Pretty cool!!!

http://www.cgaux.com/C-130carrierlanding.htm

__________________
Palangi

2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz
2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser
2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg
2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg



TRUMP .......... WHITEHOUSE
HILLARY .........JAILHOUSE
BERNIE .......... NUTHOUSE
0BAMA .......... OUTHOUSE

C-130's are amazing planes, wayyyy back in the day we were flyin around the Honduras area and an approaching storm made a jump unsafe so they landed the thing on a hard BEACH. I must say it's much more comfy walking out of those things.

That is absolutely phenomenal. To land such a bit airplane and stop it without any hook...................truly amazing.

And, to get sufficient speed to take off in the short length available, without the use of the catapault..................I watched that video about five times and still can't believe it.

I rode one from Hobby to Mendoza Argentina one time. Carried two 6 cyl Deutz-powered articulating buggies and a seismograph recorder and several miles of copper wire and geophones in the back. Refueled in Panama and some cow-on-the-runway strip in a mountain valley in Bolivia. Flew past Aconcagua at night, which was cool.

I understand the noise is deafening when you are inside it.

It's a constant vibration and noise. If you stay aft, the vibration is unbelievable. I imagine MedMech was a lot more uncomfortable than me because I was the only passenger so I could move around and go up in the cockpit where they have a straight-backed benchlike thing you can sit on, sort of. I liked sitting up there because the flight engineer was a Lockheed guy hitching a ride to Bolivia and he had stories that of course, nobody in an airplane likes to hear except pilots and other warped characters.

He had one about a C-130 that took off in a steep climb in Alaska carrying a large bulldozer that wasn't tied down. It rolled backward and busted out of the tail taking the ramp off but leaving the control surfaces intact. Plane landed safely. Never know when somebody's pulling your leg, but it sounded real.

Stacked in a C-130 like cord wood then sitting on the tarmac for an hour sweating your ass off then having to pee so bad it hurts, you really can't wait to jump out of the thing.

Jumping out of C-130's suck as well because you go out the side and the abrupt stop jerks you head off, C-141's are the opposite we called them luxury liners.

If you want to see something really cool I was on a 141 running some radio gear while we dropped some special op's HALO jumpers @ night @ 30K ft. Crazy f-ers they are.

Ever see wheels on a bulldozer...............................let go of my leg.

I've heard similar stories about Humvee's and other trucks, in loading school they think of every story imaginable, some with pictures.

A bulldozer wont roll backward on a steep incline?

Well, I won't tell you that it is impossible, but the nature of the beast would be such that it would need to get above 30 degrees to get all those tracks and sprockets turning. But, if it did start to move...............there is no stopping it.

I would doubt very much if the normal climb angles of an airplane could get it to move. Especially a relatively low powered airplane.

Is a C-130 low powered? I've seen one (in a Blue Angels demo) nearly stand on its stubby a$$ taking off, not to mention a carrier flight deck. That argues for a rather large amount of power, doesn't it?

Well, the older versions had about 16,000 hp on the four engines. The aircraft was capable of lifting 155,000 lbs. This is not such a great power to weight ratio. When empty, the aircraft weight is 80,000 lb.

Contrast this to a turbine powered airplane that typically would have nearly triple the effective horsepower of the C-130. A Boeing 737 has 40,000 lb. of thrust (close approximation to 40,000 hp) and its weight is typically 120,000 lbs. It's not a very fast airplane and it's rate of climb can't compare to a modern commercial airliner.

The newer model, C-130J has quite a bit more power.

It's capability for landing and taking off on a carrier deck has more to do with the very slow airspeed required to get it airbore, rather than the horsepower available.

It could be a glider (with wonton sarcasm intoned), so long as the angle of attack and payload are reasonable. What I mean is this, if the airplane is slow but able to climb steeply enough and for a long enough period of time to overcome the unbraked, untied, track's friction, then it is reasonable.

Whether or not it is true, is something else.

This calls for a Google search. I'll give it a shot.

As you know, I rule nothing out.

However, a low powered and relatively heavy aircraft can't maintain much of a climb angle with respect to the ground. It certainly can maintain an angle of attack near it's stall limit, but this would be something like 15 degrees, max.

The time at the angle is not relevant. All it needs is one second at a sufficient angle to break the friction of the track. Then the bulldozer's weight will keep it rolling, with any angle on the aircraft whatsoever.

Of course, the pilot can create sufficient angle to break the machine loose. He just could not hold this angle due to decreasing airspeed.

One other point of doubt: Wouldn't the bulldozer be in gear as a matter of principle? If so, it would be effectively impossible to get it to roll and rotate the engine.