.
George A. Haloulakos, CFA DBA Spartan Research and Consulting, Core Adjunct Finance Faculty – National University and Instructor-Finance, University of California at San Diego (UCSD) Extention
ABSRACT
Lockheed’s leadership in military aircraft for more than 50 years has been anchored and aided financially by the steady, stable presence of its multi-purpose C130 Hercules program. From a finance perspective, the C130 can be viewed as a cash cow. Companies with a “cash-cow” (i.e., a self-financing product group or division that is a market share leader in its respective business and generates surplus cash) in its product portfolio are well positioned to earn above-average financial returns by funding new product development and expanding their overall sales. In the aviation field, where new aircraft programs require enormous sums of capital and very long lead times for development, this can be especially advantageous. Lockheed’s iconic C130 Hercules built for the US Air Force and US Navy, is arguably the most versatile tactical transport aircraft ever built. Its uses appear almost limitless: airlift and airdrop, electronic surveillance, search and rescue, space-capsule recovery, helicopter refueling, landing (with skis) on snow and ice, and aerial attack. It has even landed and taken off from a carrier deck without benefit of arresting gear or catapults. This program has been in operation since the mid-1950s and its multi-service / multi-faceted functional role has kept the Marietta Georgia plant in production and modification/upgrade mode of the C130 to the present day! The purpose of this paper is to discuss the added-value arising from a cash-cow business model using the C130 as a case study.
FINANCIAL STRATEGY & THE GROWTH SHARE MATRIX
The Growth Share Matrix, developed by Bruce Henderson for the Boston Consulting Group in 1970, is an analytical model used to evaluate product lines or business groups within a corporate framework and make capital investment decisions based on the relationship of market share, growth and expected financial outcomes. The matrix classifies product or business groups into four quadrants based on their respective growth rates and relative market shares.
The four quadrants are popularly known as:
“Stars” – High growth / High share [upper left quadrant]
“Cash Cows” – Low growth / High share [lower left]
“Question Marks or Wild Cats” – High growth / Low share [upper right]
“Pets or Dogs” – Low growth / Low share [lower right]
Typically, a balanced portfolio is comprised of a mix of cash cows, stars and question marks, while pets (or dogs) are either divested or avoided because of being viewed as potential cash-traps or financial sink-holes. In a balanced portfolio, the idea is for: “Cash cows” to generate funds to support future growth by financing the “stars” whose high growth and high share assure that future growth AND to convert or develop the “question marks” into “stars.” From a flow of funds perspective, cash flows from the lower left quadrant into both the upper left AND upper right quadrants.
Essentially, the firm is managed as an investment portfolio with the product or business groups treated as individual investments. Each group is evaluated on how its expected financial performance (arising from its growth/share features) will add to the total corporate business portfolio with least risk. The goal is to avoid total dependence on any single group, lower volatility of return on invested capital (ROIC) as measured by standard deviation (sigma) and maximize total risk-adjusted ROIC for the entire firm.
The Significance of Market Share
Higher relative market share implies higher cash generation. As a firm increases its physical output, the higher capacity utilization rate lowers unit costs due to higher absorption rate of fixed overhead. Lower unit costs that arise from economies of scale (i.e., a “learning curve” effect in which accumulated experience translates into increased efficiency) enables earnings to grow faster the higher the share. Market share of a firm’s brand is measured in relation to its largest competitor. Therefore if a brand has a 25% share and its largest competitor has the same, the inferred ratio is 1:1. However, if the largest competitor had a 75% share, the ratio would be 1:3 and this implies a relatively weak position. If the largest competitor had a 5% share, the ratio is 5:1 and this implies the firm’s brand is in a relatively strong position that may be reflected in earnings and cash flow. When used in practice, this scale is logarithmic.
The Significance of Growth
The Growth Share Matrix assumes that a higher growth rate indicates correspondingly high demands on investment. The cut-off point between high and low growth is usually 10% per annum. High growth is associated with either neutral or modestly negative cash flow, as high investment is required to maintain competitive position. Low growth is associated with positive or surplus cash generation because a mature business theoretically has lower investment requirements to maintain its competitive position.
