User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:02:32 PM EDT
[#1]
C-130 can land and takeoff fully loaded on 3,000 ft of dirt...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:05:28 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:08:05 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:08:38 PM EDT
[#4]
Pretty sure the entire cargo area was filled with the pilots balls, because it'd have to take a huge set of them to attempt that landing on a carrier.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:10:43 PM EDT
[#5]
That's what I needed, thank you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:11:16 PM EDT
[#6]
4500 feet should be more than enough room to take off and land.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:14:21 PM EDT
[#7]
I know herc's go into Nixon Forks Mine and their runway is 4200ft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:14:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Pretty sure the entire cargo area was filled with the pilots balls, because it'd have to take a huge set of them to attempt that landing on a carrier. The entire fuselage, fuel tanks, and any dead space inside the aircraft whatsoever was filled with the pilot's balls. Big titanium ones. OP, they've landed them on carriers before. And wiki says it requires 3500ft of runway to take off at max weight. The runway is 1k feet longer than that. Consider that when you land you'll always be lighter than when you take off due to fuel burn... so, yes. C130 will do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:18:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Even a super T (look it up) could land on that. If it's hard packed gravel, with a bunch to spare as we reverse the props for a shit ton of breaking power on top of the 4 wheel brakes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:36:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Saw the wiki specs, but didn't know how much the surface type would effect overall length needed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:45:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Cute airplane. Why not go big?
The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters).
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:53:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Don't try to do it in under 400 feet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:56:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Cute airplane. Why not go big? The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters).
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86 Runway not wide enough. Quoted:Gravel surface - 4,490'x80'
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:57:09 PM EDT
[#14]
I've been in and out of there with a Herk. Minimum runway length during peacetime is 3000 feet. The term Fully Loaded is somewhat misleading though. For "shorter" field operations they will fly with a smaller fuel load. In other words a lighter fuel load equals a larger cargo carrying capability. The type of runway, i.e. rocks, gravel, etc, may affect some things. RCR. This is the type place the Herk is ideal for.
Not a C-17 guy but I'm pretty sure it can operate out of many places the Herk can but not all. My unit got to operate as Air Force One back during some campaigning for Bush 1 when he was running for re-election against Clinton. They were flying in and out of some smaller airfields in the north east. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 12:59:24 PM EDT
[#15]
It can do it. The pilot will know the specs of the airfield before they even take off. If they can't do it they wont.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cute airplane. Why not go big? The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters).
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86 Runway not wide enough. Quoted:Gravel surface - 4,490'x80'
I'm sure it will be fine |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:00:19 PM EDT
[#16]
JATO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:02:53 PM EDT
[#17]
What he said... JATO!!!
What model? Possible "J" model or older style? I think the game changes a lil' bit. 4,400 is plenty, dunno when they hit V1 but its well before that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:03:41 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cute airplane. Why not go big? The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters).
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86 Runway not wide enough. Quoted:Gravel surface - 4,490'x80'
It will be after the landing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:04:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Holy fuck! I've never seen that attempt! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:10:25 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
JATO IIRC the Israelis got a couple off the ground in some Godawful short field ake off while leaving the scene of the Entebbe raid back in the 70s. I read the angle of attack was estimated at 45 degrees! Like a homesick angel! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:12:14 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: JATO IIRC the Israelis got a couple off the ground in some Godawful short field ake off while leaving the scene of the Entebbe raid back in the 70s. I read the angle of attack was estimated at 45 degrees! Like a homesick angel! I thought they'd discontinued the JATO? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:13:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
JATO IIRC the Israelis got a couple off the ground in some Godawful short field ake off while leaving the scene of the Entebbe raid back in the 70s. I read the angle of attack was estimated at 45 degrees! Like a homesick angel! I thought they'd discontinued the JATO? RTFP Israel. 1970s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:16:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Don't land in places where takeoff might not be possible. That has happened more than one time.
