H(H) designation question

[CGRetired]

We were sitting around telling sea storys about who flew what and when and the C-130 designations came up (Bs, Es, Hs, H(H)s, & Vs). We had 4 HC-130H(H)s out in Sacramento (McClellan AFB) in the 80s, 1454(4265), 1453(4260), 1452(4255) and 1451 which was a \"loaner\" from the AF after we lost the 1600 on Attu, AK. We couldn\'t remember what the extra (H) stood for in the designation. The planes all had the fulton nose and were plumbed for internal tanks and had the overhead rail system in them. Any help out there?

Senior Sends

[tinyclark]

I\'ve only actually seen it on our manuals, like the 1C-130(H)H-2-11.

I can\'t find anything that specifiaclly says so, but maybe since all manuals start with the 1C-130, the decided to move the H part of the HC-130 models after the number.

This book covers:

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS AND NAVIGATION SYSTEMS

USAF SERIES

C-130E, EC-130H, HC-130H, HC-130N, HC-130P,

MC-130P, NC-130H, AND WC-130H

AIRPLANES

[casey]

The (H) designated a secondary mission. In this case, rescue.

[Guest]

\"The (H) designated a secondary mission. In this case, rescue\"

That sounds too logical to be right, but if Casey says so, I\'ll buy it.

John

[Jeffysan]

Huh?? HC-130H(H)-xxx. Thought the H in HC-130 was the rescue designation & the question at hand is what is the (H) in HC-130(H) for. Yes, no?

Back in my corner squawking \"STDBY\".

[bobdaley]

Just a guess, when the Coast Guard bought its first H\'s the 1400, 1500, 1600\'s they had -15 engines on them. Then to save a nickel they took the old -7 engines off the B\'s and hung them on 10 brand new HC-130H\'s.

Then they realized not such a good idea and hung -15\'s on them.

Could it have been how they differentiated H\'s with -15\'s from H-7\'s?

Bob

[casey]

Two different things. HC-130 is an aircraft designation. 1C-130H(H) is a tech order designation.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding.

The first HC-130 was Lockheed production #4036 USAF 64-14852 (built while E model production was still in full swing) I\'m not sure if all HC-130\'s came from Lockheed with -15 engines but I would think so because their original designation was HC-130 H. If not, I am quite certain -15\'s were added to all of them. This difference and I believe a few others, necessitated different TO\'s versus the E models. This is where the H(H) series TO\'s came about.

Some of these aircraft remained HC-130 H\'s but others were modified to WC-130H\'s, EC-130H\'s, HC-130P\'s and MC-130P\'s through the years.

\'66 HC-130P\'s and \'69 model HC-130N\'s were designated as such from the factory.

[n1dp]

\"I\'ve only actually seen it on our manuals, like the 1C-130(H)H-2-11.\"

The H(H)designations in pubs started with the AF and the Rescue birds built in the 60s for ARRS. -15 engines, GTC, yokes and Benson tanks, etc.

The (H) designation also showed up once when we had our own Dash one printed by the AF. It was an odd thing 1C-130B(H)-1 (not to be confused with the old AF pub that included our HC-130B ).

We started using our own CG dash one in 1982. Combined a few checklists, etc.

As for the -7 engines on new airframes, that was all money and politics driven. It was found that it was cheaper to by new airframes rather than upgrade the corrosion riddled \"Bs\" (12) \"E\" (1) and HC-130H (3). Also looming over us was the fact we could have gotten stuck with a different airframe and that would not have been a good thing. So the program was devised called PILOC (procurement in leu of conversion). We lots of spare C130 parts and the ones that topped the heap were engines.

Rumor had it some Congressman asked why the CG was buying new C130s when the Navy Reserve was sending P-3As to the desert (typical).

Over the years many of the components of the -7 engines were upgraded to -15 standards (ie gearboxes) so the final upgrade to -15 engines on the 1700-1709 airframes was much less expensive than other operators were facing.

[casey]

1700-1709 came from the factory with -7\'s? They were 81-82 models right?