Putting Them Together: ROIC, Market Share and Growth
Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) measures how efficiently a firm converts invested capital (debt + equity) into profit. A subset of ROIC is Return on Equity (ROE), which measures a firm’s net income in relation to its shareholder equity. A company with strong or vibrant earnings growth and a high ROE is usually a market share leader in its industry or sector. Strong earnings growth with a low ROE indicates a firm may be absorbing capital in order to maintain profit growth. This high level of investment is often associated with business models that have a high level of fixed costs, and are usually manufacturing firms.
According to Investor’s Business Daily [8/12/2010, page B1], “top quality stocks, when they begin their winning runs, generally carry an ROE ratio of 17% or higher.” With publicly traded companies, the ROE is metric more closely tracked because of its association with shareholder equity, but is also viewed as the driver for ROIC, a metric often used in conjunction with ROE when managing a firm’s business model as a product portfolio, with market share and growth as the key variables for making investment decisions.
LOCKHEED’S AIRCRAFT PRODUCT PORTFOLIO
For explanatory purposes of this paper, I have classified Lockheed’s aircraft product portfolio into three categories: High-Tech Military Aircraft, Military Transport & Multi-Purpose Aircraft and Commercial Aircraft. To the best of my knowledge, there are no public corporate documents that conceptualize the aircraft product portfolio in this exact manner, but in my research and teaching roles, it serves as a helpful way to understand Lockheed and its business history. In the interest of clarity and concision, please note that the list of aircraft in each of the aforementioned categories is not all inclusive, but rather highlights the key aircraft programs that are representative of Lockheed’s overall competitive position. For the same reason, mapping of these groups is general rather than specific.
THE BENEFITS OF HAVING A CASH COW IN THE PRODUCT PORTFOLIO
The primary benefits of the cash cow model in the context of aviation are financial independence/flexibility, manufacturing synergy and brand equity. These benefits provide the foundation in which an aircraft manufacturer is able to launch new products that help accelerate overall corporate growth and cash flow, that in turn, strengthens the overall corporate business model. Positive cash flow from a given product group implies that its reinvestment requirements have been met thereby leaving surplus cash to be redeployed elsewhere in the business portfolio for new product development, share buyback or paying down debt. Manufacturing synergy occurs as long-term projects can often generate collateral benefits such as technology transfer (i.e., production methods that can be applied across different programs) and serving as a process driver to lower unit costs as well as promote innovation. Brand equity – the value of having a well-known name based on superior performance and quality – puts a firm in a much stronger position to generate more money from its product and service offerings. In this paper we will document how Lockheed’s C130 Hercules program has, and continues to provide the benefits of financial independence/flexibility, manufacturing synergy and brand equity – the benefits or attributes of a cash cow model.
WHAT MAKES THE C130 HERCULES AN EXEMPLARY CASH COW MODEL
The attributes that have enabled the C130 Hercules to be a cash cow model for more than 50 years are versatility, reliability and superior performance. The C130 has been in continuous production longer than any other military aircraft with a “workhorse” reputation that it is ready for any mission, anywhere, anytime. In Lockheed’s public documents, the following summary is offered:
“The C-130J Super Hercules offers superior performance and new capabilities, with the range and flexibility for every theater of operations and evolving requirements. This rugged aircraft is regularly sent on missions in the harshest environments, and is often seen as the first aircraft “in,” touching down on austere landing strips before any other transport to provide humanitarian relief after natural disasters.
With more than 1 million hours of flying combat, humanitarian, special operations, aerial refueling, firefighting, and search and rescue missions around the world, the C-130J stands ready for its next mission and for whatever the future holds.
C-130J Super Hercules by the Numbers:
– 1 million+ flight hours logged
– Operated by 15 countries
– 16+ different missions operating worldwide
– Used to set 54 world records
– 300+ C-130Js delivered or on order
– Can operate out of 2,000 foot-long dirt strips in high mountain ranges
– Ability to transport more than 40,000 pounds of cargo and supplies
C-130 Hercules Family by the Numbers:
– Operated by 70 countries
– 2,400+ C-130 aircraft delivered”
Source: Lockheed-Martin Public Documents, 2013.
