop. Interestingly, they could not return to RAF Brize Norton as planned...because the runway was melting from the extreme high temperatures. One of RAF C-130Js was sold to the US Navy and converted to the new Fat Albert for the Blue Angels. Best collection of photos and videos from the flypast here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/britain-bids-farewell-to-c-130-hercules-with-spectacular-flypast

Yes it is. And don't forget the ATVs...

No video (yet) but still some badass visuals from Wyoming highways. https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7774225/afsoc-total-force-landed-mc-130j-mq-9-10s-mh-6s-wyoming-highways

Some perspective from flight test and performance engineering on the C-130J and C-5. Both include reaction time in the decision speed (VREF) and VCEF numbers, based on flight test. So a malfunction (typically assumed to be a critical engine failure) can occur up to VREF or VCEF. Other multi-engine aircraft handle this differently. However, flight test reaction times can be misleading since the pilot knows that a critical engine failure will occur during the takeoff run - just not when. Another key assumption in VREF is a 3-point ground attitude. If the aircraft is rotated, then the refusal distance is invalid since the time (and distance) to lower the nose is not included. Regarding C-130J Block 8 and carbon brakes, the only change in charted performance is maximum brake energy and cooling times. This is the primary performance benefit of carbon brakes since the flight tests showed minimal change in stopping distance.

I wonder if the Js would be modified for the aerial spray mission.

Actually, it's Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). You can't be one-party, Stalinist dictatorship with a name like that, right?

I'm all for a "flying boat" C-130, but it can already hit the beach...

8 Hercs embargoed at the LM Marietta plant. Built for Libya back in 80s and never delivered. 0 hours, but may need new tires. Not sure of the story on the P-3 and or the L-1011...

You read my mind. The US-2 essentially IS an amphibious C-130, with a little lower max weight and payload. Even has the same engines and props as the C-130J. If the goal is a small fleet for SOF, buying and supporting a few US-2's would seem to be an expeditious option. Similar to the other SOF-unique transport airframes like the C-145 and C-146.