Jump to content

Info Needed 56-0484


118th AES Retired
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am continuing in my research project of 'A' models that once were assigned to the 118th/105th TAW (TNANG) in Nashville. I am looking for any additional information I can find on 56-0484.

Here is what I have thus far:

This aircraft was converted to a C-130A-II at one time, and then back to a C-130A by 1972. At the time of the conversion to the C-130A-II, she was assigned to the 7506th Support Squadron at Rhein-Mein, Germany.

The 7506th was a reconnaissance squadron with quite a bit of history.

She arrived at the 7506th in June 1958 as the squadron’s first C-130A-II.

She departed the 7506th in April 1972.

In August 1972, she was assigned to the 924th TAG (AFRES) at Ellington AFB, TX. In April 1973, she was assigned to the 919th TAG (AFRES) at Duke Field, FL. In June 1973 she was assigned to the 133rd TAG (ANG) at Minneapolis-St. Paul MAP in Minnesota. In January 1974 she was assigned to the 118th TAG (ANG) in Nashville. In February 1976, she was assigned back to the 133rd TAG at Minneapolis St-Paul. In October 1981 she was assigned to the 356th TAS (AFRES) at Rickenbacker AFB, OH. In January 1987, she was retired and sent to AMARC at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. She went on to become an aerial tanker bomber registered as N137FF flying for Hemet Valley Flying Service. She was scrapped in 2000.

Hemet Valley Flying Services is one company rumored to have close ties to the CIA according to numerous sources and official documents, and was at the center of the now infamous U.S. Forestry Service Tanker Scandal. It is possible that 56-0484 went on to serve with the CIA after her military retirement? , . , , , ,

As with many of the former aircraft of the 118th/105th, if these aircraft could tell their stories, they would certainly tell some very interesting stories. For a glimpse of the kinds of missions that 56-0484 was involved in prior to her life with the 118th/105th, visit the link in the endnotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I was a crew chief in the 06th from 62 to 66. The unit disbanded June 74. By this time I was stationed at TAC Hqs. in the C-130 shop. I was aware all C-130A II acft. were being demoded and assigned to the reserve forces. Thought the sqd. that gets these old Rivet Victor acft. are not going to be happy when they see what they are getting. They were all high time airframes. When I departed the sqd. in June 66 my aircraft was approaching 10,000 hours. Average sortie duration was 8.7 hours. The average ute. rate was on the order of 150 hours a month. They had never been airlifters. As they came off the line at Lockheed they were delivered to E Systems and converted to the II configuration. In addition to not having airlift/airdrop capability they were non standard, i.e., liquid oxygen, AC generator on all engines, APN 99 Doppler, custom cargo compartment air conditioning system, 450 gal. bladder fuel tanks in the wings between the inboard engines and the fuselage, ect. I often wondered it the sqds’. were ever able to get these aircraft to a point were they could declare them FMC? Somewhere on another thread someone asked about the four AC generators. The third generator powered the back-end equipment and the forth was a spare. One of the before taxi checks was a generator bus tie check. The FE had be alert when he complied with this check as sometimes it was possible to get two generators on the same bus at the same time. Not a good thing. Unlike ABCCC, the mission equipment was not pallet mounted for easy roll on roll off. But was permanently bolted to the acft. In fact the cargo ramp and door were permanently closed and only opened manually at PDM/modification. A plus was the acft. were treated with much tlc. Very well maintaind and flow. No assault landings, no LAPES, ect. We did operate at or near max. gross weight. One of our acft. (535) was so heavy it took 45+ minutes to reach cruise altitude. Take off, climb to cruise altitude, throttle back to 150kts. Not unusual to see total fuel of 1,000 pph. Set 10% flaps. 8.7 hours later call ATC for decent clearance. Having said all the above, have to say have no knowledge of acft. configuration at time of delivery to the Guard/Reserve. So, depending on conf., perhaps none of the above was, in fact, a problem. The 7406 has a web site you may find helpfull, "7406 Suppron.com". In any case, hope this helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In January 1987, she was retired and sent to AMARC at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. She went on to become an aerial tanker bomber registered as N137FF flying for Hemet Valley Flying Service. She was scrapped in 2000.

Hemet Valley Flying Services is one company rumored to have close ties to the CIA according to numerous sources and official documents, and was at the center of the now infamous U.S. Forestry Service Tanker Scandal. It is possible that 56-0484 went on to serve with the CIA after her military retirement? , . , , , ,

This aircraft wasn't scrapped in 2000. She went to the Allied Aircraft Sales yard adjoining AMARC. Last note I have of her is Jan07, she may well still be there.

Regards,

Andy Marden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

Opps, poor choice of words. What I should have said was, unlike ABCCC mission equipment which could be removed/installed at the unit level, albiet, with great difficulty.... By the way was the sqd. ever tasked to do this? When I was TAC Hqs. our involvment in SEA was winding down. When the ABCCC mission ended the plan was to return the acft. to the TAC airlift fleet. Because we were in the middle of the -4A dual rail mod I included these tail numbers in the TCTO. WR ALC and PACAF questioned this at length. Don't know what the outcome was as I moved on to the AMST test team soon thereafter.

One thing I'm learning, when you post on HerkyBirds, you better know what the heck your talking about. My guess is there is at least a million years of experience here. No matter how mundane the question there is someone out there with the answer. Thats a good thing.

Regards,

Myers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

As far as I know, 62-1791 was the only ABCCC plane that had ever been drilled and rigged for dual rails, none of the others were ever modded.

But I dont think the 7th ACCS even owned a set of rails to install on 1791 even if they wanted too.

Dan

that is correct, the AF just sold 1791. but it did have dual rails and flew like a champ in Kadena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is NO chance 0484 flew for the CIA, in fact it never flew for Hemet Valley Flying Service as an airtanker or anything else either. It never left the ground after going to AMARC. Hemet stripped it of rotables and left it with what for them was timed engines. Bob Mace eventually ended up with the airplane and the last time I saw it it was sitting at another yard in the back just down the dirt road from Minden Air's yard.

While the USFS Airtanker story is an ugly one the conspiricy theories which abound make interesting stories and little else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...