So seeing that photo on the a.net index page of Lockheed bringing their J-model Hercules to the civilion market as LM-100J or L-382, I'm wondering, is there a market?

There hasn't been a real market so far. The few sales over the last decades could have gone to other aircraft, too. So what's marking LM believe there is market now? A growth in special / oversized freight? Russian cargo planes getting older and needing to be replaced? (But wouldn't these Antonov operated flights be more missions for C-5s or C-17s?) And who do you think might pick the C-130 up for the civilian market?

high altitude destinations in India and Himalayas ​need a sturdy Regional aircraft...

There's still a number of L-100's still operating around the world, and they aren't getting any younger. Lockheed expects they will sell about 75 L-100J's.

ASL has ordered 10:

http://www.aslaviationgroup.com/index.p ... r-hercules

anshabhi wrote:

high altitude destinations in India and Himalayas ​need a sturdy Regional aircraft...

That seems more to be a case for ATRs or Q400s. Or are there any LM-100s in use for the role of regional aircraft? I don't think so. LM-100s are cargo aircraft, maximum for rare double-use as convertibles or for combi use.

ThePointblank wrote:

There's still a number of L-100's still operating around the world, and they aren't getting any younger. Lockheed expects they will sell about 75 L-100J's.

Interesting. What is there main role? What are they used for? At which airlines and countries?

seahawk wrote:

ASL has ordered 10:

What is ASL doing? I see from their website that they operate out of Johannesburg. To they fly to unpaved airports in Africa? Or do they op for governments and science institutions to Antarctica?

Yes, lot of chartered work in Africa.

CARST wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

high altitude destinations in India and Himalayas ​need a sturdy Regional aircraft...

That seems more to be a case for ATRs or Q400s. Or are there any LM-100s in use for the role of regional aircraft? I don't think so. LM-100s are cargo aircraft, maximum for rare double-use as convertibles or for combi use.

AI Regional recently started Flights to Shimla (1,546 m), with an ATR 42, and its severely load limited. It carries only 15 pax on return leg SLV-DEL and 35 on first leg.
Runway restrictions are also a big factor here, but that's going to be there for many other hilly Airports as well.

DL has chartered Lynden Aircargo on numerous occasions to ship engines. Cool to see the L-100 taxi on to the ramp in Atlanta.

anshabhi wrote:

high altitude destinations in India and Himalayas ​need a sturdy Regional aircraft...

...It is a cargo aircraft

c933103 wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

high altitude destinations in India and Himalayas ​need a sturdy Regional aircraft...

...It is a cargo aircraft

it's used for troop movements as well.. A little more improvements should make it good for passengers too!

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... ines-c130/

Lockheed Martin secures unidentified order for five LM-100J

Who could this be??

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ve-lm-100j

anshabhi wrote:

Lockheed Martin secures unidentified order for five LM-100J

Who could this be??

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ve-lm-100j

Lynden Air Cargo maybe?

CARST wrote:

What is ASL doing? I see from their website that they operate out of Johannesburg. To they fly to unpaved airports in Africa? Or do they op for governments and science institutions to Antarctica?

They will end up with ASL subsidiary Safair in South Africa. Safair has 6, but has steadily been wearing out their fleet.

CARST wrote:

I'm wondering, is there a market?

There hasn't been a real market so far. The few sales over the last decades could have gone to other aircraft, too. So what's marking LM believe there is market now? A growth in special / oversized freight? Russian cargo planes getting older and needing to be replaced? (But wouldn't these Antonov operated flights be more missions for C-5s or C-17s?) And who do you think might pick the C-130 up for the civilian market?

It is just a C-130J-30 without a bunch of sensitive military equipment. It will only have cost LM pennies to develop, and so they will probably make a profit on just the first aircraft sold.
While they hope to get some orders to replace old Russian planes, it won't really happen. The Russian planes are so popular because they are cheap, and that is because the Russians and Ukrainians gave them away for free in the 90s. Another much loved feature is the overhead crane found in Soviet transport planes. The high procurement costs and lack of overhead gantry cranes have so far made western alternative unattractive to these cargo operators.

