HerkPerfMan

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.

I can provide some insight on the J carbon brake and AMAX data as I have been involved with both. I can also provide POCs at Lockheed for the test pilot roadshow if you want to PM me. RE: Carbon brakes. USAF completed their own testing without LM involvement, and their goals did not include assessing stopping performance differences. They were only looking at form/fit/function and mx perspective. Testing was on an E model and USAF cleared the carbon brake mod on all models. On the J, they discovered that cold brakes couldn't hold against TO power. Oops. I think a workaround has been created for that. A few other J operators completed their own testing, so I'm not sure if LM has sufficient data to update all TOLD. The primary benefit is extra brake energy capacity which would eliminate many of the brake energy limitations if implemented in in the performance manual. RE: AMAX climbout data. LM does have this data. I have been pushing to add it to our C-130J preTOLD app as a low-cost option and major benefit for operators. Unfortunately can't get into the details of those discussions, but I'm still pushing. LM owns all J aircraft data since it was originally a commercial development effort. RE: BUFF re-engining. Not involved with this, but my experience with engine upgrades (C-130J, C-5M, NP2000 props) tells me that more thrust should only be considered if current performance is thrust-limited over a large part of the envelope. More thrust drives a lot of other major changes - pylon structure, directional controls, stability margins, VMCs, etc. - and blows up the project scope. Primary benefits are fuel efficiency, digital controls, mx reduction, better access to parts/spares, etc.

Lockheed is unloading more than just pre-owned F-16's...