Bob Rinder Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWoods Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWoods Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 (edited) The twin engine did exist. Check out page 20 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/Service-News/V7N2.pdf Edited August 30, 2013 by BobWoods edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbob Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyclark Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Yup, I concur with jbob, #2 is removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mt.crewchief Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 The twin engine did exist. Check out page 20 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/Service-News/V7N2.pdf Bob, thanks for the info!! Another one of those "I didn't know that" moments!! Any idea how many of them were made? Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWoods Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Have no idea how many were made, if any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkuest Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I think it was just a model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC10FE Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I think it was just a model. I agree, it was just a prototype model. If I remember correctly, it also had a single wheel MLG on each side and was going to be a 2-man cockpit. Don R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerfManJ Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkuest Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I agree, it was just a prototype model. If I remember correctly, it also had a single wheel MLG on each side and was going to be a 2-man cockpit. Don R. I did some googling. http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/civilaviation1949-2006cutaways/images/8835/lockheed-l-400-cutaway.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre623 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 It ain't a 2 engine model but it is right the opposite. How bout an L-100-60! Bill:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflimbach Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC10FE Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEFEGeorge Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 What is/was the empty weight problem? Plane too light when it was empty and bobbed like a cork, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerfManJ Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEFEGeorge Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 You'd think that since Howard Hughes got the Spruce Goose "airborne" that they would have figured out a way to get the Herc done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre623 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Since the first post was a question about the Credible Sport aircraft I am posting pics of the model built by Lockheed. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerfManJ Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I suppose if the Herc was made of wood and only had to fly in ground effect... Awesome model of Credible Sport, Bill. It even has the extended dorsal and "horsals." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railrunner130 Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC10FE Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 I haven't a clue who sent me this picture. From the captioning, it seems to be a simulator model. I think loading it would be a problem unless they had water-borne K-loaders, too. Don R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railrunner130 Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.