Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!cbnews!vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: c-130
Summary: C-130 props
Message-ID: <6024@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 28 Apr 89 03:23:50 GMT
References: <5980@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Verdix Corporation, Chantilly,  VA
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart)

In article <5980@cbnews.ATT.COM>, acoker@ub.d.umn.edu (alyce coker) writes:
> 
> I just happened to see a c-130 flying out of the Duluth Air National
> Guard.  I was wondering what is the reason that it has props and not
> jet engines?

The C-130 was designed in the early 1950's when Jets had very poor low
speed performance. It was designed as a Tactical transport meaning that
it could land on unprepared runways and use very short runways. 
Given the rough field criteria and the short takeoff requirement turbo-
prop was chosen there is not as much danger of FOD ( foriegn object damage)
in a turboprop as in a pure jet. The C-130 also is capable of using
JATO ( Jet assisted take off) bottles - expendable strap on booster units
that were used on first +second generation jets also. 
The C-130 is very good at what it does, in fact it is the de-facto DC-3/C-47
replacement everyone kept looking for in the late 50's and all thru the 60's.
They have attempted to replace the C-130 in 1977 I saw the Boeing & McDonnell-
Douglas aircraft ( YC-14 & YC 15) doing demonstrations to the Air Force.
Both were high bypass fan-jets and were very impressive but so was their
price ( at least to the Carter administration) and it was cheaper to keep
building C-130s. 

Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com)