Early "Spooky" C-130 pics from Vietnam

edpop · by **edpop** » 01 Sep 2016, 03:34

These 2 pages are from Larry Davis's book Gunships - A pictorial History of Spooky from Squadron Signal Publications. Being in Vietnam in 1967 I got to see the "Spooky" in action a couple of times and I was sure glad I wasn't on the receiving end of what they were putting out.

h-bomb · by **h-bomb** » 06 Sep 2016, 22:18

Did they ever fly a roman nose as an AC-130? I would love to see some photos if anyone is willing to share.

Jon · by **Jon** » 07 Sep 2016, 18:19

h-bomb wrote:Did they ever fly a roman nose as an AC-130? I would love to see some photos if anyone is willing to share.

Yes, here you go:

USAF AC-130A #54-1626 now wearing a camouflage scheme. Aircraft was put on display at the USAF Museum in May of 1976. [USAF photo]

Lockheed AC-130A #54-1626 before camouflage paint applied. Note the incorrect zero in the serial number. [USAF photo]

h-bomb · by **h-bomb** » 08 Sep 2016, 07:16

Wow thanks for the pics! They look so different without the larger radom....

edpop · by **edpop** » 08 Sep 2016, 20:08

h-bomb wrote:Did they ever fly a roman nose as an AC-130? I would love to see some photos if anyone is willing to share.

Look at the very first picture in my post. That plane is the first conversion according to the text called "Super Spooky".

h-bomb · by **h-bomb** » 08 Sep 2016, 22:20

edpop wrote:
h-bomb wrote:Did they ever fly a roman nose as an AC-130? I would love to see some photos if anyone is willing to share.

Look at the very first picture in my post. That plane is the first conversion according to the text called "Super Spooky".

That is a drawing not a photo of an actual AC-130A.

edpop · by **edpop** » 10 Sep 2016, 03:19

54-1626 was the prototype of the AC-130 gunship. See picture. It was nicknamed "The Vulcan Express" during it's development. It is now in the USAF museum as per info on this site.

edpop · by **edpop** » 10 Sep 2016, 03:22

Jon wrote:
h-bomb wrote:Did they ever fly a roman nose as an AC-130? I would love to see some photos if anyone is willing to share.

Yes, here you go:

USAF AC-130A #54-1626 now wearing a camouflage scheme. Aircraft was put on display at the USAF Museum in May of 1976. [USAF photo]

Lockheed AC-130A #54-1626 before camouflage paint applied. Note the incorrect zero in the serial number. [USAF photo]

Jon,

You mention the "incorrect 0" on the tail of the aircraft. I thought when the zero was put on the aircraft such as in the photo it meant the aircraft was 10 years old or older???

Jon · by **Jon** » 10 Sep 2016, 04:21

edpop wrote:
Jon wrote:
h-bomb wrote:Did they ever fly a roman nose as an AC-130? I would love to see some photos if anyone is willing to share.

Yes, here you go:

USAF AC-130A #54-1626 now wearing a camouflage scheme. Aircraft was put on display at the USAF Museum in May of 1976. [USAF photo]

Lockheed AC-130A #54-1626 before camouflage paint applied. Note the incorrect zero in the serial number. [USAF photo]

Jon,

You mention the "incorrect 0" on the tail of the aircraft. I thought when the zero was put on the aircraft such as in the photo it meant the aircraft was 10 years old or older???

Incorrect is relative in this case. Mean that it is not part of the official serial. Tell me more about the zero and other similar things. I know serials have been modified to hide the original serial.

edpop · by **edpop** » 10 Sep 2016, 06:06

In the 1950s, many airplanes left over from the World War II era were still in service, exceeding their expected service lives of less than 10 years. In order to avoid potential confusion with later aircraft given the same tail number, these older aircraft had the number zero and a dash added in front of the tail number to indicate that they were over 10 years old. It was hoped that this would avoid confusion caused by duplication of tail numbers between two aircraft built over ten years apart. However, this was not always done, and it was not always possible uniquely to identify an aircraft by a knowledge of its tail number. This practice was eventually discontinued when people started referring to the number 0 as being a letter O, standing for Obsolete. The requirement for the 0- prefix was officially dropped on April 24, 1972. (USAF)