In-flight shots of LC-130 skis?

[jq]

Has anyone seen inflight pics of LC-130s (with landing gear stowed / skis tucked in)?

I've seen plenty of landing shots with the skis/gear extended, but I'm interesting to see how the skis stow during flight.

tx

PS just discovered the C-130 airframe database on this site http://www.c-130.net/aircraft-database/C-130/ . Holy #$@#$ that's impressive!!

JimQ

[Whity]

Here's a belly shot of what I believe is an LC-130 in flight:

im264-Norseman_CF-GSR.jpg (12.02 KiB) Viewed 11142 times

No seriously, I think they are completely retracted together with the wheels.

[Jon]

Has anyone seen inflight pics of LC-130s (with landing gear stowed / skis tucked in)?

I've seen plenty of landing shots with the skis/gear extended, but I'm interesting to see how the skis stow during flight.

Yeah, I know they just tuck up a bit, but your right you don't see many belly shots in flight.

PS just discovered the C-130 airframe database on this site http://www.c-130.net/aircraft-database/C-130/ . Holy #$@#$ that's impressive!!

Thanks for the kinds words. We've been working on that database for many years. Updates welcome. Mostly just trying to get as many photos as we can right now, but you can tag comments to the specific aircraft to advise of updates. Thanks largely to Asif and Bjorn, our photograph coverage is approaching 70%. That's impressive as we launched about a year ago at 25% coverage.

Watch for more growth over the next few years of other things as well.

[lincoln78]

I flew in VXE-6 from 1984-87.

The skis of an LC-130 were effectively extensions of the landing gear, and fully covered the gear well when retracted. When the gear were lowered for a wheel landing, gear/ski would go down, then the ski would come up slightly. When the gear were raised after a wheel takeoff, ski would lower, then the gear/ski would be retracted. Raised skis were only about 18 inches off the ground -a no-flap landing would damage the main skis.

They were reliable. The skis and hydraulics added about 2000 lbs of airframe weight and since the skis were less aerodynamic than gear doors the LC-130 cruise at about 30 kts less TAS than C-130s.

Apparently the ground phase concept is similar to float planes. The three skis provided a lot of friction so stopping wasn't too much of a challenge. On takeoff we would rotate at 60 kts. The increased AOA would allow liftoff at around 10 kts less than profile by weight- you lumbered in ground effect a little until you reached regular takeoff profile. Snow conditions led to much variation in the effort required to pull the yoke to raise the nose.

[jq]

I flew in VXE-6 from 1984-87.

The skis of an LC-130 were effectively extensions of the landing gear, and fully covered the gear well when retracted. When the gear were lowered for a wheel landing, gear/ski would go down, then the ski would come up slightly. When the gear were raised after a wheel takeoff, ski would lower, then the gear/ski would be retracted. Raised skis were only about 18 inches off the ground -a no-flap landing would damage the main skis.

They were reliable. The skis and hydraulics added about 2000 lbs of airframe weight and since the skis were less aerodynamic than gear doors the LC-130 cruise at about 30 kts less TAS than C-130s.

Apparently the ground phase concept is similar to float planes. The three skis provided a lot of friction so stopping wasn't too much of a challenge. On takeoff we would rotate at 60 kts. The increased AOA would allow liftoff at around 10 kts less than profile by weight- you lumbered in ground effect a little until you reached regular takeoff profile. Snow conditions led to much variation in the effort required to pull the yoke to raise the nose.

Thanks Lincoln78!! Great information. You even answered my next questions, which was about the added drag from the skis.

In the mean time I found this shot - but I can't figure out if the skis are fully retracted in this shot or not. I assume so, but it's possible the camera clicked while they were still retracting obviously.

Very interesting, thanks again.

JimQ