[n1dp]

1700 82-0081 4947

1701 82-0082 4958

1702 82-0083 4966

1703 82-0084 4967

1704 82-0085 4969

1700-1704 were delivered as AF slick birds. Later modified in-house with Radio operators station, scanner windows, cargo door w/ flare tubes, CG avionics, etc.

1705 83-0007 4993

1706 83-0505 4996

1707 83-0506 4999

1708 83-0507 5002

1709 83-5008 5005

1705-1709 were delivered with CG mission equipment

All designated HC-130H-7 all upgraded to -15 engines by late 90s.

[casey]

Anyone know if the early HC-H\'s (64 models) had -7\'s? If so why where designated as H\'s when new?

[bobdaley]

The 64-65-66 HC130H\'s for the USAF had -15 engines.

They were really E\'s with -15 engines. This is where it gets goofy!

Some of those HC-130H\'s (15)became WC-130H\'s.Some of these were made into slicks.

WRB in their infinite wisdom changed the designation of the slicks to C-130E, they still had -15\'s. The reason I was given was that once they were demoded they were systems wise similar to the 1964 E\'s.

Current example 64-14859 at MLD is carried as a C130E.Bob

[n1dp]

Did those HC-130H AF rescue birds, the original C-130H, have gen disconnect, x valve switches on fuel panel, -15s, etc. pretty much the same as the three 67-xxxx tail numbers we got 1452, 1453, 1454 (and later the 1451 loaner from 1984)??

Our 1500-1504 tails (72-73 tails) share a similar heritage, aka super \"E\" but without benson tanks, and the Fulton yoke/radome, and AF rescue specific avionics. Now called H1??

Another point too, did the HC-130H AF rescue birds get more structural upgrades from the \"E\" to qualify for the 175K MGW?

Very interesting and confusing. It might have been better to use another letter suffix once they started building APU birds.

[Spectre623]

Hey Bob, I was working at the Lockwasher when these CG birds came down the assembly line. They were shown as HC-130H-7\'s on the build sheet. The engine shop at that time was to the left and next to the last assembly position on the line. We watched them bring the -7\'s in, in their cans and build them up into new nacelles. One point of contention I remember was the new sealed starters being used at that time. The Navy wouldn\'t let Lockheed put the sealed starters on, but instead made them use the old type with the dipstick.(We had the sealed ones at Dobbins at that time and loved them) We were told the reason they had -7\'s instead of -16\'s yep -16\'s was because the CG\'s budget wasn\'t enough for an airplane with new engines but would come later in another budget. This was known as GFE equipment.The Navy took care of the CG paperwork at Lockheed at that time . Bill:)

[n1dp]

After we started receiving the 1705-1709 at Kodiak, the Lockheed traveling trainers came by for some differences training. These guys had been all over the world for the company and they lost their luggage for the first time in Anchorage!

They said getting the GFE -7 engines to meet spec for delivery was a nightmare for the company. It also seemed some of our documentation on the engine components was not too good, adding to the excitement.

After our guys went to MASDEC to pull the engines off the old \"B\" models, we got a few full up QECs in Kodiak and started redoing them for our spares and upgrading all the old QECs to the newer config for start control valve lights, generator disconnect, and all the other goodies added over the years.

As I recall, that batch of 1700s had some bad oil shut-off valves, and the capacitive oil tank probes were soon replaced by the old, reliable toilet floats.

[Dan Wilson]

Did those HC-130H AF rescue birds, the original C-130H, have gen disconnect, x valve switches on fuel panel, -15s, etc. pretty much the same as the three 67-xxxx tail numbers we got 1452, 1453, 1454 (and later the 1451 loaner from 1984)??

Yes, they all came from the factory with Generator Disconnects, controllable x-valves, and - 15 engines.

Another point too, did the HC-130H AF rescue birds get more structural upgrades from the \"E\" to qualify for the 175K MGW?

Well the vertical beams for the landing gear are beefier than a slick E-models and I am sure there are other structural beef ups in other places.

The big difference between the usage of the HC vs E is the E was only designed to go to 175k GW for emergency/contingency but the HC\'s were designed to operate at 175K for 20% of the normal mission life PLUS emergency/war/contingency ops - so more beef.

Dan

[n1dp]

Thanks Dan!