118th AES Retired

62-1860 also an Aeromed trainer but inside a building at Brooks. This would be correct. Or it was when Brooks was still open back in 1991. I attended the School of Aerospace Medicine, Aeromedical Evacuation Technician/Flight Nurse Course there in November/December 91'. It was used to demonstrate enplaning/deplaning of patients, and also for use as a trainer for the location of emergency exits. MSgt. James L. Reynolds 118th AES USAF (Ret)

"The plane is owned and operated by Trans Afrique of Ghana, he said. National Air Cargo is a customer, he said. National Air Cargo received reports "that the plane was on the radar and then it wasn't," Murray said. An ISAF statement said the plane was not an ISAF aircraft, and Lt. Col. John Dorrian, ISAF spokesman, said the aircraft was from Uganda. "Early reports indicate the plane is an L-100 Hercules aircraft, the civilian equivalent of a military C-130," the statement said. ISAF said the airport is expected to remain open." Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/10/12/afghanistan.plane.crash/index.html?hpt=Sbin

Okay, so far we've had some pretty good ones. Keep them coming! In my book though, the "Echo Check" with the video has to be the best so far. Closely followed by the "Radar Check"

I don't know the answer to the question at hand. But, I do have a comment. You might have spent time at Ramstein if........ "If you know the way to the Firehouse restaurant that serves the best authentic German food around."

Well guys, it's been a couple of weeks since I've logged on and commented on the original post and follow up comments here. Let me make it very clear, that as the one who started the thread, "my" intent was never to "bash the C-130". I flew them for twenty years and logged primary time in the A, B, E, H-2, and the J model, as well as a couple of other models along the way. The bird is a good bird. I do have some "issues" with the "J" and I won't go there. My main focus was on the lack of focus and R&D of Lockheed (or as some are calling it, "Lackheed") over the last quarter century. Basically, when it comes to cargo aircraft, the bottom line is the Lockheed has all its' eggs in one basket with the "J" model. My point is that I do believe that the Airbus A-400 poses competition to the C-130 as well as the Embrarer KC-390 project. The C-27J is taking "some" of the work away from the C-130 also. There was a time when America was the world leader in deveopment of all types of military and commercial aircraft. As we have evolved into this so-called "global economy" we've seen more and more of that go overseas. The bottom line here is that as an investor, and as one who watches this industry closely, I just don't see a lot that impresses me with Lockheed's initiative in the R&D area as to military transports over the past 25 years or so. I have no problem with Lockheed venturing into other areas, and someday, they may be the world leader in big ole' remote controlled airplanes (UAVs), but I just don't see them surviving as a major manufacturer of military cargo transports when the demand for the "J" runs out or is replaced by other products. As to the AMP program, let's hope that it survives, but it is hard to run a program like that when the pentagon changes the rules from day to day. I've enjoyed ALL of the posts and comments thus far and respect the opinions of all who have posted.

Here's one to play on the journeyman electrician: send him to get a "U Tube Bender" What in the hell is a "U Tube Bender"? Well, it's kind of like a conduit bender. Only, the purpose of the "U Tube Bender" is to bend a straight flourescent light bulb to fit the U shape to fit into the U shape fixtures. Okay, so he looks at you like you're joking.....explain that you put the straight flourscent bulb into a heater just as you do for PVC conduit and heat it. Once heated, you use the "U tube bender" to bend it into shape..... You'd be surprised at how many fall for it!

I managed rental property for my parents when they were in Europe doing missionary work in the Lakenheath/Mildenhal area in the 1980s. One of the girls who rented from me knew that I always changed my own oil and took care of my vehicle. She bought her first brand new car, and she was really wanting to take care of it. So, she proceeded to have me show her how to change the oil, etc. She asked if there was anymore "preventive maintenance" I could recommend. I told her about rotating and balancing tires, etc. AND, I told her that she needed to "change the air in the tires every time she changed the oil". I "explained" to her that the air gets stale and causes "dry rot" inside of the tire and causes the rubber to break down. I proceeded to show her how to use a valve stem removal tool as well. We had a local truck stop that had "free" air on the truck side. So, I advised her to go to the truck stop to change the air so she didn't have to "pay" for the air. Sure enough, she left and headed toward the truck stop. And sure enough, I parked at a distance and laughed my ass off as this blonde got out and proceeded to let all of the air out of her tires and then "replace" it. I never told her any differently..........