FINANCIAL & STRATEGIC IMPACT OF C130 HERCULES AIRCRAFT
The benefits of cash flow generation and manufacturing synergy had noticeable impact on the company from almost the beginning. The success of the C130 (first launched in 1954) with the US Air Force and US Navy enabled Lockheed to introduce the first propeller turbojet commercial aircraft in 1961 [Electra – a favorite with PSA, American and Western]. From this Lockheed evolved the Electra to the long-range submarine chaser, the P3 Orion. The Electra and reciprocal engine aircraft had limited commercial success as the Boeing 707 surpassed them all following its commercial launch in 1958. [For a detailed report on the Boeing 707, see “The Boeing 707: A Case Study on Betting It All” by George A. Haloulakos and Farhang Mossavar-Rahmani.] However, the collateral benefits of the C130 as a cash cow would continue in the ensuing decades. Throughout the Cold War as Lockheed developed exotic high-tech military aircraft with reconnaissance and strike capabilities for the US Air Force and the Central Intelligence Agency, the C130 continued to be a steady, stable cash flow generator providing financial support for these projects. Yet at the same time, the C130 was rapidly developing into a most versatile, reliable multi-purpose aircraft. The stable, strong presence of the C130 upgraded Lockheed’s brand image as a superior, all-purpose, military aircraft manufacturer. This type of reputation coupled with positive financial results has enabled the C130 to support Lockheed as a positive contributor through the long up-and-down cycles that characterize the industry.
Given the highly classified nature of Lockheed’s military aircraft business, and numerous corporate reorganizations over the years, it is difficult to precisely estimate the detailed financial mix of the different aircraft programs. However, it is a matter of public record that the company’s notable commercial aircraft programs had limited success (Electra Prop Turbojet), did not fully materialize (Super Sonic Transport [SST]) or posted very marginal financial results (L1011 Tri-Star). While the C5 military transport program experienced financial pressure due to start-up costs and related difficulties, ultimately it became a solid contributor. However, the C5’s start-up problems concurrent with the L1011 Tri-Star’s cost overruns and delayed launch (due to problems with jet engine supplier Rolls Royce) raised serious concern about Lockheed’s financial viability. [For a detailed report on the Lockheed L1011 Tri-Star, see “Lockheed Tri-Star Redux: A Play to Win Strategy” by George A. Haloulakos.]
All the while as Lockheed experienced the good, the bad and ugly in terms of overall corporate financial results, the C130 Hercules remained as solid and strong as the mythological hero for which it was named. In sum, performance, versatility and reliability has enabled the C130 to remain perennially relevant since the 1950s. While not a “star” in the context of the Growth Share Matrix or a glamour vehicle like the company’s renowned high-tech military aircraft, the C130 is a stalwart “cash cow” and a model of versatility. For these reasons, the C130 may be the “most valuable aircraft program” in Lockheed’s product portfolio.
In reviewing the stock price history of Lockheed (now Lockheed-Martin) from the mid-1950s to date, the one constant in the corporate business portfolio has been the C130 Hercules. This is not to imply that the C130 Hercules has carried the entire company on its shoulders, but its significant presence and ongoing financial contribution is indisputable. As a “cash cow” the stable, steady financial performance of the C130 program has enabled the company to not only help fund the growth of its “star” high-tech military aircraft, but also provide a safety net during cyclical declines.
Despite a close call in the early-to-mid 1970s, Lockheed ultimately triumphed over financial adversity, and having the C130 in its arsenal was a key element in remaining a relevant and key player in the aviation industry. As a result Lockheed shares have been a big long-term winner for the buy-and-hold investor. The following matrix affirms this conclusion.
Another way to appreciate the financial and operational staying power of the C130 is to examine the US military transport aircraft introduced during the 1950-1959 period by make and model, and compare the status of each aircraft in terms of service and/or production. The following matrix documents that only the C130 is still in active service and in production. All other military transport aircraft from that era have ceased production long ago, and only two other aircraft models remain in active service.
