C-130 takes off and lands on a Carrier USS Forrestal

[schlusselmensch]

Very smooth driving on the landing. Obviously he had a very firm idea of how far back the mains were! Did they modify the approach aids for this?

Looks like the Forest was going balls to the wall!

[silverkong86]

Jimmy makes flying the Herc on and off the boat look fun!!

[CallMeJack08]

No way! that is cool!

[peepeevagi]

It's nice knowing our navy has "Options" n_n

[woraphop135]

look ma no hook. 555+

[336kgf]

I love how both takeoff and landing are so nice and smooth.

[midnitcat57]

Nice to see 798 again.... I flew this aircraft back in the 80's at Cherry Point. Not sure the date when she was retired but the squadron has J models now....

[dustman3878]

wouldnt have believed that one w/out video...

[TheGatman101]

thats a big plane to be landing on a carrier....

[IceBreaker832]

wow nice braking power

[MajSolo]

well, know, Swedush AF had about 8 of them when I was a kid, one pilot was a neigbour. They did a lot of relief aid flight in Africa at the time. landed everywhere. If there was mountains still possible. He never mensioned rocket assist take off. He did mension low ground pressure / landing "anywhere" , jungle strips is longer than carrier so that is why I asked about load, u can also deliver load with out landing, "simulate" a landing open door push out carts.

[horizonflyer9]

the c130 is designed to be able to take off and land in unbelievably small areas, so it could get cargo to troops almost anywhere there is a bit of flat land. This isn't very surprising, as long as they had quiet a headwind

[ATFSCrash]

horizonflyer9: They can take off and land at tight places but I've never seen them land or take off in this tight situation before. There is only in a few feet from the island to the wing tip. It would be incredibly tight.

[WALancer]

did you notice that there were stripes painted on the deck facing the forward catapults?

Usually all landings are on the angle deck.

[o3941]

The angle deck has less room for the...for any aircraft to land, thus the jets such as the Tomcat and the Hornet, F-14 and F-18 respectively, have the tailhook. The C-130 at the time did not have a tailhook and thus needed as much room as possible. A more dramatic showing of this is in JAG Season 9, Episode 5. Tuchdown.

[kdraper2007]

@o3941 That's a T.V. show. never trust that a hollywood script writer knows what he's talking about. I drive semi trucks & whenever I see a T.V. show or movie that involves trucking I usually end up laughing my butt off at the incredible inaccuracies I see. (The movie "Black Dog" wins my award for comedy of the decade. it was suppost to be an action flick) I imagine it's worse for people who are in aviation.

[kdraper2007]

The stripes were painted on just for that test program.

[hornswoggle35]

A JATO system can help em even shorten the distance,without the head wind. This one didn't appear to have one on it though.

[MajSolo]

an empty C130 ok, but what about the load? how much? was it just a stunt and the C130 also low on fuel or, is this possible at all with a useful load?

[ATFSCrash]

MajSolo: That's all explained in the link in the video description. It was a useful payload. They used a tanker for the test. They took on more fuel onto the tanker from the carrier to simulate heavier aircraft payloads.

[Kopihucky]

I highly doubt this is possible with a useful payload

[ATFSCrash]

@Kopihucky

You are very wrong. If you read the article that is linked in the video description you would know that, this test was envisioned for quick resupply of jet engines that normal COD couldn't carry.

[ATFSCrash]

@Kopihucky

The goal of the test was that the C-130 could minimally deliver ONE General Electric J79 engine. The maximum landing during these tests; simulated payload of about NINE General Electric J79 engines. Though I doubt the C-130 as the room for nine engines, however the tests should give you an idea of what useful payload could be delivered and how much this test exceeded its minimum hopes. The test proved that the aircraft could handle a payload about 10 times a useful payload.

[jakeurevig]

landing and taking off on a carrier with a c130 isnt that unbelievable since they can have a very short takeoff and the fact that the carrier is movin at 30-50 knots so there is always a headwind.

[ClarksonsinUSA]

Wow...........

[GTElwood]

OMG. O_o

During landing seems a leaf.

Maybe a bit into the wind?.

Amazing.

[DonMeaker]

The pilot that did this was awarded the Collier Trophy.

[wingedsuperyak]

Dude deserved it!

[reyco1987]

they must have had one hell of a headwind when they took off.

[GIANNHSPEIRAIAS]

a tornado i think^^

[8UP1977]

Well remember, the ship is probably pushing 25-30 knots.

[ATFSCrash]

Reyco1987: I am not a Navy guy; but isnt it SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) to point a ship into the wind when launching or landing aircraft? I dont think its exactly common practice to land or take off with a tailwind or when the ship is stationary or in reverse.  ;) The Forrestal's skipper put the carrier into the wind and added ten knots, which gave the flight crew a forty- to fifty-knot headwind over the bow.

