Jump to content

1/72 - Lockheed C-130H & J Hercules by Zvezda - C-130H released - C-130J release in 2021


Recommended Posts

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2020 at 1:12 PM, RichG said:

Hi Keith

 

Well without having the actual plastic in hand yet I would say "yes"  (99% ish) - the kit itself actually includes an option for an RAF C-130K (although listed as a C-130H) with markings for an RAF Hercules C.1 in the later 80's/90's Dark Green / Grey / Light Aircraft Grey scheme.

 

The only things I have noticed is that there is no option for an astrodome above the flightdeck (an optional fit on the real aircraft anyway) and the cargo bay floor surface and ramp are not correct for a UK fit; but should be fixable with a bit of work if you want the back open.    

 

The 26 Decal sheet for the dark eath / light stone / black scheme does seem to have the large underwing serials in white, when they should be a very light grey (its hard to tell, but may have been revised) and not sure if it includes the yellow wing walkway lines - otherwise good to go.

 

Hope that helps - I am sure those more learned than I will correct me if I got it wrong:wink:

 

Rich

I feel sure that some enterprising aftermarket supplier will come up with the standard RAF floor/ramp surface in P/E and then your RAF C-130 will be even more accurate since it will have a floor heavier than that found in any other 'standard' C-130E/H of the time with a concomitant reduction in payload !😏

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tiger331 said:

....your RAF C-130 will be even more accurate since it will have a floor heavier than that found in any other 'standard' C-130E/H of the time with a concomitant reduction in payload !😏

Ok I’ll bite.

 

Why did Their Airships want a non standard floor?

 

Trevor

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

Ok I’ll bite.

 

Why did Their Airships want a non standard floor?

 

Trevor

The introduction to service of the C-130K is slightly before my time (!) but, as I understand it, we (the UK) determined that the standard Lockheed supplied floor and the compatible load restraint equipment (floor points etc) was insufficient for our needs. As a result we had them install a much more solid (and therefore heavier) floor which IIRC used the same type of floor restraint equipment as that used on the VC-10, Britannia etc. As a result, we were unable to exchange pallets etc with our US colleagues (or indeed other NATO or Commonwealth) countries that all used the US 463L system on joint exercises/operations etc. Shortly after I started with the ATF we decided to buy adapter kits so we could use the 463L pallets but the 'logistics' of ensuring we had the right pallets in the right locations around the world then became a bit of a challenge for the Air Ops and Load Planners. On more than one occasion we turned up 'down route' (normally somewhere like Gander, Dakar, Bora Bora, Guam etc) with the 463L adapters in place (which also resulted in a minor loss of clearance heights for the pallets) only to find the 'standard' RAF pallet (which was wider) presented for loading !. Most loads 'bulked out' rather than were 'weight out' which could also be a game changer with the loss of height clearances. Cargo floors and pallets appears to be a rather simple concept but, in reality, it can be quite complicated.

 

One consolation with our load system for the ATF was that if a load was secured properly it would never move. So the story goes, an Argosy (I think) conducting a low pass in the Middle East sometime in the sixties hit an object on the ground and cartwheeled before being almost totally destroyed. Once the dust had literally settled those that went out to the crash site found and almost complete floor section with a Land Rover still securely tied in place.            

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, gavingav said:

The more i see of this the more i like it, cheap, affordable, well detailed and engineered, like a return to the old ways of selling kits when companies would hope to sell 20-30,000 kits and sell then cheaper against the new model of making a run of just 10,000 and selling at higher price, Zvezda is going to sell a lot of these for many years to come, i think some other companies will be kicking themselves over a massive missed opportunity but then again if trumpeter had made this you can guarantee it would have been £99.99  .

Well put and I completely agree. I've pre-ordered two and I'm stoked to get my hands on 'em.

 

However I'm not looking forward to correcting/ detailing the grill vent on the forward starboard fuselage. I also wish the floor had been more detailed.

15 minutes ago, Tiger331 said:

The introduction to service of the C-130K is slightly before my time (!) but, as I understand it, we (the UK) determined that the standard Lockheed supplied floor and the compatible load restraint equipment (floor points etc) was insufficient for our needs. As a result we had them install a much more solid (and therefore heavier) floor which IIRC used the same type of floor restraint equipment as that used on the VC-10, Britannia etc. As a result, we were unable to exchange pallets etc with our US colleagues (or indeed other NATO or Commonwealth) countries that all used the US 463L system on joint exercises/operations etc. Shortly after I started with the ATF we decided to buy adapter kits so we could use the 463L pallets

I've looked up a couple of images of the RAF floor but I'm not sure where to look for the differences or indeed what they are exactly. Is there a side-by-side image of both types of floors somewhere on the internet? 