THE MISSION OF THE C130 HERCULES
Lockheed’s C130 Hercules was originally designed as an assault transport but was adapted for a variety of missions, including: special operations (low-level and attack), close air support and air interdiction, mid-air space capsule recovery, search and rescue (SAR), aerial refueling of helicopters, weather mapping and reconnaissance, electronic surveillance, fire fighting, aerial spraying, Arctic/Antarctic ice resupply and natural disaster relief missions.
At present, the C130 primarily performs the intra-theater portion of the tactical airlift mission. This medium-range aircraft is capable of operating from rough, dirt strips and is the prime transport for paratroop and equipment drops into hostile areas. Detailed information is located in the APPENDIX.
THE MISSION CONTINUES TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
This is self-evident when reading the body of main text for this paper as well as the Appendix. What is equally impressive is how accomplishing this mission has translated into a significant financial payoff that continues to the present day. The C130 Hercules as a “cash cow” has not only provided a financial anchor for Lockheed’s aviation business portfolio, but has also helped fund the firm’s high-tech military aircraft programs, that, in turn, has produced significant cash dividends that accompanies the historic capital gains of its stock price noted earlier in this paper.
The financial payback in the form of cash dividends has been particularly evident into the 21st century. In late September 2013, Lockheed increased its quarterly dividend by 16% to $1.33 per share from $1.15. This was the firm’s 11th consecutive double-digit increase and its quarterly dividend has more than doubled from 2010-2013! Lockheed strives to return at least 50% of free cash flow to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks while maintaining leadership in its “star” product group, high-tech military aircraft. This cash return to Lockheed shareholders while maintaining leadership in a high-growth/high-share business is made possible by the steady, stable presence of having a “cash cow” – in this case, the C130 Hercules – in its corporate business portfolio.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
Lockheed’s overall successful long-term record as a publicly traded company is a variation or by-product of a time-honored investment formula associated with Andrew Mellon (1855-1937) former US Treasury Secretary and financier. Investor’s Business Daily (12/10/2013, page A3) observed that Mellon’s record of earning major returns resulted from dividing his investment funds in “new industries and those that are solid, but out of favor.” In other words, Mellon invested in businesses that offered stable, steady returns while simultaneously identifying new opportunities promising high-growth and high market share. Similarly, the reader may infer that Lockheed did the same by investing in the C130 Hercules so that this aircraft remained relevant and versatile over the ensuing decades while using surplus cash from that program to fund faster growing, higher margin aviation programs, namely its high-tech military aircraft that remains the firm’s signature accomplishment for more than 50 years.
APPENDIX
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE C130 HERCULES
The following sub-sections that comprise Background Information are from the Aviationzone.com web site. While I have paraphrased and significantly rewritten this content (including clarification or spelling out of aviation terminology and other related data), in the interest of proper attribution and disclosure, I have italicized these sub-sections (i.e., treating this as a direct quotation) to accord credit to Aviationzone.com – a most invaluable reference source.
On August 23, 1954, the first of two YC130 prototype test aircraft made its maiden flight from Burbank, California to Edwards Air Force Base. These two C130 prototypes were built at Lockheed’s “Skunk Works” operation in Burbank; but since then, more than 2,000 C130s have been built in Marietta, Georgia.
The C-130A was the initial production model, with four three-bladed Allison T56-A-9 turboprops. A total of 219 were ordered. The first of the production models flew on April 7, 1955 with unit deliveries starting in December 1956. Versatility of this aircraft was evident from the beginning: two DC-130As (originally GC-130As) were built as drone launchers/directors, carrying up to four drones on under-wing pylons. All special equipment was removable, permitting the aircraft to be used as freighters (accommodating five standard freight pallets), assault transports, or ambulances. [Note that the deployment of drones, while popularly associated with the “war on terror” is an asset with origins dating back more than 50 years.]
