C130, A400M, C17 civilian versions

[Guptar]

Why are these cargo airframes not more common in civil ops. There seems to be no shortage of work for the AN-124. Are the airframes, as such being designed for a military role so overly complex that they wouldn't be economical in a civil, non tactical role.

[BPA]

Qatar Airlines has a C17.

[skkm]

Just far too expensive to operate and maintain in a commercial environment.

[compressor stall]

Besides that pesky civilian certification issue.

civilian certification requires some things that military aircraft don't. Pressurization, performance, and a host of other things that are more restrictive in civilian ops. For some types the manufacturer just hasn't bothered with the expense of modding and certifying it for civvy use -even if possible - to sell just a couple of aircraft.

The A400m is the exception. It was designed to be civil compliant and got easa certification 2years ago. Qatar's C17 isn't civilian. Just a fancy paint on a military aircraft.

There is a civil c130 type, IIRC amongst other things it required a cocoon in the pax area to protect them from the bleed air ducts across the roof. As would a C17 should MCD ever pursue it.

[megan]

There are a number of civil C-130 about. One US machine delivered a couple of helos to Australia in the early 80's (from the US). Seem to recall one or two on the Australian registry a few decades ago, think Greg Smith was one of the pilots.

[tail wheel]

The civil version of the C130 is the Lockheed L-100 of which 114 were built between 1965 and 1992. It was a "specific purpose" machine as the operating costs exceeded other comparable aircraft on normal operations.

Lockeed L100-30 at London Stanstead in 1979:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Northwest_Territorial_L-100-30.jpg

On February 3, 2014, Lockheed Martin formally relaunched the LM-100J program, saying it expects to sell 75 aircraft.

I seem to recall an ex RAAF C130 operating on the Australian civil register in the early 1980's but it was very short lived. Three or four ex RAAF very early model C130s were operated by Aboitiz Air Cargo in the Philippines but that was also relatively short lived.

[Squawk7700]

What's the history of the C130 operating a as firebomber in Victoria at the moment?

[tdracer]

Besides that pesky civilian certification issue.
Boeing looked at doing an FAA/EASA certification of the C-17 a while back - short story is it was cost prohibitive given the small anticipated civilian market (IIRC, the sales guys were only confident of being able to sell a couple civilian C-17s).


I'm not familiar with the Lockheed LM-100J program, but it was a whole lot easier to do a civilian cert 40 years ago than it is today. Some of it is due to legitimate safety improvements, but much of it isn't :rolleyes:

[Fris B. Fairing]

There was an L-382G-38C Hercules on the Australian Register briefly in 82/83. The same aeroplane occasionally visits our shores as Lynden Air Cargo's N404LC.

http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/hercules/vhcyo.jpg

[tail wheel]

I seem to recall an ex RAAF C130 operating on the Australian civil register in the early 1980's but it was very short lived.

Fris has it correct, it was a civilian L-382G on the Aussie register, not an ex RAAF C130. It briefly carried fuel into Kiunga in PNG for Ok Tedi Mining during the 1982/83 drought when the Fly River dried up.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

As a matter of interest, the C-130H is the military version of the L-382G, not the other way around.
Lynden Air Cargo LLC/ Lynden Air Cargo (PNG) Ltd., based in Anchorage/Lae have a combined fleet of 6 or 7 L-382G.
Last time I looked there were some 50 or so +/- various civil Hercs. around, Safe Air under various names is probably the biggest operator.

Tootle pip!!

A civil certified C-130J is in the works, Lockheed had one eye on FAR Part 25 all through the development of the "J", it is all paperwork.

[A Squared]

There was an L-382G-38C Hercules on the Australian Register briefly in 82/83. The same aeroplane occasionally visits our shores as Lynden Air Cargo's N404LC.

Interesting, did not know that about 404. FWIW, that airplane is not currently operating. It is in Long term Storage in Kingman Arizona. It may fly again, or it may not.

[A Squared]

As a matter of interest, the C-130H is the military version of the L-382G, not the other way around.