[reyco1987]

well, i am not a Navy guy either, but I do know that they steam into the wind when launching. the headwind increases the amount of lift the wings create.

But, I am a Herc guy and seeing how quick that thing left the deck made me say there must have been quite a headwind.

[bchgators]

they used to do that all the time now they rarely do it as the have the takeoff catapults

[kdraper2007]

C-130 doesn't have the structural strength to be shot off with a catapult. it was never envisioned as a carrier aircraft.

[seichel07]

I guess the only way to top this is to take the Hercules into space.

[Atromitos888]

Amazing! It seems like he landed inches from the edge to make the most of the deck.

[taffwob]

Now there's something you don't see every day!!! Impressive.

[hbkfitz]

if a c130 can do this i think a c 27j should equip the carriers

[kdraper2007]

well, you know the C-2 COD aircraft is 40 years old. the question is, is it cheaper to convert an aircraft like the C-27J to adapt it for carrier use? beefing up the structure, landing gear, fitting the tailhook, & Catapult attachment. or will it be more sensable to buy an updated C-2. as the Navy is now taking delivery on updated E-2's it stands to reason that to keep logistics simple the update of the C-2 would make more sense.

[phonix032]

nothings impossible for the us navy

[Ddizz12345]

Awesome, particularily impressed with the landing. Amazing skills to touch down so accurately in a large aircraft.

[jnjoblon]

Holy Crap!

Thought this was gonna be some dumb FS clip.

That was pretty amazing.

[OneEyedJack1970]

I don't think they'll take it below. They'll just fuel it up and send it on its way.

[kdraper2007]

the C.O.D. (Carrier onboard delivery) aircraft do not normally stay aboard ship, they unload & return to their home naval air station.

[TluskiLetowski]

Great flying no doubt, but how are they gonna get that thing below? lol

[sharpya380]

disconnect wings

[SHRIKE427]

"LOOK MA' NO HOOK"....

[USMCHicks6481]

lots of respect for that aviator, i'm a Aviator, I fly the Ah-1 Cobra and I know how it is landing and taking off from an LPH, and the worst part is coming off the flight deck over the water, you lose alot of lift, but much respect to these Aviators

[vmaxpdg]

The pilot is a ninja.

[skierplaterandy]

its amazing cuz they didnt even have arresting cables back then.

[joeceph]

Arresting cables were around prior to WW2 and the USS Forrestal was equipped with them. The C-130 in this video was not equipped with a hook however. The takeoffs were unassisted as well, no catapult and no rockets. Pretty impressive STOL-capabilities.

[ATFSCrash]

Joeceph: I dont think anyone is trying to claim this to Forrestal or many other US aircraft carriers didnt have arrestor cables. What we are saying is that this aircraft did not use an arrest hook or cable on this mission. If I recall correctly and if the link still works; the link in the video description should say that the cables were removed for this mission to keep from damaging the tires of the C-130.

[joeceph]

The guy I replied to did however state that "its amazing cuz they didnt even have arresting cables back then.". Looks pretty straightforward to me.

[ATFSCrash]

joeceph: Okay thanks for the correction. I missed that. I guess I missed it the first time or I figured someone would catch it. I guess I missed it again this time because I had it on the view that only displayed new posts. So I guess I missed that twice or forgot about the first time.

[sreqwq]

woooooow

dumb comment

[jdsanchez473]

didn't think i'd ever see a c130 come off and back on a carrier.. great vid.

[trexhab1]

Is the Forrestal still in service as of December 08?

[wewd]

Nope. Decommissioned in 1993. She is scheduled to be sunk as an artificial reef in deep water.

[BrianosKellicos]

Oh no. It was decommissioned on September 11, 1993. It was in service for almost 40 years.

[HFXRailfan]

The Forrestal sunk due to a fire.

[roaklin]

No, she's been out of service for quite some time. I beleive she's been slated to be a reef project.

[droppingitdeep]

No. It is moored next to another aircraft carrier in Rhode Island. Mostly a rusty skeleton.

[MoonshadowRogue]

The C-130 was designed to work off short runways (and even off puddle-runways)...

Nevertheless, damn impressive... Wouldn't want to try that myself :P

[steagle33]

no... the C-130 really isn't that large.... it's just that it's very versatile and reliable.

[ATFSCrash]

Steagle33: It has a wingspan of 132 feet, can carry 72,000 lbs of load. There was only 15 feet of clearance between the wingtip and the carrier Island. When youre landing a 132 foot wide aircraft that only has 15 feet for margin of error; believe me thats a giant aircraft to land on a carrier and it leaves very little margin for error. It aint no C-172.