US Air Force (USAF)
The C130B entered services in June, 1959, with a total of 134 delivered to the USAF. The B-model introduced the four-bladed Allison T56-A-7 turboprops, carried additional fuel in the wings plus upgraded (strengthened) landing gear. Several C130Bs, used for aerial fire-fighting missions, are still in service with Air National Guard units. Six C130Bs were modified in 1961 for mid-air snatch recovery of classified Air Force satellites. During the 1960s, the C130 was used in combat, reconnaissance and other such missions where its multi-purpose capabilities enabled it to serve in Southeast Asia (“Vietnam Conflict”) and various global theaters during the Cold War.
For the “Vietnam Conflict” several Air Force C-130As were converted into gunships. In addition to their side-firing 20mm Vulcan cannons and 7.62mm Mini-guns, these converted C130As also possessed sensors, a target acquisition system, and a forward looking infra-red (FLIR) and low-light television system. As the Cold War remained intense throughout the 1960s, a number of A-models, re-designated C130D, were fitted with wheel/ski landing gear for service in the Arctic and for resupply missions to units along the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line. Here are some noteworthy features: (a) two main skis – each 20 feet (6m) long, 6 feet (1.8m) wide, and weigh about 2,000 pounds (907kg) each; (b) nose ski is 10 feet (3m) long and 6 feet (1.8m) wide; (c) increased fuel capacity and provision for jet-assisted takeoff (JATO). These D versions were flown by the Air National Guard and have been replaced by the LC130H variant.
The C130E is an extended-range development of the C130B. A total of 369 were ordered and deliveries began in April 1962. For the E model, the maximum ramp weight increased to 155,000 pounds (70,307kg) or 20,000 pounds (9,072kg) more than the B model. Fuel capacity was increased by over 17,000 pounds (7,711kg). In addition, more powerful Allison T-56-A-7A engines were used along with a pair of external fuel tanks (with a capacity of 1,360 gallons) that were slung beneath the wings, between the engines. The recent wing modification to correct fatigue and corrosion on the USAF’s fleet of E models has extended the life of the aircraft well into the 21st century.
Similar to the E model, the C130H has updated T56-A-T5 turboprops, a redesigned outer wing, updated avionics, plus other minor improvements. There is a divergence regarding when delivery actually began. Delivery may have started as early as July 1974 [other sources state April 1975]. More than 350 C130Hs and derivatives were ordered for active and reserve units of the U.S. services. The H model has become the most produced of all C130 models, with orders for 565 as of the end of 1979.
US Navy (USN and Marines (USMC)
The C130 Hercules first entered naval service in 1960. Four ski-equipped LC130F’s were obtained for Antarctic support missions and were soon followed by 46 KC130F models procured by the Marine Corps in 1962 for the dual role of assault transport and aerial tanker for fighter and attack aircraft. During the same year the Navy obtained seven C130F’s without in-flight refueling equipment to serve its transport requirements. The KC-30F made its first test flight in January 1960 as the GV1 under the old Navy designation system. The tanker version is able to refuel two aircraft simultaneously from the 3,600 gallons in its cargo compartment. The fuel is routed via two detachable pylon pods located below the outer wing, containing refueling gear.
The Navy procured a number of C130Gs in 1965 to provide support to Polaris submarines and the exchange of their crews. While essentially the same as the F model, these particular aircraft had increased structural strength, allowing higher gross weight operation. All models feature crew and cargo compartment pressurization along with single-point refueling and a Doppler navigation system. Four of these aircraft were later modified as “Take Charge and Move Out” (TACAMO) communications relay aircraft and were re-designated EC130G. After replacement by the E6A, three aircraft were returned to transport configuration (albeit with no cargo ramp) as TC130Gs, one now serving as the Blue Angels support aircraft, with the name “Fat Albert” and regularly featured at air shows in this support role.
One other model, the EC130Q, served in two Fleet Air Reconnaissance (VQ) squadrons. This version featured a permanently installed “Very Low Frequency” (VLF) radio transmitter system used to supplement shore-based communications facilities and served as a strategic communications aircraft with ballistic-missile submarines. During its third flight, this aircraft lost its left wing due to a fire. However it was repaired and eventually transformed or converted into an AC130A gunship that was later retired in 1995.