Actually, it's not either way around. There is little or no correspondence between the L382 model designations and the C-130 model designations.

An L382G is just the longest L382. Many predate the C-130H and have the same GTC/ATM system of the C-130E, others have the APU system of the C-130H In either case an L383G is 180 inches longer than a standard C-130 through the addition of two fuselage plugs, 100 inches in front of the wing and 80 inches aft. A L382G may have come out of the factory, or it may have been lengthened from a shorter airframe by retrofit. The L382G is an L100-30 (two different models numbers for the same plane). I have no idea why Lockheed did this. For certification purposes (aircraft and airman) it's an L382.

An L382E/L382F is 100 inches longer than a standard C-130, with only the forward plug. It is the same as an L100-20.

An L382/L382B has a fuselage the same length as a standard C-130. It is the same plane as an L100 I don't believe that there are any L100's flying any more. My understanding is there there's a few -20's still operating, but I've never actually seen one myself.

Edit. Apparently there is one L100 in service with the Pakistan Air Force, and as many as 4 L100-20's still in use. All others have either been modified to L100-30 / L382G or written off.

[A Squared]

What's the history of the C130 operating a as firebomber in Victoria at the moment?

It's a former US Navy C-130.

Generally speaking, military aircraft may not be used for civil commercial aviation, in the US, at least. You could not, for example purchase a surplus C-130, and start a a cargo airline. If the plane didn't come out of Marietta with a civil airworthiness , there is no process for converting*.

There is however, an exception. That is government service or "Public use". In the US, aircraft operated by the government are not "civil aviation" in a strict legal sense. Aircraft being operated under public use are not required to have standard airworthiness certificates. Technically, pilots flying public use aircraft are not required legally to have pilots certificates, although I suspect this is very rare. In addition to aircraft owned, and operated directly by government personnel, "Public Use", also includes aircraft being operated on contract to government agencies, by a third party.

That's why you will see ex-military Hercs in civillian colors, flown by civillian pilots, dropping retardant on fires and spraying dispersant on oil spills. They are being operated for a government agency under the "public use" exemption.

I have no idea how all this fits with the laws of other countries, but that's the legal technicalities in the US.

*It has not always been the case that ex-milltary aircraft could not be given a standard civil airworthiness certificate. There were plenty of C-47's which lived long lives useful lives as DC-3's and a number of the DC-6's I flew had started life as C-118's. I'm not sure when that practice ended.

[A Squared]

There is a civil c130 type, IIRC amongst other things it required a cocoon in the pax area to protect them from the bleed air ducts across the roof. As would a C17 should MCD ever pursue it.

I believe what you're referring to is a mod that Safair came up with that was a part of getting approval for passenger operations. My understanding is that they had some L382's runing around Africa in Combi configuration. That's not normal portion of the L382 certification. Normally everything is exposed in the back, just like in a C-130.

[sleeve of wizard]

BPA "Qatar Airlines has a C17."

NO they don't, QEAF, Qatar Emiri Airforce operate a number of C17's, 1 of which is painted in QR paint scheme.:ok:

[LeadSled]

Apparently there is one L100 in service with the Pakistan Air ForceFolks,
That brings back memories, I recall arriving in Rawalpindi (doing a contract stint with PIA at the time) a couple of hours after they wrote of two Hercs, by the simple means of taxying one at some speed into the parked other. Did quite a bit of damage to the adjacent hangar, and another Herc. inside, just for good measure.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Many predate the C-130HA Squared,
Exactly, put in simple terms, the civil "stretch" got the attention of the military.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Any bets on who will be the first to order civil "J".

[A Squared]

PS: Any bets on who will be the first to order civil "J".

Easy bet, Safair (Or I guess more accurately, their parent company) has already placed an order. From memory I think it was 25? Not sure but I recall thinking it was a large number.

[chimbu warrior]

There was an L-382G-38C Hercules on the Australian Register briefly in 82/83.

History may soon be repeated. There is a company in WA putting together an operation which proposes to operate a Herk carrying freight to mine sites.