[jjmac0y]

Dam! talk about rocking the boat. Does anyone know what was the distance between the tower and the starboard wing tip when she touched down.

[ATFSCrash]

jjmac0y : There was only 15 feet of clearance between the wingtip and the carrier Island.

[cra83]

IMPRESSIVE!

[crispycritterz]

Few people can appreciate the power of the C-130. Soon it will have the record of being in production longer than any other large aircraft. It's for a good reason.

[steagle33]

C-130's aren't that big. The C-5 though, now that's a huge plane.

[samuraikensai]

C-5? Gimme a break...the Antonov AN-225 Mriya...now THAT is a huge plane!!! Makes the C-5 Galaxy look like a wimp...

[ATFSCrash]

samuraikensai: Then the AN-225 is a wimp. The Spruce Goose Hughes H-4 Hercules is even bigger. However the Spurs Goose, C-5 and AN-225 Mriya are not capable of safely landing and taking off from any current aircraft carrier.

[Player9090]

a c-130 is a really, really large aircraft.

[DINGSANSAN]

WHAT A PLANE!

[RobL2756]

Assisting the "lift", the carrier steamed into the wind. This event occurred in October of 1963, about 3 weeks before JFK's assination.

[NoGod3142]

I think that the cool part here is not so much the takeoff but the landing - without the arresting cable. I think that it is reversing the props but still some tough flying.

[moviegeek65]

I can't believe that a C-130 could take off without RATO/JATO assist or a catapult,I guess you learn something new everyday.

[rob2820]

I think it because the propeller blade can be set at differant angles which ives it more lift i think

[bassandsox]

That sounds about right.

[ksjordan9]

My Father is LCDR WW "Smokey" Stovall who was the co-pilot on the C130.He was a test pilot at Pax River NAS at the time. My understanding was that the aerospace company commisssioned the test to see if carriers could be re-supplied routinely with C130's. A story line about this was incorporated in an episode of JAG a couple of years age. My father died back in 1971, but I was able to track down Adm(Ret)Flately after the JAG show and he was very gracious in forwarding us memorabilia from it.

[DonnaStovall]

My father,also Smokey Stovall was a LCDR and a pilot in the navy,he retired as a Captain

[DonnaStovall]

me again my father died in 1981 i have brothers,Kevin Scott, and Sean,I also have this same footage, found among his personal effects

[CMB101892]

I might be wrong but on some of the other ones I am pretty sure that they mentoined JATOs but google it it is really cool. I t in now on display in Pensacola Florida at the naval air station

[CMB101892]

There was no catapult just headwind jatos and props. My grandfather flew on this plane

[ATFSCrash]

CMB101892: I think that no RATO/JATO was used on any of the carrier takeoffs.

[ZO6]

takeoff need JATOs?

[ATFSCrash]

It looks like it took off from the carrier with no rocket assisted takeoff or catapult launch. It looks like the only assistance it had was a head wind to shorten the takeoff roll.

[Matteor1te]

That is correct. Also, the carrier was accelerated to full speed. There was probably carrying no cargo to speak of.

[yaokun5]

actually if u look closely there is a catapult launching it off the deck

[ATFSCrash]

yaokun5: I think you are mistaken/imagining things. I don't think the planes gear was capable/modified to attach to the catapult. It even says that on one landing they simply took off from the point they stopped. In other words they didn't hook it up to the cat, since that would require man handling.

[superherkman]

@yaokun5 What does the catapult hook to push it?

[kdraper2007]

@superherkman No catapult, they used JATO rockets.

[ATFSCrash]

@kdraper2007

Some of the C-130s sometimes use RATO, I don't think any RATO was used on any of these carrier tests.

[turtle2571]

No. the only improvisions used was the removal of the external fuel pods.

[JonnyCrash]

You're correct. The C-130's (as well as other heavy aircraft) wing design is such that it generates much more lift than fighter aircraft to accomodate for the much slower take-off speeds. This slow take-off speed and higher lift component allowed the C-130 to take off from the carrier deck with no catapult assistance. I think the Navy was looking into this as its own aerial refueling and cargo platform. It's still pretty crazy to see something like that take off from so short a runway.

[pacificlipper]

That plane will stand up on its hind legs and talk if needs be!

[viperf35]

Whoa, it takes some serious skill.

[DJTommyDaniels]

Skill! Awesome video, thanks ATFS.

[BrynMawrYamBag]

It was probably done to practice emergency landing procedures. These guys were good!!