VSMUT wrote:

CARST wrote:

What is ASL doing? I see from their website that they operate out of Johannesburg. To they fly to unpaved airports in Africa? Or do they op for governments and science institutions to Antarctica?

They will end up with ASL subsidiary Safair in South Africa. Safair has 6, but has steadily been wearing out their fleet.

CARST wrote:

I'm wondering, is there a market?

There hasn't been a real market so far. The few sales over the last decades could have gone to other aircraft, too. So what's marking LM believe there is market now? A growth in special / oversized freight? Russian cargo planes getting older and needing to be replaced? (But wouldn't these Antonov operated flights be more missions for C-5s or C-17s?) And who do you think might pick the C-130 up for the civilian market?

It is just a C-130J-30 without a bunch of sensitive military equipment. It will only have cost LM pennies to develop, and so they will probably make a profit on just the first aircraft sold.
While they hope to get some orders to replace old Russian planes, it won't really happen. The Russian planes are so popular because they are cheap, and that is because the Russians and Ukrainians gave them away for free in the 90s. Another much loved feature is the overhead crane found in Soviet transport planes. The high procurement costs and lack of overhead gantry cranes have so far made western alternative unattractive to these cargo operators.

Yep, the Cubs are good, cheap and have the gantry, but, they chew up unpaved strips more than a Herc. Additionally, having been in and out of a few of them in weird and wonderful places, their condition is at times less than acceptable for some organisations and agencies.

GregB145 wrote:

Yep, the Cubs are good, cheap and have the gantry, but, they chew up unpaved strips more than a Herc. Additionally, having been in and out of a few of them in weird and wonderful places, their condition is at times less than acceptable for some organisations and agencies.

The gantry is essential to operations at unpaved strips, and the customers aren't willing to pay the price of a new plane, regardless of the condition.

There's a number of LM-100 which will be due for retirement in the coming years - these are what LM is targeting, and enough for LM to make a profit. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake. I don't think it will replace many Russian/Ukrainian aircraft because most of those operators either cannot afford a LM100J, need the special characteristics of Russian/Ukrainian planes, or both. And by the time those are due for replacement, Russia will have something available.

It would work as an An-12 replacement or Il-76 substitute, but what will it cost? You can get any number of desired An-12 from the dumpyard basically free of charge and invest a bit to make it airworthy. I highly doubt a civil Herc can compete.

I remember Merpati used the Herc as pax aircraft, and it may fit some role as high capacity combi plane for rural areas in Africa, Asia and the North American North.

Heck I wonder if Prime Air might order a few to serve smaller markets ?

The LM-100J, with wing tanks (3000 nm range), would be a great SPAC frame. Lots of airstrips that pax jets can't use, and the revenue would be primarily cargo.

Hey guys,
My understanding is that the LM-100J is also targeting government 'agencies' that might not get the approval of the US Govt to buy standard military Hercules. China has been mentioned as one such country.
I have seen Lynden Hercules in Sydney, Brisbane and (from memory) Hong Kong but I can't see any brand new LM-100Js being ordered Downunder sadly.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

I hope Lockheed builds a passenger version. It will have low development costs, and it will reintroduce a 100 seat passenger propeller aircraft back into the aviation market for the first time in 60 years. I am certain there is a market for it in poorer nations, and places where a jet is not efficient enough like airports with short runways, poor runways, or non existent runways.

Roadcruiser1 wrote:

I hope Lockheed builds a passenger version. It will have low development costs, and it will reintroduce a 100 seat passenger propeller aircraft back into the aviation market for the first time in 60 years. I am certain there is a market for it in poorer nations, and places where a jet is not efficient enough like airports with short runways, poor runways, or non existent runways.

It won't sell at all. The LM-100J has huge operating costs, and it would be significantly cheaper to operate 2 ATRs or Dash-8s rather than 1 LM-100J.

The LM-100J yields will work where the frail, small 'props can't go.