 

Jay

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gavingav said:

The more i see of this the more i like it, cheap, affordable, well detailed and engineered, like a return to the old ways of selling kits when companies would hope to sell 20-30,000 kits and sell then cheaper against the new model of making a run of just 10,000 and selling at higher price, Zvezda is going to sell a lot of these for many years to come, i think some other companies will be kicking themselves over a massive missed opportunity but then again if trumpeter had made this you can guarantee it would have been £99.99  .

Absolutely agree with everything you say there, and this is what I meant when I said that I think other manufacturers would do well to to show interest in Zvezdas' policy.

They give us accurate and well molded subjects straight out of the box and at a good price point.  If anyone want's to detail them further they can.

Apart from the Hind (that I can think of), their subjects haven't always been hugely desirable subjects Western aviation wise, so I'm really glad that they dived in to give the world a modern tool kit of the hugely popular and exported C-130, when no one else seem bothered, and I really hope that they reap the reward.

BTW I'm glad Trumpeter didn't do this, their sketchy accuracy track record and price would have killed off the hope of a decent one from anyone else.

 

With the floor and ramp, I was looking for differences before I realised that if I'm having to look for them then I'm not that bothered converting the kit one.

 

The crash mentioned above was Argosy XR133, it killed all eleven souls onboard.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 71chally said:

With the floor and ramp, I was looking for differences before I realised that if I'm having to look for them then I'm not that bothered converting the kit one.

Yea but what if there comes a point in time when you do know the difference? 😁 

 

Jay

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 71chally said:

With the floor and ramp, I was looking for differences before I realised that if I'm having to look for them then I'm not that bothered converting the kit one.

Here's a good guided tour of the inside of the RAF Museum Hercules C.3 (XV202) by an ex RAF Hercules Mechanical Technician (Rigger). Although as he explains as displayed at the Museum at Cosford it has a full flat (non-standard?) floor configuration, i.e. without roller conveyor system. So this shouldn't be too hard to replicate with paint & masking. I particularly welcome his very detailed explanation of the on board urinal - complete with LXX squadron decal / zap... for target practice!  :rofl:

 

Under the RADAR: Inside the C130 Hercules

 

Enjoy! 

 

Rich

Edited by RichG
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mountain goat said:

Yea but what if there comes a point in time when you do know the difference? 😁 

 

Jay

...build another one!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RichG said:

Here's a good guided tour of the inside of the RAF Museum Hercules C.3 (XV202) by an ex RAF Hercules Mechanical Technician (Rigger). Although as he explains as displayed at the Museum at Cosford it has a full flat (non-standard?) floor configuration, i.e. without roller conveyor system. So this shouldn't be too hard to replicate with paint & masking. I particularly welcome his very detailed explanation of the on board urinal - complete with LXX squadron decal / zap... for target practice!  :rofl:

 

Under the RADAR: Inside the C130 Hercules

 

Enjoy! 

 

Rich

Rich,

 

Thanks for posting the video....brought back some happy memories. As you can see, the RAF C-130 had a truly flat cargo floor with a series of apertures into which one inserted the 'mooring points' (right now I cannot remember what we called these). This was the heavy duty metal 'loop' used to secure the hook end of the cargo strop or chain tensioner (depending on the nature/weight of the load). These loops were proud of the floor and would today be described as 'trip hazards' by the HSE but back in the day we just got on with it !. Any other role equipment (roller conveyor for example) had to be fitted on top of the floor and used standard fittings exactly the same as those used for the mooring points. The floor was truly solid...no flexing sensation as you walked across it which was in contrast to the standard US floor. The US floor had recesses which housed the permanently fitted mooring points which simply folded down when not in use, rather like those you find in the back of some SUVs. Very practical in one way because you never risked the danger of going down route only to discover that someone from the role equipment bay had forgotten to load the box of loose mooring points for your role change (yes, it happened from time to time) but it was a little more difficult to keep the floor clean and they could be a potential foreign object damage (FOD) hazard (its amazing what one relatively small bolt or nut can do if accidentally kicked off an aircraft onto the pan). IIRC (although it is now over 25 years since I was last involved in the practical loading of a C-130, the US floor housed the roller conveyor which was 'flipped over' if needed for a pallet load (although I may be getting confused with the C-17). In any case, the USAF in particular hardly ever operated the aircraft with 'flat floors' (i.e. no pallets) since they never really worried about running out of cargo space - they just called up another of their 800+ C-130s to take up the slack unlike us who filled every aircraft to the gunwhales !.

