There were (are) several ways to get down stairs on a L1011.
There’s the lower galley already mentioned.
Near that in the cabin there’s a hatch in the floor down to the MESC (mid electrical services compartment).

Just inside the cockpit door there’s a similar hatch down to the FESC . This also gives access to the sights to see if the nose gear is locked down if the cockpit indication fails or the gear is lowered by freefall. Also in the FESC is an exterior hatch to the outside. Very handy when you have to get out of the aircraft and there’s no giraffes or airstairs around.
I seem to recall most of the flight crew were down in the FESC checking the noseleg when it crashed into the everglades.

A little misleading there, as the Glider wasn’t really involved in the accident, just the Pawnee and the Cirrus.

And here’s the box the Chipmunk starter carts used to come in…….

Even though the batch is late 60’s, this box full was used in approx summer 1985 at Valley on the Chippy in for the air cadets summer camp. We used to look after the aircraft whilst working on TAHS.

Can you really see any of the A400 customers investing in a system like that? The point was that the US does throw money around and comes up with these novel solutions that Europe never seems to try. For example if it was just Britain that wanted a gunship variant, do you really think the MOD would put up the money to develop it alone?

I’m yet to be convinced that the A400M we get a year after we could have had the C130’s will be very capable at all. Until they get the aircraft to spec, that will stay the case.

How much difference is there between the latest C130J’s and the A400M? Now what about the price difference? Now think if it will be better to have a more equal mix of a proper strategic transport like C17’s and C130’s, or an uneven mix of a few C130J’s, some A400Ms, and a couple of C17’s.

How many customers apart from the US forces have invested heavily in gunship modifications on the C-130?
Ok, so we don’t get a gunship version of the A400m, that hardly makes it less versatile than a design that’s been tweeked and developed over 50+ years.

You slag the A400m off then ask what the difference is between it and a C130J…… that hardly gives any credence to your opinion when you don’t seem to know even the basic facts.

I was also just using it as an example of the C130’s versatility, it helps to have the US trying all kinds of fun things with them. Like right now they’re trying out a new “plug and play” style AC130 for the USMC, you just wheel in the kit and weapons on pallets and off you go, the A400M will never get useful stuff like that.

:D:D:D

The C-130 has been around for well over 50 years, of course it’s going to be versatile! :rolleyes:

You say “the A400M will never get useful stuff like that”…..Thats some crystal ball you have! Any chance of this weeks lottery numbers?

Anyone else find it quite sad that people can list every sortie a pilot flew, every aircraft they flew, intricacies of their uniform, what they ate and even what their dog was called, yet a simple question about the number and composition of groundcrew required to service an aircraft leads to replies littered with ‘I think’ and ‘probably’.

WWII groundcrew (or any groundcrew!) are a sadly neglected part of the war and the lack of information and decent books about them is a quite sad affair.

“Operators Eye C-130 Center Wing Box Options

Oct 7, 2009 Lee Ann Tegtmeier

Operators of mature C-130 Hercules have three good options for upgrading the aircraft’s center wing box, the high-stress area where wings, empennage and landing gear meet.”

I’ve yet to see a C-130 with an empennage anywhere near the centre wing!