There's more to the problem than just runway length. Altitude, temperature, surface condition, weight, and obstacle height also matter. That 4500 foot long runway won't look so long if there's a mountain at the departure end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:20:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: JATO IIRC the Israelis got a couple off the ground in some Godawful short field ake off while leaving the scene of the Entebbe raid back in the 70s. I read the angle of attack was estimated at 45 degrees! Like a homesick angel! I thought they'd discontinued the JATO? RTFP Israel. 1970s. Calm yourself Beavis. pdm mentioned JATO and you were closest to the bottom so that's why you got quoted too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:26:14 PM EDT
[#25]
But... Didn't JATO limit the life of the airframe? Theres a "Fat Albert" 130 sitting outside of Pensacola NAS museum hangar that hit like 30 JATO T/O's and was de-com'd
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:26:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
What he said... JATO!!! What model? Possible "J" model or older style? I think the game changes a lil' bit. 4,400 is plenty, dunno when they hit V1 but its well before that. Operation Rice Bowl. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:37:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cute airplane. Why not go big? The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters).
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86 Runway not wide enough. Quoted:Gravel surface - 4,490'x80'
It will be after the landing. Actually it is wide enough right now. The OP posted an incorrect width. Dimensions: 4494 ft. x 90 ft. https://nfdc.faa.gov/nfdcApps/airportLookup/airportDisplay.jsp?airportId=AWI |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:42:17 PM EDT
[#28]
yes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 1:53:20 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cute airplane. Why not go big? The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters). http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86 Runway not wide enough. Quoted:Gravel surface - 4,490'x80' It will be after the landing. Actually it is wide enough right now. The OP posted an incorrect width. Dimensions: 4494 ft. x 90 ft. https://nfdc.faa.gov/nfdcApps/airportLookup/airportDisplay.jsp?airportId=AWI Doesn't the C-17 have a very heavy weight displacement for its footprint, therefore limiting what tarmac/runway can support it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 3:05:31 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Holy fuck! I've never seen that attempt! Credible Sport, one of the two airframes is still on display at Hurlburt Fld. Designed to land and take off within the confines of a soccer stadium, The planes had taken off and landed hundreds of times under manual control. this one was under the control of the rudimentary computer and it fired the braking thrusters too early and the landing thrusters too late. The plan was to have Delta on board, and land them in the stadium with a small ranger contingent to hold the stadium Delta would ditibop across the road to the embassy and free the hostages and bring them back to the stadium and everyone would load up on these birds and BLAST off into the night. While an AC-130 provided covering fire. Audacious plan... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 3:36:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Disregard, I thought you were talking about Ft. Wainwright in Fairbanks.
Wainright used to be Ladd AFB. Had C-54s, B-29s, C-124s. Plenty big enough. I've been in and out dirt assualt strips at Bragg and Richardson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 3:40:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Holy fuck! I've never seen that attempt! Credible Sport, one of the two airframes is still on display at Hurlburt Fld. Designed to land and take off within the confines of a soccer stadium, The planes had taken off and landed hundreds of times under manual control. this one was under the control of the rudimentary computer and it fired the braking thrusters too early and the landing thrusters too late. The plan was to have Delta on board, and land them in the stadium with a small ranger contingent to hold the stadium Delta would ditibop across the road to the embassy and free the hostages and bring them back to the stadium and everyone would load up on these birds and BLAST off into the night. While an AC-130 provided covering fire. Audacious plan... Visualizing that landing with a couple spookies in the air above made me moist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 3:45:23 PM EDT
[#33]
In 1968 my unit was set up beside the airstrip at Tam Ky. I was amazed at how short a distance the C130 could land in and take off in.
Air America was landing some kind of DeHavilands there also and they used even less. There was some pretty exotic looking individuals getting off those planes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2012 4:44:30 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy fuck! I've never seen that attempt! Credible Sport, one of the two airframes is still on display at Hurlburt Fld. Designed to land and take off within the confines of a soccer stadium, The planes had taken off and landed hundreds of times under manual control. this one was under the control of the rudimentary computer and it fired the braking thrusters too early and the landing thrusters too late. The plan was to have Delta on board, and land them in the stadium with a small ranger contingent to hold the stadium Delta would ditibop across the road to the embassy and free the hostages and bring them back to the stadium and everyone would load up on these birds and BLAST off into the night. While an AC-130 provided covering fire. Audacious plan... Visualizing that landing with a couple spookies in the air above made me moist. 
YMC-130H |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
