Now this is STOL!!!

[VEGAS]

Hi all,

stumbled across this footage on YT. Would have thought this was impossible. Anyone know more about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj-Z9ZCwQ1Q

[Garry Russell]

Hi Eddie

Only what you see there....that it was mooted tried and although sucessful not adopted.

I would think a conceren would be wing tip clearance rather than take of/landing.

I suppose the test were pretty experienced pilots but with the run of the mill day to day operations it could be different.

Handling one on the deck after landing would be quite a job as well

Garry

[airboatr]

nice one...


Love the wording on the nose

"Look Ma No Hook"!

[forthbridge]

Yes, there's a lot on the net about this. Just proves my VC10 landing wasn't so lunatic after all ;-)
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factshee ... restal.asp

[Chris Trott]

While they repeated the feat and proved that even a "average" C-130 crew could safely complete the task, the reason it wasn't adopted was simple - no need. They've needed a larger COD for years (the C-2 really isn't great) but they could not justify using a C-130 on a regular basis as they definitely wouldn't be able to utilize it effectively and there were concerns over the stress on the wing box (which years later proved to be very prophetic) with the stiff landing required to make the system work. There have been reports, however, of the C-130 being used on occasion in this role during the 1980s for "low profile" operations, but as is the nature of these operations, it's not been confirmed.

[Garry Russell]

Thing is Chris even if there was no call for normal operation for whatever reason at least it was proved and in effect was a sucess by proving the feesability of that option.

So it is quite likely that 'non normal' operations have done this when the need arises, but as you say we wouldn't get to know.

That may have been the thought all along and the trial for normal use then the decision not to, being just a ruse to cover the real reason behind the test.

Certainly an option to always keep open.

Whatever the in's and out's....still spectacular

Garry

[airboatr]

While they repeated the feat and proved that even a "average" C-130 crew could safely complete the task.

I really don't think anyone who could land a plane on an aircraft carrier should be considered average

In fact I think they all deserve our highest respect.

[FlyTexas]

I wouldn't give them too much credit, airboatr. ;-) I used to work with a man who flew A-7's off the carrier Oriskany during the war in Southeast Asia. His most frightening wartime incident occurred in a bar while on liberty in the Philippines and involved a cute, bottle-wielding, Filipino waitress. Ha...Navy guys...go figure.

Brian

[Chris Trott]

What I was saying Joe was that any "average" C-130 crew could do it. An average C-130 crew isn't exactly "average" as far as pilots go. To be able to routinely put a 100,000 pound plane into a 100-foot wide, 3000-foot long dirt strip in the middle of nowhere and frequently surrounded by very tall obstacles takes a lot of skill, and to be considered "average" you've got to do at least that much, so I'm definitely not slighting anyone at all.

[SkippyBing]

I read a book on the C-130 years ago, and one of the reasons they stated for not using it regularly was that if the C-130 went downbird on the carrier it kind of got in the way! If I recall during the trials they pretty much had to clear the flight deck with some aircraft parked up on the bow section with the JBD raised to shield them and the rest in the hangar, certainly a major re-organisation to get the mail!! Mind you it'd help getting all those parcels from Amazon delivered..