Out of the Hangar: The origin story of the C-130 on its 70th anniversary

To mark the 70th anniversary of its first flight, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Chief Historian Kevin Rusnak explains how the C-130 was developed in the 1950s and continues to serve a vital role in today’s Air Force.
CHAPTERS
0:00 - Intro
0:43 - Before the C-130
3:06 - Turboprop engine development (more power)
5:00 - The Lockheed YC-130
5:51 - Debut and Kelly Johnson’s initial reaction
6:44 - Testing and development
7:40 - C-130 meets many needs
8:26 - Close

[@leethorp2164]

It's been said that when the last C17 is retired and dropped off that the pilots will be given a ride back home in a C130.

[@tomschmidt381]

I was a Marine Corps avionics tech in the late 1960s so spent a fair amount of time as a passenger in C-130s. Nice to see it is still flying.

[@indigohammer5732]

Bulb-you-luss? I've learned a new word! Thanks!

[@bluskytoo]

The T-56 had a 13.54:1 gear reduction ratio. The prop stays the approximate same speed as the engine tries to go faster with throttle input. Prop rpm is governed by blade angle at about 1040 per minute , while engine rpm is around 13,540. Power is seen as torque in the cockpit, Not RPM. Just some FYI from an old FE.

[@billyponsonby]

I went to the international air tattoo at RAF Greenham Common (before the CND protests) on the UK. The special event the 25th anniversary of the C-130. To celebrate, 25 very different versions from many different nations were lined up to see. Suppose it was 1979.

[@hueyman624]

2 great Books, "the Mighty Hercules" and "Herk Hero of the Skies" by Joe Dabney who was the public relations manager for Lockheed GA. He went to college with my mother at Berry College in Rome GA. Both are favorite books of mine. Although I am a former Huey pilot, I still love the C-130

[@evilroyslade2491]

1960s Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 82nd Airborne. C-130 upgraded from C-119 C-120

[@MH-fb5kr]

70 years! hard to believe!

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you. I have subscribed. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿, initial C-130H customer-now transitioning to C-130J. N.B. You failed to mention that the ‘flying boxcar’s’ design was clearly inspired by the initial Arado Ar 232 version, powered by two BMW 801 engines; and also the production 4-engine variant-necessitated by the Fw 190’s greater priority for the 801 engine.

[@phil20_20]

We even have a cadence about the C-130 in the Army.

[@terryrogers1025]

Interesting, have wondered about the development of this aircraft, enjoyed watching.

[@alancranford3398]

When you get something right the first time, getting an improvement is very difficult. The C-130 Hercules has evolved so that the C-130A of 70 years ago is barely the same as the C-130J of today (and I'm a few model numbers behind). The USAF has wanted to shed the C-130 since the Sixties but has nothing that can do what the C-130 can as a tactical transport. If the Air Force had its way, the C-17 would replace every C-130--but lack of resources isn't the only thing hamstringing the Air Force. The C-130 has its limitations--range, cargo capacity, lack of VTOL capability, needing a crew (no crew would be nice), needing any maintenance (a no-maintenance aircraft that never needed fueling is an impossible dream, but the closer to that dream, the better). Had a thousand C-130 aircraft been available along with trained crews (ground crews, air crews, air traffic controllers) the Berlin Airlift would have been over in a few weeks or Stalin might have started WW3 by shooting down the lumbering Hercules transports. Remember that the C-47 carried about the same cargo load as the famed duce and a half cargo truck of WW2, and the C-54 could carry a ten-ton load---with variations based on range and other factors. The C-130 can haul twenty tons of cargo, twice what the Skymaster (C-54) could, and the C-130 can load and unload palletized or container cargo far more swiftly. The C-130 can actually unload its cargo without landing, just fly low and shove properly prepared pallets out the back in one pass. It takes the ground crews longer to collect the cargo than it does for the C-130 to unload it. The goal of 5000 tons per day could have been met by 250 C-130 flights per day--at its peak the Berlin Airlift delivered nearly 9000 tons per day (450 C-130 flights) and did this with an average of 600 flights per day. As long as I'm playing fantasy football, the C-130 is an all-weather transport capable of using short runways or even unprepared fields (the surface of unprepared fields breaks down after only a few dozen landings). Imagine a thousand flights per day delivering 40,000 tons of food, medicine and fuel to West Berlin every day for six months--the real Berlin Airlift exceeded the wild expectations of the British and American planners and shocked Stalin to his core. The C-17 could deliver more cargo in a future Berlin Airlift from supply stocks in CONUS and do it faster--that's one reason why replacing the C-130 is desired. Another reason is that the C130 is an old and ugly mule of an airplane. Other than the aircrew, who could love such an unsexy beast? Oh, that's right--the guys depending on C-130 airlift. It's not practical to replace the C-130 right now in just the medium-range cargo lift role--and then there are the many other missions from gunship to ELINT platform that the C-130 does. The C-130 outlived its replacement, the C-141, and until the C-17 replacement can operate from a soccer field the C-130 will still be very useful. Kelly Johnson got the C-130 right--and the Hercules has been continually improved.

[@michijimc9753]

In the 1960’s Far East my late Father was a career USAF guy. My Mother worked civil service and we flew in the C-130 between islands infrequently. Usually my Mothers boss was PIC. The C-130 is an amazing aircraft, yet another of Lockheeds legendary designs flying out of the past and into the future American history.