Roadcruiser1 wrote:

I hope Lockheed builds a passenger version. It will have low development costs, and it will reintroduce a 100 seat passenger propeller aircraft back into the aviation market for the first time in 60 years. I am certain there is a market for it in poorer nations, and places where a jet is not efficient enough like airports with short runways, poor runways, or non existent runways.

Previous pax versions of the L-100 didn't sell well at all and were relatively quickly converted to all cargo. IMHO there is a market for a combi kit. L-100 had one complete with bar for a dozen pax or so.

Why not add scuba tank racks and sell scuba and skydiver tours and base it is RAR or NAN. The Ozzies and Kiwis would sign up.

I thought the main reason these didn't sell well back in the day were the "military-level" operating costs. Same reason why a civilian C-5 or C-17 never came to be.

How would the C130 compare next to a 737-200? I believe some airlines in the Canadian north run some old 732s with gravel kits that will need replacement at some point...

PHBVF wrote:

How would the C130 compare next to a 737-200? I believe some airlines in the Canadian north run some old 732s with gravel kits that will need replacement at some point...

First air ditched theirs after the 2011 crash flight 6560. Canadian North is phasing them out in favor of -300 combis. Nolinor (charter) will likely be the last operator, they will continue to up the hourly rate until there are no more takers.

kjeld0d wrote:

PHBVF wrote:

How would the C130 compare next to a 737-200? I believe some airlines in the Canadian north run some old 732s with gravel kits that will need replacement at some point...

First air ditched theirs after the 2011 crash flight 6560. Canadian North is phasing them out in favor of -300 combis. Nolinor (charter) will likely be the last operator, they will continue to up the hourly rate until there are no more takers.

Nah, First Air got rid of their 200's within the last year or so, so a good 6 years after 6560. They started bringing in -400's around 2013, and now have retired/sold all the -200s. They only phased out the -200's because of increasing operating costs as a result of age. Heavy checks get extremely expensive at that point. Insurance is pricier. They burn a lot more fuel than the -400s, etc. Furthermore, with companies like Nolinor cornering the gravel 737 business, the profits most likely aren't there any more to make it worthwhile to operate a small subfleet of -200s.

In terms of how the Herc compares with the 732, well, there's a big difference. Good luck loading a fire truck in a 737. The volume of the herc is what made it worth it for so many years. Being able to load up mining equipment, fire trucks, oil drilling rigs, whales and other bulky loads was its bread and butter. Heck, for those who watched Top Gear, the polar special vehicles and equipment where all flown up on a 7F Herc. Not the sorts of things you can toss on the main deck of a 732. In terms of replacement for 732's, what you'll see is a mix of full pax, combi, and full cargo ATR's, Dashes, etc. The lack of capacity will be dealt with by increased frequencies, and any other oversize work can be tendered to somewhere like Lynden.

I believe they got out of the Herc game mainly to focus on their sked flying. Pretty costly to maintain a fleet of 2 oddball aircraft. Not to mention the fact that the ad hoc Hercules flying from what I'm told is very feast or famine.

Why is that man straddling the dorsal fin (in the last pix)?

He really loves his civilian C-130?

Can't blame him, I'd take one.

VSMUT wrote:

Roadcruiser1 wrote:

I hope Lockheed builds a passenger version. It will have low development costs, and it will reintroduce a 100 seat passenger propeller aircraft back into the aviation market for the first time in 60 years. I am certain there is a market for it in poorer nations, and places where a jet is not efficient enough like airports with short runways, poor runways, or non existent runways.

It won't sell at all. The LM-100J has huge operating costs, and it would be significantly cheaper to operate 2 ATRs or Dash-8s rather than 1 LM-100J.

