Coulson’s L-382G going through static and grid testing

air tanker L-382G tank rolling in
The retardant tank rolling into Coulson’s L-382G. Coulson photo.

The L-382G that Coulson is converting into an air tanker will be at McClellan on April 27 for static testing of the tank system and in Lancaster, California on May 4 for grid tests.

The L-382G is the civilian version of Lockheed’s C-130H-30, which is the stretched H model.

The tank has a capacity of 36,000 pounds. There is not much agreement about the exact weight of retardant, but Britton Coulson said they expect to carry about 4,250 USG.

“Even with a full tank and 3 to 4 hours of fuel”, Mr. Coulson said, “we are still almost 20,000 pounds under our max gross weight so we are still no where near maxing out the airplane.”

L-382G ready for tank
The interior of the L-382G showing the lower hopper installation. This was a structural superior version where none of the Lockheed structure was cut, other than the skin. Coulson photo.
L-382G cargo
The interior of the L-382G with the floorboard down, configured to haul cargo. Coulson photo.

Coulson’s C-130Q air tanker began their fire season this year on April 1, the start of their Mandatory Availability Period.

Typos, let us know, and please keep in mind the commenting ground rules before you post a comment.

9 thoughts on “Coulson’s L-382G going through static and grid testing”

  1. It looks like a beautiful plane, and great idea. Any idea when N405LC will be operational?

  2. Maybe on leaseback ….. an agreement between the two

    IF it is…it is similar to an owner of an airplane or helo to offer up an aircraft for a flight school to operate it for a period of time. Use of aircraft and make a little money in process

    Common in the aviation world

  3. Why does the tail number on this plane come up on the FAA Registry as being owned by Lynden Air Cargo LLC Anchorage Alaska thur 10/2017.

  4. And..one more thing..in this day and age how many tankers are actually operating well below gross weight..that in-itself provides a huge safety margin.
    Almost every other tanker is at or above original design MTOW.

    1. Your last statement is not quite correct Richard.
      Besides the Avro and Bae…which are operating at their designed and lowered MTOW, the other aircraft out in the field are under their designed MTOW. For these operators there really isnt time for a “multi role” aircraft due to winter maint so that pt is moot.
      Have you flown the 10 or the MD 87 to compare?
      And lets not forget…just because an aircraft hauls more retardant doesnt mean its “better”…..the folks flying the planes and putting it down where the folks want it is the deal maker or breaker.

      1. Craig, I agree with your comments re MTOW; most current airtankers are significantly under their original designed limits. However, I believe Richard may have been referring to the concept of multi-role within a defined contract term, ie: dropping retardant on one flight and hauling fire crews or equipment on the next.

        Multi-role works reasonably well with larger helicopters (S-61), but is a flawed concept with fixed-wing aircraft when you have to remove tanks and install seats between roles. It rarely works as quickly, efficiently or cost-effectively as advertised, and it often renders an airtanker unavailable at times it’s needed the most.

  5. This is what all air tankers should be capable of..multi role aircraft.
    The aircraft looks very clean, efficient and time proven. I am not sure what is meant by the “thirsty ” comment. Compared to the DC10 and MD80 aircraft this thing is a dream machine. It might sip a tad more fuel than the BAE146 but then it will carry considerably more retardant.
    Dollar for dollar I don’t think, since the day of the P-3, you will find a better platform.
    Well done Coulson crew!

  6. Honestly, there shouldn’t be too many unknowns at this point, if the airplane is days away from grid testing. One ‘known’, however, is that is going to be a very thirsty airplane.

  7. That sure looks clean. Nice looking aircraft. Since their C-130 is proven, is it easier to get IATB approval?

Comments are closed.