Distinguished Service Record in Desert Shield and Desert Storm
Over 145 Hercules aircraft were deployed in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. These aircraft moved units to forward bases once they arrived in the theatre. From August 10, 1990 to the cease-fire, Air Force C130s flew 46,500 sorties and moved more than 209,000 people and 300,000 tons of supplies within the Area of Responsibility (AOR). They provided logistical support, aero-medical evacuation of the wounded, and battlefield mobility once the fighting started. During the “100-hour” ground campaign, C130s flew over 500 sorties a day!
Question: What Makes the C130 Special? Answer: Its Many Features!
From the Aviation.com web site, the C130’s features are enumerated below, and provide a self-evident basis on why this aircraft remains a relevant, significant contributor.
C130 design employs a cargo floor at truck-bed height above the ground, an integral “roll on/roll off” rear loading ramp, and an unobstructed, fully-pressurized cargo hold which can rapidly be reconfigured for the carriage of troops, stretchers or passengers. The C130 Hercules can also be committed for airdrops of troops or equipment and for Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES) delivery of heavy cargoes.
Cargo Compartment – The C130 can carry more than 42,000 pounds (19,051kg) of cargo. Rollers in the floor of the cargo compartment enable quick and easy handling of cargo pallets and can be removed to leave a flat surface, if needed. Five 463L pallets (plus a ramp pallet for baggage) may be loaded onto the aircraft through the hydraulically-operated main loading ramp/door assembly located in the rear of the aircraft. The ramp can also be lowered to the ground for loading and unloading of wheeled vehicles. Tie-down fittings for securing cargo are located throughout the compartment.
In its personnel carrier role, the C130 can accommodate 92 combat troops or 64 fully-equipped paratroopers on side-facing, webbed seats. For aero-medical evacuations, it can carry 74 litter patients and two medical attendants.
Aerial Delivery of Cargo – Three primary methods of aerial delivery are used for equipment or supplies. In the first, parachutes pull the load, weighing up to 42,000 pounds (19,051kg), from the aircraft. When the load is clear of the plane, cargo parachutes deploy and lower the load to the ground.
The second method, called the Container Delivery System (CDS), uses the force of gravity to pull from one to 16 bundles of supplies from the aircraft. When the bundles, weighing up to 2,200 pounds (998kg) each, are out of the aircraft, parachutes deploy and lower them to the ground.
LAPES is the third aerial delivery method. With LAPES, up to 38,000 pounds (17,237kg) of cargo is pulled from the aircraft by large cargo parachutes while the aircraft is five to 10 feet (3m) above the ground. The load then slides to a stop within a very short distance.
Wings and Fuel Tanks – The full cantilever wing contains four integral main fuel tanks and two bladder-type auxiliary tanks. Two external tanks are mounted under the wings. This gives the C130 a total usable fuel capacity of approximately 9,530 gallons.
Landing Gear – The modified tricycle-type landing gear consists of dual nose gear wheels and tandem mains and permits aircraft operation from rough, unimproved runways. Main gear retraction is vertically, into fuselage blister fairings, and the nose gear folds forward into the fuselage. Power steering is incorporated into the nose gear.
Electrical Systems – AC electrical power for the C130H model is provided by five 40 KVA generators, four driven by the engines and one driven by the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). On the E model, the power is supplied by four 40 KVA engine-driven generators, and a 20 KVA generator driven by the Air Turbine Motor (ATM). DC power is provided from AC sources through four 200 ampere transformer rectifiers and one 24 volt, 36 ampere-hour battery.
Hydraulic Systems – Four engine-driven pumps supply 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch) pressure to the utility and booster systems. An electric AC motor-driven pump supplies pressure to the auxiliary system and is backed up by a hand pump. The hydraulic system maintains constant pressure during zero or negative “g” maneuvers.
Stretched Versions
Several military operators use the civilian version of the Hercules, which bears the Lockheed designation L-100. Certificated in February 1965, the basic L-100 was broadly equivalent to the C130E, without pylon tanks or military equipment. The L-100-20 was given plugs fore (5 feet/1.5m) and aft (3.3 feet/1m) of the wing. The L-100-30 has a full 15-foot (4.6m) fuselage stretch.
