Jump to content

Argentinian C-130 Bomber


Railrunner130
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

The last two or three seconds are amazing, watching the feathers ruffle and the wings swell. See the trailing flaps go down, the rudder correct for displacement from center line, the leading edge devices deploy, the landing gear extend. Interesting to watch the corrections in the flight path as the bird comes in. Seems to be a cross-wind from his right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice pics Bob. Those appear to be standard U.S. made BRU-41 MER racks we used on our fighters till bout 1990. Each position fired a squib to push the bomb away from the rack. Would be interesting to know how or if they aimed them. Bill

Pretty simple ballistic calculation at C-130 speeds. Or, you could just hang your standard HELLFIRE rack, get yourself a laser designator, and Voila!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3275[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3276[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3277[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3278[/ATTACH]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last two or three seconds are amazing, watching the feathers ruffle and the wings swell. See the trailing flaps go down, the rudder correct for displacement from center line, the leading edge devices deploy, the landing gear extend. Interesting to watch the corrections in the flight path as the bird comes in. Seems to be a cross-wind from his right.

Sorry to hijack this thread again, but I thought that verbage sounded familiar.

Don R.

http://www.c-130hercules.net/showthread.php?t=3402

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wings are already designed to carry pylons and external tanks at that hard point, which weigh about 9,000 lb each when full. And the external tanks act to reduce the wing-root bending moment during flight by counteracting wing lift. The drag load from the bombs is probably different, and I'm not sure of the effect of the response from bomb release. But one could probably configure for bombs occasionally without a significant increase in wing fatigue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wings are already designed to carry pylons and external tanks at that hard point, which weigh about 9,000 lb each when full. And the external tanks act to reduce the wing-root bending moment during flight by counteracting wing lift. The drag load from the bombs is probably different, and I'm not sure of the effect of the response from bomb release. But one could probably configure for bombs occasionally without a significant increase in wing fatigue.

You sure about that 9,000 lb comment for the outboard hard point? I don't think that refueling pods weigh anywhere near that much. The inboard hard point I can see the 9K, max external tank fuel is 9,100 lbs if memory serves. Nor do I think that the equipment that the ECs hang on the outboard hard points is anywhere near 9K. If the outboard hard points do have a rating of 9K then someone sure missed a chance to hang another external tank, etc., there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was referring to the Argentinian bomber configuration, which has the bomb rack mounted at the inboard hardpoint. Alternatively, the Harvest HAWK has Hellfires mounted on the outboard pylon. Hellfires are a pretty light load compared the 6 bomb cluster on the Argentinian C-130.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...