JohnB wrote:
So since they are spending a lot of money to re-box them...can we assume USCG '130s are lower time than comparable AF or Navy aircraft?
Any corrosion issues with them being based near oceans for their operational lives?
I would NOT assume lower hours for a USCG airframe, but likely better fatigue life. USCG tends to operate airframes (especially rotary wing) often many hours longer than their DoD counterparts. As I understand it the wing box issues were influenced by corrosion, mission severity and fatigue which resulted in lowering the lifetime hours on the center wing box. Combat delivery C-130's (USAF, Reserve and National Guard) and special ops C-130's were hit especially hard by fatigue issues with the center wing box. Flying heavy and pounding into strips on combat deliveries is harsh on the airframe. US Navy and Marine (K)C-130s generally had much more fatigue life remaining. The Coast Guard C-130's likely had "easier" lives but the wing boxes were timed out. So likely high hours, but generally in good shape. Likely a better place to start than a clapped out troop carrier.
edit: Ken beat me to it
Great link Larry, rarely see a "naked" C-130