I would not hold my breathe for that statement ...
All depends on where the aircraft is to be operated.
After all there was even a full pax conversion built (albeit not by LM but by IPTN Indonesia)
See: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Merpati- ... 2G/2597201

... and a possible to-date pax version would certainly have more than 100 seats if based on the J-version (longer fuselage compared to older versions)

diverted wrote:

In terms of how the Herc compares with the 732, well, there's a big difference. Good luck loading a fire truck in a 737. The volume of the herc is what made it worth it for so many years. Being able to load up mining equipment, fire trucks, oil drilling rigs, whales and other bulky loads was its bread and butter. Heck, for those who watched Top Gear, the polar special vehicles and equipment where all flown up on a 7F Herc. Not the sorts of things you can toss on the main deck of a 732. In terms of replacement for 732's, what you'll see is a mix of full pax, combi, and full cargo ATR's, Dashes, etc. The lack of capacity will be dealt with by increased frequencies, and any other oversize work can be tendered to somewhere like Lynden.

Actually I meany more performance wise, e.g. operating costs, fuel consumption, runway/payload capabilities

As I recall Delta Airlines operated a couple of C130's back in the early 60's between ATL, lax 7 SFO along with a C46? Anyone have those details?

MHG wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Roadcruiser1 wrote:

I hope Lockheed builds a passenger version. It will have low development costs, and it will reintroduce a 100 seat passenger propeller aircraft back into the aviation market for the first time in 60 years. I am certain there is a market for it in poorer nations, and places where a jet is not efficient enough like airports with short runways, poor runways, or non existent runways.

It won't sell at all. The LM-100J has huge operating costs, and it would be significantly cheaper to operate 2 ATRs or Dash-8s rather than 1 LM-100J.

I would not hold my breathe for that statement ...
All depends on where the aircraft is to be operated.
After all there was even a full pax conversion built (albeit not by LM but by IPTN Indonesia)
See: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Merpati- ... 2G/2597201

... and a possible to-date pax version would certainly have more than 100 seats if based on the J-version (longer fuselage compared to older versions)

I absolutely would hold my breath for that statement. The L-100 doesn't hold any advantages over a Q400 or ATR when it comes to passenger transport. It is a 1940s design optimized for oversized cargo transport. There is no way to effectively utilize the giant diameter of the fuselage, and there isn't really any place to put the bags for those 128 pax since they already sit on the bottom of the fuselage. It has twice as many engines, of a type that was never developed for fuel efficiency. You have to buy all the spare parts at a premium directly from the manufacturer, and there are no type-rated flight crews available on the market, and there is a lack of commercially available simulators. Maintenance will be a nightmare with the massive pressure seal around the ramp. The resale value will be almost nil. Do any C-130s even feature a toilet?

I also highly doubt that there are any markets in the world that would even require a 128 seat STOL turboprop. Really, what market would require a 128 seat aircraft, demands that 2x Q400s or ATRs aren't good enough, and doesn't have a runway long enough for anything other than turboprops?

BTW, the old passenger L-100s delivered to Merpati were already based on the stretched -30 fuselage, so the actual capacity should be the same at around 97.

diverted wrote:

kjeld0d wrote:

PHBVF wrote:

How would the C130 compare next to a 737-200? I believe some airlines in the Canadian north run some old 732s with gravel kits that will need replacement at some point...

I wonder if Canadian North would be interested in Southwest's -300s

Hey guys
Off on a tangent I know, but the RAAF operated limited passenger flights using H-model Hercules for Ansett and Australian Airlines during the pilots strike at the end of the 80s here in Australia....
I would love a flight on one!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

VSMUT wrote:

It has twice as many engines, of a type that was never developed for fuel efficiency. .

This statement seems really odd to me, as the exact same engines are used on the Saab 2000.

PHBVF wrote:

diverted wrote:

In terms of how the Herc compares with the 732, well, there's a big difference. Good luck loading a fire truck in a 737. The volume of the herc is what made it worth it for so many years. Being able to load up mining equipment, fire trucks, oil drilling rigs, whales and other bulky loads was its bread and butter. Heck, for those who watched Top Gear, the polar special vehicles and equipment where all flown up on a 7F Herc. Not the sorts of things you can toss on the main deck of a 732. In terms of replacement for 732's, what you'll see is a mix of full pax, combi, and full cargo ATR's, Dashes, etc. The lack of capacity will be dealt with by increased frequencies, and any other oversize work can be tendered to somewhere like Lynden.