Congratulations to Boeing. Not only does it fly, but the 787 lands! The 787 is leading the way in composite large airplanes. Of course, there are a lot of things yet to be learned, and developments yet to come about. Just imagine someday, a C-130 that is mostly composite and think of the possibilities: Increased Speed; Higher Lifting Capacity; Fuel Efficiency; etc. Will Boeing make the next C-130? Or will Lackheed learn?

It flies! My son and I just watched history in the making as the Boeing 787 took to the air for the first time. Congratulations Boeing. When will Lockheed (aka Lackheed) take to the air with a new heavy lifter? Or even a light lifter for that matter? Well, Airbus may have the A400-M, but Boeing has the 787 which also shows promise. Now, if the Pentagon just makes the right decision and goes with the Boeing tanker vs. the Airbus.......

Was it just us, or did any of you guys ever send the new troop over to supply to pick up some "prop wash"?

Contol: 'AF1733, You are on an eight mile final for 27R. You have a UH-1 three miles ahead of you on final; reduce speed to 130 knots.' Pilot: 'Rogo', Frankfurt. We're bringing this big bird back to one-hundred and thirty knots fer ya.' Cont: (a few moments later): 'AF33, helicopter traffic at 90 knots now11/2 miles ahead of you; reduce speed further to 110 knots.' Pilot: 'AF thirty-three reining this here bird back further to 110 knots' Cont: 'AF33, you are three miles to touchdown, helicopter traffic now 1 mile ahead of you; reduce speed to 90 knots' Pilot (a little miffed): 'Sir, do you know what the stall speed of this here C-130 is?' Cont: 'No, but if you ask your co-pilot, he can probably tell you.'

Amen Brother! This is a message that ALL AMERICANS need to hear!

There have been some good discussions posted in this thread, and I'm glad to see so many folks here point out their observations and experiences. We all have our various opinions, and these forums are a great place to discuss those and to present observations and experiences. As has been pointed out, the C-130 has played an important role over the years. Those of us who have flown this airframe know what it is and what it is not capable of. The C-130 certainly has its' place. My original point in beginning the discussion however remains. In my opinion, I believe that Lockheed's days are numbered. If Lockheed fails, then the C-130 program eventually fails. I just wonder why Lockheed (or as someone noted "Lackheed") has failed to remain competitive in the area of R&D for the past quarter century or so. Why doesn't Lockheed have a (current/future) product to complement the C-130 in various sizes? Sure, the C-5 and the C-141 were compliments, but the C-141 is gone, having been replaced by Boeing's C-17. What about the Transall C-160? Where was Lockheed when the C-160 was developed to meet a specific requirement? What about a replacement for the C-123? Where was Lockheed with a replacement? What about the C-27J? Why is it that Lockheed didn't put forth a true R&D effort to meet the need for this specification, other than to offer its' C-130J? It has also been noted that the Airbus A400-M has been met with huge cost overruns. But in all fairness, isn't that true of virtually all new developments? What about the C-17? What about the C-141 & C-5? What about the B-1B? And is the same not true of the F-22 and F-35? So, the issue of cost overruns is somewhat of a moot point. In the end, my point is simply that Lockheed, the once and great world leader in the production of military cargo aircraft has lagged behind in R&D for years and years. Sure, the C-130 is still a great airframe, and there is still LOTS of room for improvement. My point is that Lockheed cannot put all of its' eggs in one basket and expect to survive.

Dan: Thanks. Some good points you mention. But still, Lockheed (and other U.S. manufacturers) have lagged behind in R&D and will eventually obselete themselves out of business should the trend continue. Just go back and look at Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation and look at all of the "has been" manufacturers of aircraft in America, and then look at what we have now. Look at the competition around the world and the R&D going on elsewhere. Yes, America will someday be a "has been" in aviation manufacture, and I personally believe Lockheed will be the next "has been" to go. And to those who say Lockheed should have kept the H-2 line open....I agree 100%

True, we don't. My point is though, that with the lack of innovation at Lockheed and other U.S. companies, we may end up having no choice. Let's see, we're importing the C-27J now. The Army's latest helicopter is European. The new presidential helicopter is European. There was a time with the U.S. was the undisputed world leader in commercial and civilian aviation manufacturing. The tide is changing. Let's just hope that the pentagon has enough sense to stick with Boeing's proven tanker. It's time that Lockheed either get with the program or go ahead and sell out to someone else. Thank goodness we still have Boeing in Research and Development and production.