 

Anyway, a bit off topic but I hope Flightpath look to revisit their C-130 detail set to fit the new kit or some other enterprising manufacturer comes up with a brand new one.            

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tiger331 said:

their 800+ C-130s to take up the slack

Off topic, but ok: great stories--I was not a loadmaster, but do recall there were rollers on the floors of the slick -130Es.  We (USAF) never had 800 in service all at the same time, at least not all under a single command like MAC.  But we did have a lot.  When I was doing my cadet summer at Little Rock in 1990, we had 80 C-130Es on the flight line--and this at just one airbase!  That meant we had more C-130s at just one airbase than any other air force's total complement.  It probably also helped that Little Rock was the "schoolhouse."  Did RAF pilots/crews train there, or was there an RTU/FTU in the UK?  RAF Lyneham?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Off topic, but ok: great stories--I was not a loadmaster, but do recall there were rollers on the floors of the slick -130Es.  We (USAF) never had 800 in service all at the same time, at least not all under a single command like MAC.  But we did have a lot.  When I was doing my cadet summer at Little Rock in 1990, we had 80 C-130Es on the flight line--and this at just one airbase!  That meant we had more C-130s at just one airbase than any other air force's total complement.  It probably also helped that Little Rock was the "schoolhouse."  Did RAF pilots/crews train there, or was there an RTU/FTU in the UK?  RAF Lyneham?

 

No.....we had our own 'Operational Conversion Unit' as it was called........which IIRC 'borrowed' aircraft from the 4 x Squadrons based at RAF Lyneham when I was there in the 1980s.....you were right though. We probably had no more than 45-50 frames at Lyneham at any one time, what with majors or C.3 (stretched) conversions going on at Marshalls of Cambridge (the UK sub contractor). We did go through Little Rock a lot though, especially on the 'southern' route to Nellis to support RED/GREEN FLAG exercises.....nice place.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tiger331 said:

nice place

You mean Jacksonville, Arkansas, or Lost Wages, Nevada?  LOL!  Jacksonville is/was super quiet.  I once did four weeks back-to-back in Las Vegas for consecutive Red Flags, and it was just too much for me.  Fortunately, I had friends in LV who took me out for some "environmental relief" and more healthy socialization.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

You mean Jacksonville, Arkansas, or Lost Wages, Nevada?  LOL!  Jacksonville is/was super quiet.  I once did four weeks back-to-back in Las Vegas for consecutive Red Flags, and it was just too much for me.  Fortunately, I had friends in LV who took me out for some "environmental relief" and more healthy socialization.

I was specifically referring to Little Rock. The first time I went to LV, I absolutely hated it.......everyone's opening line was "how much have you won/lost ?"....on the assumption that you only went to LV to gamble. I went back twice more and then got a new assignment only to find I had not 'escaped'.....in fact, instead of going for 7-10 days at a time, I was going to be there for 3-4 months straight. The good thing was they put us in a modest motel off the strip and we socialised with the 'real people' of LV so it was a totally different experience....as you say, we got far more healthy socialization.  

 

Anyway, we are getting a bit 'off topic' here.....we need to swing this back to a discussion about the merits of the new Zvedza C-130 kit which has to be one of the most anticipated kits of recent years. I'm really looking forward to the prospect of no longer wrestling with the Airfix, Esci or Italeri kits (although I did enjoy them at the time). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/09/2020 at 10:50, Max Headroom said:

Ok I’ll bite.

 

Why did Their Airships want a non standard floor?

 

Trevor

The majority of cargo floor on the K was not heavier than any other Herc. It was a simple one for one replacement of the floor anchor points. The K's quarter turn anchor plugs fitted in the same floor recesses as the standard Herc recessed tie down rings. The only real difference was the K had three anchor points rated at 25000lb (all the others were 5000 or 10000lb) on the centre line. These were needed for the restraint of the UK's heavy air dropped loads which use reefed mains extraction using platforms that originated from the early 1950's having been developed (and sized) for dropping from USAF C-119s prior to the arrival of the Beverley. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Aeronut said:

The majority of cargo floor on the K was not heavier than any other Herc. It was a simple one for one replacement of the floor anchor points. The K's quarter turn anchor plugs fitted in the same floor recesses as the standard Herc recessed tie down rings. The only real difference was the K had three anchor points rated at 25000lb (all the others were 5000 or 10000lb) on the centre line. These were needed for the restraint of the UK's heavy air dropped loads which use reefed mains extraction using platforms that originated from the early 1950's having been developed (and sized) for dropping from USAF C-119s prior to the arrival of the

When i first got put on the Hercs i was told the K's had the same load fittings as the Beverley.This was due to the fact that the RAF had shed loads of equipment already,that used this system so wanted the same on its C130's.

