Beverley v Hercules (Big Bev v Fat Albert)

BendyFlyer

BendyFlyer

Charter Member
I recently thought about the contest between the Blackburn Beverley and the Lockheed C130A as a heavy lifter seeing the RAAF decided to go with the Herc. So I planned a hypothetical flight RAF Seletar in Singapore to Butterworth in Malaysia and then on to Da Nang in Vietnam. They basically carry the same load @44000 lbs (and similar paratroop numbers) and both have the fuel capacity to do it. Let you know how it goes in due course. Fictional load of 22 pallets of beer!

Manfred Jahns excellent Blacburn Beverley ready to go at Seletar.

Rpw2sCE.jpg


Capt Sims excellent C130 also ready to go at Seletar.

3iRAB24.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ah, but difference is Bev could carry weight below, and paratroops above; whereas dear old Albert its one or other, even in 17f fit.

Ttfn

Pete
 
Aahh...

... a load of 22 pallets...

attachment.php


... against a load of ...

attachment.php


right?
:ernaehrung004:
 

Attachments

  • Hercules.jpg
    Hercules.jpg
    79 KB · Views: 7
  • Beverley.jpg
    Beverley.jpg
    47.9 KB · Views: 7
I've jumped out of the Herc exactly 357 times. Horrible plane to travel in, brilliant to jump out of! :biggrin-new:

Priller
 
Priller said:
I've jumped out of the Herc exactly 357 times. Horrible plane to travel in, brilliant to jump out of! :biggrin-new:

Priller
Click to expand...
That bad you didn't use a chute? ...;)

One of the guys with my old man during the war grabbed a chute...put it on....and jumped off the boat onto the wharf....just so he could say he was the first to parachute into Crete...;)
 
This from an article in Aeronautics 38:4 (June 1958). Speculating on a successor of the Beverley, the author envisages an updated model with turbo-prop engines and a cargo variant of the Britannia (actually to be built as the Belfast). Ironically, no mention is made of any US competitors, even though on p. 95 of the same issue there is a full page Lockheed advert proclaiming the already established "go anywhere, haul anything" reputation of the C-130.

H2DhUvs.jpg
 
Interesting idea, did some research on my own, from Wikipedia I got this about the Beverly


Range: 1,300 mi (2,100 km, 1,100 nmi) at 8,000 feet (2,400 m) with 29,000 lb (13,000 kg) payload; 160 mi (140 nmi; 260 km) with 50,000 lb (23,000 kg) payload
Ferry range: 3,960 mi (6,370 km, 3,440 nmi) at 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) (with 1,000 lb (450 kg) payload)


Now Singapore to Butterworth is 318 nm and Buttersworth to Danang is 785 nm. Given that and doing some math on the back of a napkin, I would think the Beverly would be able to carry 20,000kg to Butterworth, but would probably not be able to do so Danang. I could not find a range chart but assuming 13,000 kg for 1,100 nm and 23,000 kg for 140 nm are both points on a graph it would seem the range with 20,000 kg would be 428 nm.

Now most references I find show the max payload for a C-130 is 19,000 kg but for the civilian L-100 I found a payload of 23,150 kg for 1,334 nmi
 
MJahn fascinating article you found there.


Blanston - I had to reduce the fuel load on the Bev to 78% in each main and leave the auxilliaries empty to get the weight on board. Does Seletar to Butterworth comfortably but the Butterworth to Da Nang gives a fuel remaining of about 600 lbs only but I do not have the range and endurance graphs for the Bev but maximum range will be flying as high as possible to get the higher TAS depends on the winds. From the equator to that latitude the winds are generally fairly light and variable and I also chose that route to keep out of the NE Trade belt. I will be interesting to see how the fuel burn goes v TAS at various altitudes and the fuel remaining figure suggests it is a one shot approach and off course not by the book.

PS I actually started the flight yesterday with a dawn departure and about 30nm from Butterworth we had a major power failure and blackout that lasted until now, hate that happening when FSX is at full stretch.

The Bev has very impressive field peformance at max load on take off and good climb to about 6000 feet then it drops off so I figure about 8000 to 9000 should be about the best range altitude, dependant on OAT. Once I check out FSX too see there are no gremlins or damage to FSX I will try again - sigh!.

I know the C130 will kill the Bev on GS but block to block is where these differences can dissappear. The fuel burn rate comparison will be interesting - piston v turboprop always a hard one my money is on the piston.
 
Priller said:
I've jumped out of the Herc exactly 357 times. Horrible plane to travel in, brilliant to jump out of! :biggrin-new:

Priller
Click to expand...

Why people jump out of a perfectly good airplane is beyond me. :dizzy: That's what I used to tell one of my cousins when he was in the 82nd.
 
HyBypass - no thats the fuel remaining after Butterworth to Da Nang it is about 30 mins reserve - the Beverley appears to use about 890-831 lbs of fuel per hour. FWIW 831 lbs per hour is at 9000 feet at 36% lean mixtures giving and IAS of 152 knots and a TAS of about 170 (not bad). Oh and the monitor guage by Manfred displays this data beautifully (IAS-TAS etc) a very clever bit of work, confirms what the whizz wheel gives!
 
HighBypass said:
Was the range difference really that huge when adding another 10000 kg, bringing it down to a paltry 140nmi? Wow!:dizzy:
Click to expand...

Well, when you the math the maximum payload (cargo + fuel) for the Beverly was 25,297 kg, so with 23,000 kg of cargo you only have 2,297 kg left for fuel
 
Well an interesting comparison between very similar load capacity aircraft but a decade apart in design and engine type etc. Both had similar crew numbers. Comfort hmmm guess it is what you like. There is no doubt that the Herc is a much more complex aeroplane to operate with additional systems and I think if I was a pax the seats upstairs in the Bev would have been much better than canvas sling seats in the Herc. To my mind they both handle well but the Bev definitely has the edge for short field operation capacity, both have about the same paratroop drop capacity.

Block to block that is start to shutdown,same taxy time same parking bays the Bev took only 25% longer in time. The Bev did at 9000 ft and the Herc at F230. Avg cruise speed for the Bev worked out at 150 knots and the Herc 220 knots. Both carried the identical load. The major difference is fuel burn - The Bev burned about 900 lbs an hour and the Herc 3200 lbs and hour basically 3.5 times more fuel even if is a turboprop, as I expected a piston always kills a turbine for fuel efficiency. There is of course the range issue, the Herc can go a hell lot further with its significantly higher fuel load capacity, which is why the RAF guys complained they lost their overnight jollys when they moved onto the Herc, no more overnights and beers in the mess but a quick turn around and back home again. There is of the course the issue of higher operating altitudes which meant you would not get clobbered in the weather down low as you would in a Herc and you did have the capacity to take advantage of the winds enroute at the planning stage.

I like them both but for different reasons. Speed and cockpit comfort give me the Herc but for sheer ability in and out of strange places give me the Bev. So the Bev was quite competitive but in military terms too slow and too range restricted and that is about it .

Great fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top