Talk:Lockheed HC-130

Untitled

Are HC-130's capable of being refueled in-flight? If so, which method is used? "Boom and Receiver" or "Probe and Drogue"? I seem to remember seeing a "probe" on HC-130 aircraft, but since there isn't any photos on the article page, I can't confirm that. For refernce, see Aerial refueling article. --TGC55 16:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reguarding your question, I am currently in the air force as an aircraft electrician, and one of the models of C-130 I maintain is the HC-130P/N. Although I can not completely answer your question with absolute confidence, I can tell you that the HC-130P/N's that I work on are not capable of refueling in flight. However, that does not mean that all of them are not capable of being refueled in flight. I also work on MC-130P's and they are not capable of being refueled in flight either. But, the MC-130P's I maintained at my last base were. So If there are HC-130P/N's that are capable of being refueled in flight I can tell you that I have never maintained a C-130 that used the Probe and Drogue method. They all have used the Boom and Reciever method. (NucPhy7 22:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Hello. I am currently an HC-130 Airborne Mission Systems Specialist (Radio Operator). Currently there is 1 HC-130 in the active duty fleet that is capable of receiving fuel in flight. I cannot be exact on the tail number. The aircraft I am speaking of was a former EC-130 ABCCC from Davis-Monthan AFB. Once the 42nd AACS (EC-130 ABCCC) squadron was closed down, the plan was to convert all existing EC-130 ABCCC's into HC-130P's capable of receiving fuel in flight. After a cost-analysis was complete, AFTER the modification process had started, the Air Force, specifically AFSOC choose to stop the modification process once the 1st and only ABCCC -> HC-130 mod was complete because it cost too much. This aircraft is currently assigned to the 79th Rescue Squadron (ACC) at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ.

Ambiguous performance data

The performance data lists "Cruise speed: 290 knots (333 mph, 537 km/h)"... however this makes no mention whether this is groundspeed or airspeed, and the difference is close to 50%. This problem isn't specific to this article, however. I wonder if we can do something to clarify this, especially since Wikipedia readers are not tech savvy and should get accurate information for computing, say, a flight time over a given distance. -Rolypolyman (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)