Maybe there is some truth in this.The worst thing about them was that the floors had horrible Hi torque screws that held them down,i wouldnt wish them on my worst enemy mech lol.As a footnote,the Austrian airforce still have the same system as they are ex RAF K's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Aeronut said:

The majority of cargo floor on the K was not heavier than any other Herc. It was a simple one for one replacement of the floor anchor points. The K's quarter turn anchor plugs fitted in the same floor recesses as the standard Herc recessed tie down rings. The only real difference was the K had three anchor points rated at 25000lb (all the others were 5000 or 10000lb) on the centre line. These were needed for the restraint of the UK's heavy air dropped loads which use reefed mains extraction using platforms that originated from the early 1950's having been developed (and sized) for dropping from USAF C-119s prior to the arrival of the Beverley. 

So why was the AUW (Basic Weight without freight/role equipment) for the C-130K more than that for the C-130E/H. We always had to factor this in one calculating marginal weight loads for items such as a full ammunition load. I cannot think of any other element of the airframe that differed markedly from the C-130E/H (unlike, for example, the F-4K/M with the much heavier Spey engine)  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tiger331 said:

So why was the AUW (Basic Weight without freight/role equipment) for the C-130K more than that for the C-130E/H. We always had to factor this in one calculating marginal weight loads for items such as a full ammunition load. I cannot think of any other element of the airframe that differed markedly from the C-130E/H (unlike, for example, the F-4K/M with the much heavier Spey engine)  

I can't say. I never had to work with the E/H models only the K and the J and that was over 20 years ago now. The later did have a version of the UK roller floor designed, made and installed for trials but it never made it into service as the RAF wanted to keep the movers quiet and gave them the Dash 4a role equipment like all other Hercs

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I will build mine "doors closed" the difference in the floor will make no difference to me, but is there actually a visible difference? From a cursory read of posts here, I am confused as to whether you would actually see any actual difference.

 

Boy, that's a lot of "difference" in one post.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We had two Ks depart out of St Athan destined for Mexico via Canada, but unsure if they ever got to Mexico.

We also had one go to Austria, which I think was the last K move in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to ukserials.com/scramble.nl:

 

06/09/00 XV203 to Sri Lanka as CR-880

unknown XV213 to Sri Lanka as CR-881

cancelled XV201 to Sri Lanka as CR-882 not taken up

12/11/00 XV215 to Mexico as 3615

12/11/00 XV223 to Mexico as 3617

30/09/01 XV191 to Mexico as 3614

04/11/01 XV222 to Mexico as 3616

20/03/03 XV181 to Austria as 8T-CA

26/08/03 XV292 to Austria as 8T-CC

08/02/04 XV291 to Austria as 8T-CB

22/11/15 XV303 to Canada as C-FNUL

09/12/15 XV214 to Canada as C-FNUM

10/12/15 XV295 to Austria for spares

 

I know that it was hoped Poland would also take some but they opted for ex-USAF C-130Es.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Truro Model Builder said:

22/11/15 XV303 to Canada as C-FNUL

09/12/15 XV214 to Canada as C-FNUM

 

10/12/15 XV295 to Austria for spares

Those are the two I was thinking of,

23599866540_2b9d4fb25a_h.jpgLockheed C-130K Hercules C.3 C-FNUM ex XV214 by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

and the two Canadian and the Austrian Ks seen together before departure,

 

23692356711_a4c0886955_h.jpgLockheed C-130K Hercules C.3s C-FNUL XV303, C-FNUM XV214 & C.1 8X-CZ XV295 by James Thomas, on Flickr

