It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

C-130J-30 question

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Greetings:

May I ask who are willing to tell me 1) Does C-130J-30 need a longer runway than other versions? 2) how many payload this version gained more than other C-130's? how many C-130J-30 has entered service of US troop? 3) some news reported that C-130J could carry external fuel tanks, why I have not seen before, who will share such photos with me?
Thanks in advance

[edit on 12-7-2007 by emile]




posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   
1. No, the C-130J-30 requires exactly the same length runway

2. It didnt gain any more payload, infact the -30 lost payload. It has the same MTOW (maximum takeoff weight) as the standard version, but a higher OEW (operational empty weight) due to the added fuselage structure.

Out of 186 C-130J and C-130J-30 orders, 136 have been delivered.

3. The C-130J can carry external fuel tanks, its built on the same fuselage as the previous versions. I am not aware of any Js that have had fuel tanks fitted, simply because their range is good enough for tactical lift on internal fuel (its engines are more efficient due to an excellent FADEC system than previous versions).



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
but the -30 got longer carbin than other versions, why didn't gained more payload?



www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Actually RichardPrice I have been finding a variety of different OEW and MTOW figures. But from what I can see the Operational Empty Weight of the "J" model is nearly the same or about 800/1000lbs less than the "H" model, take your pick (between 75,500 for the J to around 76,800 for the H). Pretty much the same seems to be the case for the MTOW as well. It is interesting and somewhat surprising that this is the case particularly given that lighter materials were used in the construction of the J and the underwing fuel tanks ommitted. I was unable to get takeoff distances for both versions but I will take your word for it that they are the same. Again this is very surprising given the quite significant increase in the engine power of the J from earlier models. About the only thing that has improved is speed, and as a result climb rates.

I would like to point out that it is not just the FADEC of the AE-2100 that makes it a better powerplant but also improved internal engine design, ie: a more efficient compressor section, higher temp hot section, more robust fan and improved materials and manufacturing techniques. Not to mention the far more efficient 6 bladed prop design which really stretched the limits of turboprop technology given its size and the number of props on each hub.

And finally to answer a question from emile about the lack of difference in MTOW between the standard length and -20/-30 fuselage models. Its quite simple emile, the earlier models had plent of power to lift their loads but what often happened was that they "cubed out", that is they ran out of internal volume before they reached their max weight. Often the aircraft could carry 2 or 3 more pallets worth in weight but they did not have enough internal volume left to fit them. As a result of this a "stretch" of the fuselage was decided upon to overcome this problem and make greater use of the aircrafts maximum takeoff weight. The RAF was I believe one of, if not the first operators of the stretched model.

LEE.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join