Actually I meany more performance wise, e.g. operating costs, fuel consumption, runway/payload capabilities

Hugely expensive. Payload capabilities and runway performance are great - I'm not at liberty to give any numbers, but I'm sure you can find them with some digging.

Fuel consumption, well, they're thirsty. Operating costs? Also hugely expensive. Not very many places you can send a crew to go to sim, not huge parts stores like a 737, etc. etc.

Then once you get to a certain number of hours you get to basically disassemble the airplane and replace the centre wing box.

http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/content/da ... r_Wing.pdf

Spacepope wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

It has twice as many engines, of a type that was never developed for fuel efficiency. .

This statement seems really odd to me, as the exact same engines are used on the Saab 2000.

Not exactly the same. The C-130s variants have 500 shp more. The lack of sales for the SAAB 2000 only enforce my statement.

The C-130 is like the B-52... if there were something better, the older frames would be obsolete. Granted, the C-130J, like the LM-100J, is expensive to operate. Training and spares may be limited ... but they are available. However, the LM-100J has capabilities no other aircraft has. IMO, the LM-100J commercial opportunities are limited to cargo-dominant routes. What's needed is a pressurized combi module... a self-contained "pax module", with galley and lavs, that slides in the cargo bay and interfaces with the cockpit. Two or more pax modules could be concatenated. Avoid having to seal the ramp. Aft of the pax modules would be cargo. There are probably no opportunities in the US, EU, and JP for such a a combi. In the rest of the world, remote sites, e.g., mining, oil, telecom, require both equipment and personnel. Lynden could easily use the J and combi modules. LM should develop such pax modules... it would help sales of the LM-100J.

What is the difference between the civilian and military Version? Granted, a civilian does not have tacan, FF detection or Flares, but is there a way to convert a civilian plane to a C-130?

I remember many years ago, when I was a 737 F/O, I flew with a lot of Captains that flew the C130. (Canadian Airlines' redecessor Pacific Western Airlines flew C130s on an extensive charter network worldwide.)

They told me that the per mile cost of the C130 was slightly more than the 737-200!

Granted, the C130 is an incredibly capable machine, that can do what most other aircraft can not. But ... if that capability is not needed, it can be expensive.

anshabhi wrote:

c933103 wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

high altitude destinations in India and Himalayas ​need a sturdy Regional aircraft...

...It is a cargo aircraft

it's used for troop movements as well.. A little more improvements should make it good for passengers too!

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... ines-c130/

This is a demilitarized version of the C130J. It is FAA certified, like any other commercial (non military) aircraft.

While there were some old military C130 versions which may have been converted and certified "Demilitarized", the L100 is a pure civil aircraft. It can not be legally militarized.

One advantage the L100 has is that it is a lot of aircraft for a relatively low price (I believe $60-80 million range). Oil/gas and mining are examples of markets that could use this kind of airframe.

Tom

I'd expect these to be used for exactly those industries in the upper midwest, into Canada (Bakken fields), and Alaska/NWT

When I was going through JetStar maintenance school in the early 1970’s at the Lockheed plant in Marietta GA, I was able to go through the C-130 production lines during my lunch break.

Lockheed had in a civilian L-100, (C-130) they were converting to a –30 by adding fuselage plugs in front and aft of the wing. Its been 47 years since then but I think the C-130’s were owned by Saturn Airlines at the time and I also think that any civilian operated L-100-30 were stretched versions, I don’t think Lockheed had sold any L100–30’s to any civilian operators back then.

JetStar

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
My understanding is that the LM-100J is also targeting government 'agencies' that might not get the approval of the US Govt to buy standard military Hercules. China has been mentioned as one such country.
I have seen Lynden Hercules in Sydney, Brisbane and (from memory) Hong Kong but I can't see any brand new LM-100Js being ordered Downunder sadly.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

When I check USA's list of items that are controlled in export, iin the aircraft section, I found it sepcifically excluded L-100, but only for those that are built before 2013. Any idea on why the specific year is listed?