It looks a lot like their last “new” livery except this one is gray instead of the previous blue.

So, every male steward is gay?

Come on guys, wake up, it’s 2004, we don’t burn them at the stake any more!

You’re right, in 2004 only 95% of them are gay.

I guess I should have said 720. What an odd ball aircraft variant.

How many C-130 civilian aircraft are their going about?

From what I’ve found online there are 118 L-100’s worldwide which doesn’t include any C-130’s that are operated commercially.

but why? what would give it an advantage over say something using a turbofan indeed, or a Russian equivelent. :confused:

My guess would be because a turbroprop is less susceptible to foreign particle injestion. A turbofan is a large vacuum cleaner sucking in anything and everything in which leads to internal damage when there is particulate matter abound (dust and ice). Perhaps the An-72 would be an exception with it’s engines placed high over the wing. I know the C-17 has done unimproved field operations but I don’t think it can be a replacement for the capabilities of the C-130.

A turboprop also had shortfield capabilities not found in turbofan aircraft. With their straight wings and large props a transport turboprop can come in a lot slower and there for stop a lot quicker than a turbofan equivilant. Even the C-17 has a sweep to it’s wings.

I’ll admit that I’m not the most knowledgeable about the Russian modifications for their turboprop transports so I’m sure there is a C-130 equivilant. But the C-130 seems very adaptable for artic operations as they are used to and from the South Pole outpost.

I seem to be going at this from quite a different angle than the others on this thread (A310’s, 767’s), so is this what you are asking F-18 Hamburger or am I that off?

L-100 or C-130?

I caught some of this series when it was broadcast a few years ago. It was very enjoyable and educational (if those 2 things can go together).