[@rogerwhittle2078]

The Royal Air Force use the Hercules and has done for many, many years. Most of ours are a bit different in that they are a good bit longer, with a fuselage 'ring' inserted in front of the wing and another behind it. Obviously it can't carry any more weight, but it can carry more bulk. Also many of ours are fitted with inflight refueling gear and we have variants that can supply the fuel to other aircraft. What were you saying about versatile? As a civilian Brit, I count myself among the 'honoured' to have made two memorable flights in the RAF 'Herc', just after the 1992 Gulf war! I used to work on CT Scanners (later MRI's as well) and a CT at a hospital in Kuwait city had blown its own brains out after the Iraqi's blew up the power station. I was charged with trying to get it going before the regular engineer could get back into Kuwait. I flew out to Baharain commercial, but the only way from there to Kuwait City was via the Royal Air Force, by way of an invitation from the British Embassy! It was clunky, noisy and actually falling apart! The airframe I flew in had been operating continuously since the war started. The Flight Engineer (yes, I was invited on to the flight deck) asked if I had noticed the two starboard side propellors? I had, they were grey with red stripes - RAF ones are black with yellow tips. Our aeroplane was flying on borrowed props! I had also noticed the 'Loadie' pumping the undercarriage down and the fact the APU didn't work. Also the aeroplane was nearly black with soot and shit from the Oil Field fires the Iraqi's set. When I was flown back to Baharain, the crew were high as kites and couldn't care less that there were major things wrong with it. They were going home to Brize Norton! I don't know if any American military call their C-130's anything other than 'Herc' or 'Herky Bird', but in the RAF the C-130 is known affectionately as "Fat Albert". Mostly because its avuncular smile and clown nose.

[@patrickshanley4466]

Love the c-130, it’s the modern C-47😊

[@EVISEH]

You omit to mention the turboprop was British invented and developed and imply that it was "we" the US, who put together a prop with a jet engine to create the turboprop.

[@allangibson8494]

And the British had a four engined turboprop airliner flying before the C-130 flew… (Bristol Britannia)

[@GH-oi2jf]

The turboprop was patented by a Hungarian in 1929, but first implemented in Britain.

[@joestephan1111]

The C-46 was not in the same league or used like the C-47. The latter was the real back bone of the airlift in both theaters

[@joestephan1111]

My father flew both as well as the C-130 in and out of every jungle airstrip in SE Asia. He called the C-130 the best of all the different aircraft he flew in his 28 career.

[@allangibson8494]

@@joestephan1111 The C-46 could do things the C-47 simply couldn’t. Like fly into China from India. That was a legacy of being originally designed as a pressurised passenger aircraft. More C-46’s would have been built if it wasn’t for Curtis getting distracted by trying to built a wooden replacement the C-76 Caravan (the same program that produced the stainless steel C-93). Douglas had already designed and built a better replacement for the DC-3 in the DC-5 but WW2 ended that program and the production plant was switched to the DB-7 instead.

[@tootired76]

Good video. The plane is legendary.

[@user-tl5fi9lz9z]

I have about 2000 hours in C-130s. 400 of which were A models!

[@garydaniels5495]

Happy Birthday, C-130 Hercules! Given the day, this is a good remembrance.

[@timothykelly5588]

the air forces ' pick up truck!

[@HaroldBrice]

Ah, yes, we all love airplanes. I watched the gunships at work for hours. Absolutely awesome. Hope someday MANKIND will get humane. C-130. Legendary. Awesome. Earned all its accolades. Fly on............

[@grinch45]

Did I ever land in a C-130? Nope - always left by parachute!

[@wocookie2277]

Many hours in the back of these things. I do think the first gun ship, puff the magic dragon, was an old C 47 though. It worked so they used bigger weapons in the Herc.

[@300guy]

Looks so odd without the weather radar. Did the British request a RR powered version of the C-130?

[@donalddodson7365]

One of the very best taxpayers' "bang for their buck," ever! Rode C-130's quite a bit during my year in South Vietnam. Amazingly durable and very nimble for a cargo hauler.

[@AlanToon-fy4hg]

It is still built by Lockheed Martin about four miles away from me...

[@michaelogden5958]

Interesting. She and I are approximately the same age. She's still a workhorse. Me? Not so much. 🙂

[@Jason-7212]

Funny how this person, who SHOULD know, seems to have skipped over the Chase/Fairchild C-123 Provider that preceded the C-130 in production and service. Both aircraft were introduced into US service in 1956, but the C123 was produced from 1949 while the C130 did not enter production until 1954. There are some indications that the Air Force actually began taking deliveries of the C-123A's as early as 1953. I really hate when someone who is supposed to be a supposed professional or a historian leaves out important details.

[@allangibson8494]

And missed the WW2 C-82 Packet and Budd RB1/ C-93 Conestoga (the aircraft that set the pattern for the C-130).

[@timothykelly5588]

don't forget the Caribou!

[@johnweiland9389]

The plane in the photo has 2 engines. A c 130 has 4. This guy is a fool.

[@allangibson8494]

@@johnweiland9389 The Conestoga was a twin but had the rear loading ramp and drop door that later appeared in the C-130. The C-130 is simply a bigger iteration of the same idea. The Conestoga was however more fire proof and crashworthy being made of stainless steel sheet. Unfortunately that was tested repeatedly…