This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.

Just removed Hungary from the list - so far the country never owned or even operated any Hercules; some dolt added it almost 6 (!) years ago from IP 84.83.2.83 (Netherland): https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_C-130_Hercules&oldid=620662973 HTKA.hu kamm (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted a part of the article based on a very unsustantiated claim that posed C-130 as destructor of 17 indian fighters and claimed it had anti-aircraft artillery on its ramp, a very ridicous claim as never been observed and surely never would work if you want still to use the ramp for bomb delivery. I would add, that 17 indian aircrafts is about 50% of the extimated pakistani air kills on the whole war. So it is outrageusly insane to kept this unreliable source in the C-130 page. It's better to not having it, rather than to have it with such lunatic claims. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heading over to the talk page after having your edit reverted. I understand that your edit was made in good faith, however it seems that the claim is backed by a WP:RELIABLE source. Do you mind showing a source of the total Pakistani air kills? This will help your claim that the existing reference is false. Thanks, Transcendental36 (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/maintenance-caused-cracks-ground-hercs/, the process that was used during inspections for cracks has been found to cause cracks, leading to the grounding of about 20 percent of the fleet of C-130Hs. I think that's worth mentioning. I leave it to someone who knows more about aviation. Renerpho (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article say what the plane's operational parameters are? It doesn't appear to say what the plane's altitude is, speed, or range. If it is there and I have missed it, perhaps it should be more prominent in the article? Chuggsymalone (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of aircraft type articles on Wikipedia have a standard 'Specifications' section which is always near the bottom of the article. This link will take you to the section in this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, first ever talk page post, following my addition of the globalise section template in the aerial firefighting section of this article. Apologies in advance if I've done anything wrong - let me know if so.

I added the globalise section template to the aerial firefighting section as the writing is very US-centric. The text assumes that the reader is US-based.

Examples:

• unclear abbreviation ("Walker, CA" instead of [eg] "Walker, California")
• use of generic terms to refer to specific things ("Congress", instead of [eg] "US Congress")

The content is quite US-centric though I don't have adequate subject knowledge to determine whether that's appropriate. A restructure with better signposting and consideration of level of detail would be good, suggest overall structure along the lines of:

• [1st paragraph] "In the US, [...]."
• [2nd paragraph] "C-130s have also been used in firefighting operations in [...]."

This would be supported by any further information available about C-130s use in firefighting operations beyond the US/Australia. Jrowls (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honest question, not intending to provoke arguments. As the article shows, there are many C-130 variants. Several were apparently notable enough to warrant articles of their own… But where is the cutoff line that determines "these" are notable, but "those" are not? Can someone help me understand? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 03:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TadgStirkland401 There is no clear cutoff line for notability, as many users have their own ideas of exactly where such a line should be drawn. We do have a general notability guideline, as well as many topic-specific essays such as WP:NAIR that serve to give users a better idea of what topics would and would not generally be considered notable. Most aircraft types are considered notable enough to have their own articles, so long as they meet WP:GNG, while subtypes and variants generally are not. There are exceptions, such as in the C-130's case where the primary article becomes too large and must be split. Many aircraft articles are split into more broad topics, such as "variants", "operators", and/or "accidents and incidents". An alternative( or in addition) to a "variants" article, especially in cases where there are too many variants to cover in appropriate detail in a single "variants" article, individual variants (or groups of variants) may have their own articles.

WP:NAIR, specifically the section on subtypes and variants, says "A subtype may be notable if its parent article requires splitting and it meets any one of the following criteria: (1) The aircraft has received a distinct designation from the national aviation authority or the armed forces of any nation. (2) The aircraft has received a distinct model number from its builder or manufacturer. Or (3) the aircraft is reported as a distinct subtype in reliable secondary sources."

I hope this helps. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the fact that a C-130 variant does not have its own article does not necessarily mean that it is not notable. It might just mean that no one has bothered to create such an article yet. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, ZLEA. That was very helpful. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA, as personal knowledge disqualifying me from editing, there were at least three C-130E-II aircraft. Yet that model is not mentioned. If needed, I can provide a book reference or two. But I can’t edit the article. These three that I know of were part of the Big Safari program assigned to the 7575th Operations Group at Rhein-Main Air Base until the wall fell. They are mentioned on a few pages of the book by Bill Grimes called “The History of Big Safari”. All 3 heavily modified aircraft were sent to AMARG and scrapped in the late 90s to early 2000s. Should they be mentioned in the article? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 00:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the C-130A-II and C-130B-II are mentioned in the article, we should try to at least mention other notable variants and versions also. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear TadgStirkland401 is the Grimes book available online? Could I write in some data about the "C-130E-II" with you checking what I write? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe I was able to preview the book on Google before I bought it. But absolutely, if you edit, I’d love to review/comment. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 11:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can preview here: Google books - The History of Big Safari. Also, I own a copy. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 11:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Google books - Looking Down the Corridors by Kevin Wright is another. But I don’t know if you can preview this one. Lots of detail. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 15:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the turboprop configuration chosen for the T56, with the propeller connected to the compressor, had the potential to cause structural failure of the aircraft if an engine failed. Safety devices had to be incorporated to reduce the excessive drag from a windmilling propeller."

I'm confused by this. First, the prop in a C-130 isn't connected to the compressor shaft, it's connected to a gearbox which is connected to the power shaft, the engine sits below the prop. Second, this is true for all prop planes. Any plane that has an engine failure and ends up with a windmilling or frozen prop requires "safety devices to reduce the excessive drag full a windmilling propeller". That's why they invented feathering props. They are required whether it's a piston engine, a free turbine or a single shaft, if the engine dies and you have a prop just spinning, it's a problem. With a high powered aircraft the result is more likely to be structural failure if it happens at high speed, but that's totally unrelated to the single shaft nature of the engine. If a free turbine engine dies, you still have a windmilling prop. If a single shaft engine dies and freezes up, you will end up with a frozen prop, which is not quite as bad. But I don't know of any turboprops where the prop isn't mechanically linked to the engine, that's kind of the point, whether it's directly or though a gearbox. Even if it incorporates clutches to disconnect the powertrain, you will still end up with a windmilling prop. And I can't think of any real reason you would include a clutch in an application like this, unless it was an over speed clutch to make sure the engine isn't overdriven in a dive. Which is a totally different issue. What exactly are these safety features that only apply to this specific engine installation because it's a single shaft which aren't also required in any other type of prop of similar power and performance? Pretty much any plane beyond light civilian craft have had feathering props since the 1930s, because flying with that kind of drag is very difficult. Idumea47b (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]