Jump to content

YMC-130H c/n 74-1686 Credible Sport II Inquiry


Bob Rinder
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello, Am new here so apologize up front if this has been discussed previously. There

is currently a photo on ebay which ostensibly depicts the subject a/c with what appears to be 2 engines. I have tried to find some explanation for this configuration but have found nothing. I am a veteran with fond memories of the C-130, but I am far from a technical expert. I just found this particular photo fascinating since I had never seen a twin-engine C-130 previously. Can anyone offer any insight on what this photo represents or am I just imagining something ? Thanks, Bob Rinder http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290968097380&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:3160#ht_302wt_917

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a two engine version of the 130 made by Lockheed but was so under powered it garnered little interest in the military or civil aviation fields. Ever picture I remember seeing of Credible Sport they were all four engine. I don't see a 2 engine herc getting out of a soccer stadium even with rockets. I can't explain this picture unless both inboard engines ar3e remov3ed for MX or "Photoshop".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on this is the no 2 engine nacelle has been removed for some reason. I think the single blade showing on the opposite side is showing the no 3 prop and no 4 prop(far outboard) just so happens to be not visible from this angle. That's probably why it only looks like 2 props.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall reading some L-400 design reports while at LM, but as far as I know none were ever built or tested.

Credible Sport II, on the other hand, was a real aircraft which was used to test various STOL modifications on the C-130H. The program was a follow-on to Credible Sport without the rocket-assisted takeoff (RATO) and landing retro rockets in an attempt to make an operational STOL aircraft. Modifications included an additional flap segment (essentially making a double-slotted flap), extended chord control surfaces, and additional control augmentation. The STOL mods were very effective at lowering the takeoff and landing speeds and distances and allowing power-on landing approaches. Low-speed controllability was the main problem. LM had big plans for more modifications to be included in the Combat Talon II configuration, but they never happened. However, many of the STOL mods made their way on to Lockheed's High Technology Test Bed (HTTB) in one form or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember another two strange programs that came out of Lockheed in the mid-70's. One was a Herc with four TF-33s, ala C-141. Never got past the analysis stage. The only way you could taxi it was with two engines in ground idle and the other two in reverse. And on, and on. Died an early death.

The other was called "HOW", which stood for "Hercules On Water". This was to an amphibian version with a "bolt on" boat hull. They went so far as to build an eight foot wingspan RC flying model. Never could overcome the empty weight problem and the fact that the Coast Guard wasn't interested. Somewhere in storage I have a picture that I'll snag the next time I'm going through that stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other was called "HOW", which stood for "Hercules On Water". This was to an amphibian version with a "bolt on" boat hull. They went so far as to build an eight foot wingspan RC flying model. Never could overcome the empty weight problem and the fact that the Coast Guard wasn't interested. Somewhere in storage I have a picture that I'll snag the next time I'm going through that stuff.

Here it is, John.

Don R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The empty weight was probably too high due to the boat hull and extra strengthening, which would have diminished the payload capacity. There was another amphibious C-130 design more recently that simply added floats to the existing airframe. I remember seeing some pictures of a wind tunnel model, but I think it suffered from the same issues: too much weight and drag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suspect that getting a floater Herk airborne isn't really the problem. The problem has to do with the practicality of it (ie, low payload/range due to being too heavy) and the associated costs with such an endeavour. It simply would cost too much to do with very little or no return either commercially or in a military market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep it's for Flight Simulator X. Captain Sim did a good job with it. Although the version of the files I have didn't come with the floater.

Seems to me that that converting the structure of the Herk to looking more like the Short Empire would be more practical.

VHABE.jpg

As for loading and unloading, many of the large flying boats either had a side mounted cargo door with an internal crane and/or only hauled passengers.

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...