Back in the 1960's Lockheed initiated a project called HOW Hercules on water. Some of this engineering was later incorporated into the YMC-130 Credible Sport C-130 and the HTTB. High Technology testbed.McColm said:Hi there,
Lockheed developed a "float plane" convertion kit known as the CL-130 for the Herk to land on water. They tested their design on a third scale model and found that the payload and range was cut by 30% due to the weight and drag.
The C-130J has improved range and payload. If a one-step hull was bolted on to the fuselage with mid sponsors the engines would be raised high enough so that no floats would be deployed. A podded jet engine on each wing would give the Herk the extra boost on takeoff.
The hull could be designed to scoop fresh water from lakes as a water bomber or be deployed by the Navy or Coast Guard in Search & Rescue missions. Even the option of a commercial airline might make this idea seem viable.
Has this idea been tested?
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=2098Between 1964 and 1973, Lockheed-Georgia Company looked at several amphibious configurations of the C-130 Hercules. In 1968, a US Navy study contract resulted in a one-sixth scale, radio controlled model that was used as a development tool. Called Hercules-On-Water, or HOW, the design kept much of the original C-130 configuration, but this version used a retractable hydro-ski beneath the boat hull-shaped fuselage for takeoff and landing. The design’s Allison T56 engines were inverted and placed on top of the wing to take the intakes and propellers out of the water spray, similar to the configuration used on the P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft. No production contracts were received and the Hercules-On-Water project was shelved.
Possibly because we already have a separate topic dedicated to the amphibian Hercules?kaiserbill said:The following posts...all deal with that Hercules amphibian project with plane below the fuselage, but going through the topic, I noticed that there isn't a 3 view, which I have attached below.
What you seem to interpret as simple laziness on my part was rather a call to dig a little deeper, instead of waiting for someone to bring it to you everything on a silver platter (not saying that's what happened here, just that it's often what happens in general). This being said, I wasn't aware that the amphibious Hercules topic would be so difficult to locate!Jemiba said:it's much better, of course, than saying "...there already was a similar thread", as this is somehow as saying "Where's the bone ?" to your dog.
Interesting that the wing-mounted external tanks are retained. The floats have plenty of volume for fuel and I'd think that placing the tanks inside them could make refueling on the water easier.CluttonFred.... From IDR 2/98.
In another one-of-a-kind effort, Lockheed Martin is still working on one of the strangest C-130 derivatives yet: a floatplane version, under study since 1996. A small contract is supporting wind-tunnel and water tank tests.
The initial interest in this version came from the Navy SEAL (Sea, Air, Land) special-operations force, because of its potential to deliver SEAL teams in small watercraft to off-shore drop-off points, and recover them complete with their equipment.
The current concept features two 21 m pontoons, joined by faired struts which are attached to the C-130’s nose and main landing gear mounts. The estimated weight of the floats is 5900 kg and their drag is significant, but the better performance of the C-130J makes the modification more attractive: a C-130J with floats can carry a 9 t payload on a 2700 km un-refuelled mission, which exceeds the performance of any other runway-free vehicle. The floatplane can carry many SEAL craft, including swimmer delivery vehicles on launching pallets. Lockheed is confident that the aircraft will be able to operate in Sea State 2 and is aiming for Sea State 3 (2 m swells).
Lockheed Martin estimates that the floatplane could be built and tested in a 2.5-year program for about $20 million, and that a set of floats would cost about $7.5 million.View attachment 633578
I must say, how much sense does a C-130 flyingboat make!!Artist's concept of Lockheed-Georgia L-100 Hercules amphibian intended as a short-takeoff-and-landing airliner between major cities. Engines are atop the wings and a retractable hydro-ski is under the fiberglass hull.
Source: "STOL amphibian" Popular Science October 1973 page 93
Source : http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,455.msg242328.html#msg242328]Source: [url=http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,455.msg242328.html#msg242328]http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,455.msg242328.html#msg242328[/url]
A flying boat... sure, that might make some sense. But the floatplane versions seem somewhat less sensible. The C-130 is a cargo plane, after all, and a floatplane puts the cargo up rather high, making it somewhat difficult to load and remove. Granted, the floatplane version shown here isn't *really* high, but it's still added difficulty.I must say, how much sense does a C-130 flyingboat make!!
*Perhaps.* There are relevant precedents:If you had a flying boat with a rear ramp, opening it while afloat could have deleterious consequences.
I think the water simply rejects the Chinook. "Eww, eww, get off me. GET OFF ME! MOM!!!! STOP TOUCHING ME!!"The Chinook can do it. On the other hand, it keeps itself airborne by sheer horsepower augmented by ugliness.
Lockheed used to call those root leading-edge extensions ahead of the tailplane "horsals", a mash-up of "horizontal" and "dorsal". They functions in the pitch axis like the dorsal fin ahead of the vertical fin and rudder does in the yaw axis.The following posts...
Page 1 Reply 13
Page 2 Reply 26 and 28
Page 4 Reply 45 and 49
Page 5 reply 74
...all deal with that Hercules amphibian project with plane below the fuselage, but going through the topic, I noticed that there isn't a 3 view, which I have attached below.
I can't unfortunately recall where I got the image from, but it is mostly identical in features with the previously posted artwork, with only minor differences in cockpit glazing, nose radar, and the top shape of the vertical stabiliser. The big difference I can see is what appears to be a type of LERX adjoining the tailplane/horizontal stabiliser.