If there was a real market for it, I am sure Lynden would have set up an Australian operation.

[Old Fella]

Tail Wheel, could you tell us which those "other comparable aircraft" were? I can't think of one.

[tail wheel]

It was a "specific purpose" machine as the operating costs exceeded other comparable aircraft on normal operations.

Whilst I respect your 12 years Ground Engineer then F/E C130A-E-H aircraft, in normal inter city and short haul international freight operations there are a number of aircraft with lower ton/mile operating costs than an L100 in commercial operations, of which the Lockheed L188CF Electra would be an example. The C130/L100 excelled at what it was designed to do, relatively short haul STOL and military operations. (e.g. fuel into Kiunga for Ok Tedi when the Fly River dried up in the early 1980s.)

[LeadSled]

Easy bet, Safair (Or I guess more accurately, their parent company) has already placed an order. From memory I think it was 25? Not sure but I recall thinking it was a large number.

A Squared,
A large enough number to raise serious questions as to reality. At a recent briefing of major investors by the President of Lockheed Martin, the "order" was not mentioned, although healthy future orders for the C-130J were mentioned. Their web site only refers to the future of the LM-100J in terms of its future potential.
Tootle pip!!

[A Squared]

A Squared,
A large enough number to raise serious questions as to reality.

I agree. I was a bit skeptical myself that they really are going to buy those planes. It may be that "order" isn't the correct term. In looking at the press releases from the time (July 2014) they signed a "Letter of intent to purchase" whatever that is. Also, apparently the number grew in y mind, The number was actually 10 airframes. Still, a fairly large number, given that it's a niche airplane.

[Old Fella]

Tail Wheel, I find it interesting that you compare the C130/L100 against the Electra in relation to freight operations. One obviously is a freight hauler by design and the other is a converted pax aircraft. One has excellent short field capability, the other has not in comparison. One is designed to accept long oversized cargo which can be loaded at truck bed height, the other is/was not. Both use use very similar power plants and one could argue one has the gearbox upside down. Me, I reckon it is the Electra/P3 Orion. One has a MTOW of around 155000 lbs and the other has a MTOW of 116000 lbs. The C130 has a cruise speed of around 290 Kts, the Electra around 320 Kts. Fuel burn for both would be similar. The L100 can be operated from airfields of far less quality than the L188 could. If required and the operation approved, large bulky loads could be air dropped from the C130 over the ramp. I guess it all comes back to what type of operation one is involved in and what areas into which the operation takes place. As for range, I am unsure of how much fuel the L188AF or CF carry, but the C130/L100 can carry as much 63000 lbs. The C130/L100 Empty weight is approx 76000lbs for a MTOW of 155000 lbs. The L188CF has an Empty weight of around 55000lbs I think for a MTOW of 116000 lbs. I think your contention that the the C130 was designed for relatively short haul, STOL and military operations is selling the aircraft short. Even the original C130A could carry up to 34000 lbs of fuel internally and up to 40000 lbs with the external pylon tanks. Certainly the Electra transit times would be quicker but overall I think the Lockheed Marietta aircraft would compare favorably with the Lockheed Burbank aircraft, if they were really "comparable".

[A Squared]

Old fella, the L382 has some interesting capabilities, but like everything in aviation, those capabilities come with a cost. And if you don't have an actual need for those capabilities, they become liabilities. I'm obviously a fan of the L382, but lets be realistic; if you're not talking about short, rough airports and/or outsize cargo, the L382 is not a terribly efficient mover of cargo. If one was starting an airline to move palletized goods between locations with 7000 ft runways, (and the vast majority of air cargo business fits this general description) one would be foolish to even consider the L382. Just as a single example, a 737-300F can carry approximately the same weight, but it can carry it much faster, much further, burn much less fuel, requires a third fewer crew members and has a higher dispatch reliability.

[Old Fella]

A Squared, I agree but my response to Tailwheel was in relation to his claim that the C130/L100 was a comparable aircraft to the L188CF. Nothing more or less in my comment.