ST0RM Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 We had KC-130J stop through TYS earlier this week. My co-worker, who is not an airplane guy, noted how stubby it was. That got me thinking as to why the longer stretched Herk wasn't looked at for the tanker role. Maybe the extra fuel via an internal Benson Tank, plus wing and internals isnt worth the effort over a standard? Just thinking out loud. -Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dutch Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) The Marines had two KC-130T-30s [164597 & 164598] they used for tanking. But mostly for cargo. The Marines do not have any KC-130J-30 models. I don't think the Air Force wants to waste a stretched Herk for a tanker. Edited February 22 by Dutch Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Crash Test Dummy Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 The advantage of the -30 is being able to carry more volume of cargo, i.e. more pallets or troops, but the weight limits are not that different. That's probably determined by the wing structural limits which is common between the two variants. The extra volume on the -30 is unnecessary for the aerial refueling role. This mission runs into weight limits before you run out of volume, even in the short 130s. The stretch version has a higher empty weight, so it's going to be heavier at all similar payload weights meaning longer takeoff and landing runs. There really is no advantage except for when you need the extra space. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted February 22 Author Share Posted February 22 44 minutes ago, Crash Test Dummy said: The advantage of the -30 is being able to carry more volume of cargo, i.e. more pallets or troops, but the weight limits are not that different. That's probably determined by the wing structural limits which is common between the two variants. The extra volume on the -30 is unnecessary for the aerial refueling role. This mission runs into weight limits before you run out of volume, even in the short 130s. The stretch version has a higher empty weight, so it's going to be heavier at all similar payload weights meaning longer takeoff and landing runs. There really is no advantage except for when you need the extra space. I was thinking that direction. The gains just weren't there. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aircommando130 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 The Marine dash 30 tankers had a problem with the hoses out and recievers the turbulence was making the fuselage twist. I talked to a guy that was in the Marines and got out and went in the AF Reserves at Patrick and he said you could stand in the cargo compartment forward of the wheel well and see it twist. Yikes! Cheers....Ron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted February 22 Author Share Posted February 22 @aircommando130 Wow Ron, that is crazy. I remember when they were trying the hose/drogue off the centerline of the Talon IIs and it swirled all over from the air behind the fuselage. Great insight. -Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aircommando130 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 Those MCARS pods the T2 and the MC-130W were horrible! The variable drag drogue was a mess too. When I was with Lockheed I went to Hurlburt and flew on the MC-W to refuel CV's and 60's and the drogue when you'd spped up would sometimes collapse and just whip around hoping it didn't hit the stabilizer. Slow back down and it would reinflate. Was pretty annoying! Cheers...Ron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.