[ATFSCrash]

There was also a model of the U2 that was tested that had a hook. It could take off and land from a carrier. From what I understand it past its sea trials, however from what I understand it was never actually put into service (flew spy missions from or to a carrier).

[crano2316]

i always thought the U-2's wingspan was too great to be of any use on carrier ops

[Raptorzz6]

U-2 is the Dragon Lady this vid shows the C-130 Hurcles (not good at spelling that name =\)

~Raptorzz6

[RobertGary1]

You have to wonder what the log term plan was though. Once you get the C-130 on the deck then what? Certainly won't fit on the elevators.

[ATFSCrash]

It was a plan for extremely urgent/express resupply of large parts such as entire jet engine assemblies. Resupply is normally done with ships and takes a rather relatively long amount of time for delivery. The C-130 would have not been stationed on the carrier.

[Airportchris2]

They can speed up really fast, so they could take back off. I went on a C-130 with my JROTC class, and as soon as the pilot let off the breaks, we went from 0 to at least 100mph in 3 seconds.

[RobertGary1]

Didn't even get a cat shot?

[ATFSCrash]

No cat, no hook. The arresting wires had been removed since the KC-130F had no tail hook. Flatley put the propellers into reverse pitch while still 10-15 feet in the air and settled on the deck. At touchdown, the KC-130 was in full reverse and stopped in 270 feet. On takeoff, there was only 15 feet clearance between the KC-130's wingtip and the ship's control "island.

[RobertGary1]

If it was a KC-130 I wonder how much fuel it could have held and still made it off the deck. The A-6 tankers never held much, the Navy could use a good tanker.

[ATFSCrash]

On the last takeoff, the crew didn't even back up-they simply took off from the point on the deck where the aircraft stopped. One wag at Pax River had painted, "Look Ma, No Hook," under the cockpit windows of the KC-130. An arresting hook, a normal piece of equipment for a carrier landing, wouldn't have helped because the Forrestal's flight deck had been cleared of the arresting wires to save wear and tear on the tires of the Hercules.

[fulcrum2004]

loool

[queeny1616]

didnt think that was possible

[crazysunami]

ya C-130 can do just about anything.

[MaxCruise73]

A book documenting the history of the Hercules includes the carrier take-offs and landings.  Yes, highly skilled flight crew. Pilot on landing was reversing props just before touchdown. At complete stop the crew were even with the bridge. Amazing plane. Amazing flight crew.

[Moifaa]

Freeze the end of the landing sequence, you can make out what is written on the side of the plane: "Look Ma, no hook".

There is a website that has lots of relevant info (aviationzone). No such modification. IIRC, reverse thrust in the air would not have required physical modification to the aircraft, though. Just have to modify the pilot's reflexes ;-)

[Moifaa]

(..and , because youtube doesn't allow long comments...)

Anyways, this is even more impressive than it looks, because they did over 20 landings and take-offs under different loads and less than perfect conditions, all successful. The pilot recieved a Distinguished Flying Cross.

[SenorSpode]

And then the Forrestal got rammed in the ass by a Vigilante and just about bit it...which is just as well, because it was mothballed afterwards.

[jimmytheclutch]

I have flown onboard a C-130. To think that "beast" actually landed on a carrier takes my breath away! THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT CLIP! W O W !!!!!!!

[grooveclubhouse]

u couldnt photoshop somthing that badass. now who says Air Force pilots cant fly.

[TheNastygator]

Umm...the video says that one of the pilots was a lieuenant commander (LCDR). That rank only excists in the NAVY not the Air Force. The Navy would never let a "Chair Force" pilot do that!

[grooveclubhouse]

damn... well... you got me. frackin Navy! Thats why both by paretnts were navy folks i quess. I was the only guy to go Air Force in the family. !!!!!FLY NAVY!!!!!

[flojogrande]

The title only exist in the Navy but it's equivalent to a gold oak lief Major. LCDR = MAJ.

[tarqys]

simply amazing. i wonder what the headwinds were like on that day?

[esemesik]

incredible precision. this plane touches down while being on the very edge of stall and collapse. very impressive piloting skills

[rkt33]

I believe that this particular aircraft was modified to be able to go to reverse propeller pitch while still airborne, in able to begin slowing as it crossed the round-down.

[ATFSCrash]

Your memories may be very well be correct. It is highly unusual for aircraft to be able to use reverse thrust in the air, however considering the circumstances there was strong merit for been able to use reverse thrust in the air. If I can find the time, I might try to find some supporting evidence.

Thanks for your honest, novel and interesting comment.

[ATFSCrash]

I found a link that supports your memories.

I posted the quote and the link in the video comments.

Thanks again

[oisiaa2006]

very impressive, especially the stopping distance.