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I somehow missed this, but very exciting news indeed! I was a rigger (airframe tech) on CC-130’s for three years at CFB Namao (Edmonton Alberta). I was going to attempt fixing up the old Airfix kit with all the goodies from Arma, but this changes everything! It’s really hard to see if they got it right from the photos, but seeing the prominent chine on the fuselage, is a good indication, hard to tell, but the horizontal stabilizer is an inverted airfoil with the top being much flatter than the underside. I built the Airfix kit in the early 70’s as a young teen, and did it just like the box art, in gloss desert scheme, Land Rover and Bloodhound included. Later on I built the Italeri 1/72 kit on commission as a CC-130H, in the Red, White and Silver colours, using the Trident decals. I really don’t like that kit, it has way too many shape and outline issues, especially the fuselage cross section. The real thing has a larger radius bottom, making it look flatter. The Italeri kits in both scales really botched it there. It was a tight squeeze going under the belly on a creeper, and when you’re intimate with the Herk airframe, this flatter belly with the prominent chines is very obvious. The Zvesda kit really looks promising! The CC-130E and H however, have a different fuselage protrusion at the tail, than the kit. Ours was longer and trapezoidal (nicknamed beaver tail) with an international orange CPI (crash position indicator) recessed into the top, visible in this great photo of the last E model 328. The shorter rounded one was referred to as the platypus. Lots of nicknames for parts of a Herk, Grasshopper legs, pork chops, elephant ears (missing from the Airfix ramp, among a few other quirks), Darth Vader helmet, (the gloss black radome sitting on a pallet really looks it) I can’t remember them all, that was 40 years ago! 329-333 were the H models back in the late 70’s. The only big difference from a rigger perspective, was the brakes. The E had single disks (bloody heavy), and the H had multi stator brakes, cooler and much less likely to fade. Also, the dry bay access panels on the wing behind 1 and 4 were rectangular on the E, and the same oval as 2 and 3 on the H. The dry bays provided access to the wet wing fuel components via the ribs, also a great place to hide contraband from customs after a round the world flight ;) an extra detailed A check after return, often revealed goodies, forgotten by the stasher (once found a lime green knitted cock warmer under the FE’s seat cushion!). Brengun has taken over the Arma resin parts, and I think they have both. One thing missing on kits, is the cobalt blue lens formation lights on the wing, they were flush mounted, so replicating them is easy, if you can find a drawing or clear photo. The H models had glossier silver, and some repainted E’s. A lot were almost flat silver with weathering. The black stripe and demarcation line separating the white and silver, on the empennage aft of the insignia, varied from plane to plane. The larger wing roundels were downsized in 79-80, and moved aft, so you wouldn’t slip off the wing during daily inspections (arctic mukluks on wet glossy paint). The three lighter bands on the walkway were not on all Herks, and finding photos of the top like this are rare. The grey anti slip had a bit of a sparkle and was fairly thick but smooth. The square under the serial is where the UN plaque slides into on international flights, secured by a wingnut dzus, they were stowed in the cargo area in a canvas bag. The prominent antenna wires running up to the fin were about 3/8” diameter, smooth dark brown coating and at my neck level when walking along the wing (don’t ask). The cargo floor featured many recessed tie down rings for securing loads and also the ADS (Air Delivery System) was bolted to these. Also many anti slip patches on the floor, a mask for those would be a welcome addition! There’s a lot of stuff in the cargo area and the kit gives you the basics, if you super detail it, lighting would really help, either white or red. Otherwise you can put anything from Christmas trees to beer to private vehicles etc. etc. etc. to make it interesting if you don’t want to plumb it out. Incidentally, 333 was flown at the Medicine Hat Airshow, and special guest, Sir Douglas Bader went up in her and experienced a JATO (now correctly RATO) takeoff, to which he exclaimed, “bloody marvellous!” What a great man! A lot of NATO Herks came through Namao, RAF, RNAF, SAF, USAF, AFRES (a Roman nose one!) and even Chilean AF. My favourite visitors were the RAF in the very crisp, green and grey over light grey. So I guess I need two kits now! Just the best news since sliced bread! Now I only need approval from the chief of staff hahaha. Zvesda doing a Herk! Stranger things have happened, but this is very good indeed. Lower photo shows a very new CC-130H 329, the first of five, the crew entry door has yet to be painted that greyish bluish greenish colour (don’t have the code) and the triangular openings were covered with fabric patches before painting. Also note the small port from the ATM (Air Turbine Motor) above the lightning bolt just under the wing root, and the GTC (Gas Turbine Compressor) doors in the open position on the forward part of the sponson. The GTC provided bleed air to the ATM like a two part APU.

5FB1CEDF-DB69-4DC0-9D49-594CA41E12C9 95AD9D3E-909B-4F93-A8B4-54F7202B3A68

 

Edited by MrB17
Additional info.
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Homebee changed the title to 1/72 - Lockheed C-130H & J Hercules by Zvezda - C-130H released - C-130J release in 2021

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...