AC-130H "SPECTRE" Retirement

[APG85]

The NASM might very well take a Gunship but someone has to make the effort to convince them to take one. A tail number with significant history needs to be selected (they are all pretty significant), the right people at the NASM need to be contacted and Wright-Patterson also needs to give a blessing. This would take a "push" from the right people...

[Pogmusic]

I believe that 1st Lady is at the Eglin AFB Armament Museum.

[tom d. friedman]

surely there has to be a totally new prototype weapon system waiting in the wings to replace the spectre in it's entirety . the weapons / aircraft industries are always on the pulse of the phasing out process in the military, it's what keeps them in business. what I don't understand is how does the b-52 which is over 60 years old & near 2 generations older than it's current pilots is slated to go on for at least 2 to 3 more decades, & more cost prohibitive to upgrade.

[flightsimer]

I wonder if one of these might be destined for NASM. They have a much earlier model that has been in long term outdoor storage that is now slated for deaccession.

It'd be great for one of these combat veterans scooped up by a civilian company. Talk about the ultimate warbird!?


Chappie

If we could get ownership, Im sure our Museum would be able to operate it to air shows. Almost all of our C-123K crewmembers also flew the C-130 after the 123 during their military career. And with the 911th at Pittsburgh being just a 5 minute flight away, Im sure we would be able to get qualified and current maintenance personel to help maintain it. Plus, Im sure there would be pilots down there who would love to fly it as well.

[Ken]

I am a big fan of the idea of putting an AC-130H out as a civilian warbird asap. The airplanes are flyable now, why wait until they are stripped and pickled to then turn around and pour sums of money into getting one flyable? The comment about having experienced people ready to fly & maintain one is also spot on. I'm sure some weight could be taken off and the guns could be functionally demilled without affecting her appearance.

Seems like Collings would be the ideal operator, although given their relationship with the DoD over the F-105, the DoD might balk. Sure would make a stunning static display as well as a popular rides program platform. And one could argue that, given sequestration and the Ops tempo of the real gunship crews, having a civilian AC-130H making airshow appearances would be nothing but good for the USAF.

Ken

[Ken]

I didn't mean to have the "last word" on this thread. Seems I've been in that position alot lately.

Ken

[Ed-Spectre]

Chances of a civilian outfit flying a AC-130H are slim and none. Look at all the fuss the USAF put up over a civilian F-105 flying. By the time a Gunship was de-milled you would have an empty, gutted Herk . As cool as it would be it would also be cost prohibitive for any private organization to undertake. Groups flying large multi engine birds rely on riders to offset the fuel cost. As much as I enjoyed it, I dont see many folks willing to pay big bucks to fly on a Gunship. I'll be happy if they all avoid the scrap-man. Out of the 8 remaining H Model Gunships one will go on static at Hurlburt, one at Cannon AFB, which leaves 6 needing homes...

[sandiego89]

I agree that a warbird AC-130 is a very long shot. Most of the public would think it is just another trash hauler C-130 (don't get me wrong I like trash haulers), and few would want to book it for an airshow. It would be a money pit with high fuel burn rate, tired airframes with lots of hours and known wing fatigue issues, and demilling. Few would want to pay the big bucks to ride in one like the do for B-17, B-29 etc. Don't know many folks that would pay a large fee to ride in a noisy C-130 with very few windows. I've ridden in the back of a 130, and it is not exactly a thrill ride.

I too hope a few make it static somewhere.

[Ken]

Agree: High cost, few windows, tired airframe, mixed interest from riders.

Disagree: Demilling will somehow gut the airplane. Would not be popular at airshows. (A buddy flies a replica AC-47 and fields questions from interested people all day long at shows.) Lightened up and somewhat maneuver restricted, I suspect the airframe would last just fine.

Probably a moot argument as there is a slim chance this will come to pass, but given the right parties being interested, it could be a reality.

Ken

[flightsimer]

As cool as it would be it would also be cost prohibitive for any private organization to undertake. Groups flying large multi engine birds rely on riders to offset the fuel cost. As much as I enjoyed it, I dont see many folks willing to pay big bucks to fly on a Gunship. I'll be happy if they all avoid the scrap-man. Out of the 8 remaining H Model Gunships one will go on static at Hurlburt, one at Cannon AFB, which leaves 6 needing homes...

That is not true at all. We fly our C-123K exclusively without riders and will probably be doing the same for our goon, though I hope not.

And just in case your wondering, our C-123K, burns MORE fuel in cruise than the B17's do. Now granted do they have more engines, but we are probably on par with mx costs as our engines are more expensive, are require us to put away more money for them.

[cco23i]

I'd want to leave Cannon too! LOL

[Ed-Spectre]

$4,500 - $4,900 (ball park)an hour in jet fuel would require some deep pockets, and there is no way the USAF would release an gunship to a private outfit with the 105mm and 40mm still on it, those are still being used on the U-Boats and parts are getting harder to come by, so while you would have a Historically valuable bird flying , it would be gutted.