Hercules pilots: Can this be done?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hercules pilots: Can this be done?
The recent Mount Sinjar episode with refugees in Iraq made me think.
Suppose that the task is to use a Hercules to drop VERY accurately a load but without flying low.
In the cargo hold, the load is on a rail which vertically constrains it and will allow it to roll freely when released.
Could a pilot, with the load locked in position and the cargo door OPEN, commence a stall turn overhead the target zone, pull back and ascend. When in the vertical plane, over the target zone, a lever would be pulled and the load would be released, sliding vertically down on its rails, out of the aircraft. When clear of the aircraft, parachutes would open and the load would descend as normal.
The load would have NO FORWARD COMPONENT OF VELOCITY, excepting any wind issue. It should fall with great accuracy.
The $64,000 question is: Can a Herc do a stall turn without losing its wings? Probably "Yes". See this remarkable video:
C130 Super Hercules Paris Airshow 2011 - Cockpit View
See timings at 1.25 and 4.47
Would these manoeuvres be possible with a half load or even a full load?
In the video, please note that he pushes the column forward, creating negative G, rather than doing a standard stall turn. I would have thought that this would stress the airframe more, rather than less. But it might be a better alternative in a military situation since height is conserved.
Whatever anyone may say about this idea, it is not as ghastly as the Khe Sanh approach, which I believe to be standard practice ( - or would still be if the Viet Cong were still being difficult).
I have never been either in or near a Fat Albert and ask if this idea is total cobblers or could it become a useful manoeuvre, with or without adaptation. There may be a better way of achieving the same end.
(p.s. i got this idea watching Stuka dive bombers in a WW2 documentary. I reckon they missed a trick).
Suppose that the task is to use a Hercules to drop VERY accurately a load but without flying low.
In the cargo hold, the load is on a rail which vertically constrains it and will allow it to roll freely when released.
Could a pilot, with the load locked in position and the cargo door OPEN, commence a stall turn overhead the target zone, pull back and ascend. When in the vertical plane, over the target zone, a lever would be pulled and the load would be released, sliding vertically down on its rails, out of the aircraft. When clear of the aircraft, parachutes would open and the load would descend as normal.
The load would have NO FORWARD COMPONENT OF VELOCITY, excepting any wind issue. It should fall with great accuracy.
The $64,000 question is: Can a Herc do a stall turn without losing its wings? Probably "Yes". See this remarkable video:
C130 Super Hercules Paris Airshow 2011 - Cockpit View
See timings at 1.25 and 4.47
Would these manoeuvres be possible with a half load or even a full load?
In the video, please note that he pushes the column forward, creating negative G, rather than doing a standard stall turn. I would have thought that this would stress the airframe more, rather than less. But it might be a better alternative in a military situation since height is conserved.
Whatever anyone may say about this idea, it is not as ghastly as the Khe Sanh approach, which I believe to be standard practice ( - or would still be if the Viet Cong were still being difficult).
I have never been either in or near a Fat Albert and ask if this idea is total cobblers or could it become a useful manoeuvre, with or without adaptation. There may be a better way of achieving the same end.
(p.s. i got this idea watching Stuka dive bombers in a WW2 documentary. I reckon they missed a trick).
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never been either in or near a Fat Albert and ask if this idea is total cobblers or could it become a useful manoeuvre, with or without adaptation. There may be a better way of achieving the same end.
S-D
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
You could deliver at the end of a cable whilst circling -as mail/delivery pilots used to do.
Bucket Drop Delivery
Cable-Supported Sliding Payload Deployment from a Circling Fixed-Wing Aircraft
Hmm. We had a thread about this back in 2006...
Bucket Drop Delivery
Cable-Supported Sliding Payload Deployment from a Circling Fixed-Wing Aircraft
Hmm. We had a thread about this back in 2006...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: u.k.
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could try this, seems a bit easier than chucking the airframe about. Precision Aerial Delivery Systems - GPS Guided Cargo Systems
If such a drop was attempted, I could imagine that the parachute borne supplies would probably arrive at the crash site slightly after the event. I'm sure the OP means well, go easy chaps
Smudge
Smudge
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8, PTC,
Can we afford such things in the UK for HUMAID? Looks like the preserve of the guys on the other side of the pond. I thought we were broke. I guess you could drop one or two from your Chinook if you could get high enough at that weight.
That big parachute in the link would make lots of tents or clothes.
Can we afford such things in the UK for HUMAID? Looks like the preserve of the guys on the other side of the pond. I thought we were broke. I guess you could drop one or two from your Chinook if you could get high enough at that weight.
That big parachute in the link would make lots of tents or clothes.
Champagne anyone...?
Whatever anyone may say about this idea, it is not as ghastly as the Khe Sanh approach
I have never been either in or near a Fat Albert
and ask if this idea is total cobblers
or could it become a useful manoeuvre
There may be a better way of achieving the same end.
What everyone is trying to say is "thanks for asking, but no it can't". There are quite a few different way of air-dropping loads with a pretty good level of accuracy but what you're suggesting is not one of them.
Oh
Oh
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Hercules
LSM, what are you implying? Just because the old C130 is no space craft does not mean that those who fly it are less skilled than those in the sharp pointy things. My old outfit has been operating the C130 since 1958 and have not lost a single aircraft, despite operating in some pretty hostile environments.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vertical thinking?
I'm not sure the occupants of the cargo compartment would be too keen! 
You compared airdrop to a dive bomb attack. You mentioned that all you would have to worry about is the wind..... Correct.
The wind is key, it is the most significant factor of calculating the release point. The horizontal component of velocity you are worried about is actually one of the most predictable aspects of airdrop and easy to compensate for.
To reduce the largest variable (canopy drift) we have to reduce the time the load is under canopy or steer the canopy. Steerable canopy = expensive. High speed canopies = high speed impact (high rate of descent) So if you ask a pilot what they want to do to get a load on a small DZ they will tell you "fly lower".
So when you realise how simple airdrop theory is you'll see it's bonkers doing aerobatics in a 60T aircraft to remove the most predicable variable of the calculated release point. (Forward travel distance)
You compared airdrop to a dive bomb attack. You mentioned that all you would have to worry about is the wind..... Correct.
The wind is key, it is the most significant factor of calculating the release point. The horizontal component of velocity you are worried about is actually one of the most predictable aspects of airdrop and easy to compensate for.
To reduce the largest variable (canopy drift) we have to reduce the time the load is under canopy or steer the canopy. Steerable canopy = expensive. High speed canopies = high speed impact (high rate of descent) So if you ask a pilot what they want to do to get a load on a small DZ they will tell you "fly lower".
So when you realise how simple airdrop theory is you'll see it's bonkers doing aerobatics in a 60T aircraft to remove the most predicable variable of the calculated release point. (Forward travel distance)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to PPRuNe Bridgetoofar,
I wonder how many pilots would really wish to fly lower and risk getting shot down.
I understood from reading some of the links above to Precision that we now had the tools to understand the wind field to feed the CARP such that we could drop higher and achieve similar accuracy to that from lower heights.
If you are allowed to say what is the current CEP you are achieving with standard airdrop.
Not sure we need any of this expensive precision stuff for HUMAID anyway
I wonder how many pilots would really wish to fly lower and risk getting shot down.
I understood from reading some of the links above to Precision that we now had the tools to understand the wind field to feed the CARP such that we could drop higher and achieve similar accuracy to that from lower heights.
If you are allowed to say what is the current CEP you are achieving with standard airdrop.
Not sure we need any of this expensive precision stuff for HUMAID anyway