Roles and Variants
The following matrix enumerates the roles and variants for the C130 that has enabled the Hercules to be a “cash cow” for Lockheed since the late 1950s.
Other Special Projects or Interesting Events
Landing on a US Aircraft Carrier — One of the most astounding took place in October of 1963 when the U.S. Navy successfully landed a Marine Corps KC-130 on the deck of the USS Forrestal aircraft carrier.
Adding VSTOL (Vertical Short Take Off and Landing) Capabilities — In the aftermath of the 1980 failure of Desert One (aka Operation “Eagle Claw”) the U.S. military made radical modifications to a C-130H Hercules so it could take off and land almost like a helicopter. The aircraft was equipped with lift rockets slanting downward, slowdown rockets facing forward, missile motors facing backward, and still more rockets to stabilize the plane as it touched down. The mission — land in a Tehran soccer stadium, rescue 53 American hostages held captive in Iran, and then make a quick getaway! Two aircraft received these special modifications and were re-designated YMC-130H. The first modified plane (#74-1683))created in just a couple of months, crashed on the runway during a training exercise after a rocket discharged prematurely and ripped off the aircraft’s right wing. The second modified plane (#74-1686) was never used and is now on display at Robins US Air Force Base in Georgia.
REFERENCE SOURCES
Air Force Historical Research Agency, United States Air Force, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.
Aviationzone.com
Boston Consulting Group. Product and service brochures. 1981.
Edleson, Michael E. “Investment Analysis and Lockheed Tri-Star.” Harvard Business School: HBS Case No. 9-291-031, Rev. November 17, 1993. Pp. 1-6.
Evergreen Aviation Museum (The Captain Michael King Smith Educational Institute). McMinnville, Oregon, USA.
Findlay, M.C. and Williams, E.E. Toward A Neo-Institutionalist Theory of Finance. August, 1981.
Flying Leatherneck Historical Foundation & Aviation Museum. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar. San Diego, California, USA.
Green, William (compiler) and Punnett, Dennis (silhouette artist). The Observer’s Book of Aircraft. Frederick Warne & Co. (London and New York). 1965.
Haloulakos, G.A. CFA Charterholder. (BS, MBA. Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California). “Lockheed Tri-Star Redux: A Play to Win Strategy.” 2013. BusinessThinker.org
Haloulakos, G.A. CFA Charterholder. (BS, MBA. Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California) and Mossavar-Rahmani, Farhang. Finance Chair – National University. (DBA. United States International University). “The Boeing Company: A Case Study on Betting it All.” 2013. Airliners.net and BusinessThinker.org
Haloulakos, George A., (DBA Spartan Research and Consulting), Case Study Files and Field Notes on Corporate Strategy, Military/Aerospace Industry, High-Tech and Commercial Jet Aircraft – Spartan Research, 1980 – 2013.
Haloulakos, George A. (CFA Charterholder). Dollar$ and Sense: A Workbook on the ABCs of Investments. Page 11. Spartan Research and Consulting, Inc. (Bellevue, WA). 2002. ISBN: 9780-1007-2482-2. UCSD Bookstore.
Haloulakos, George A. (Graduate Assistant – Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California). “Reformulating Corporate Financial Theory for the 21st Century.” Research support for M.C. Findlay, III (Finance Chair – Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California). August, 1981.
Haloulakos, V.E. Aerospace Engineer, Scientist and Professor. (BSME, MSAE and ENGR.D. Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California).
Investor’s Business Daily. “Healthy ROE: A Key Trait of Leadership.” Page B1. August 12, 2010.
Investor’s Business Daily. “Lockheed Offers Higher Dividends.” Page B11. December 4, 2013.
Investor’s Business Daily. “Banker Andrew Mellon Put The Roar In The 20s.” Page A3. December 10, 2013.
Lockheed-Martin Company. Various public company documents. 1954 – 2013.
Mitchell, Gordon. “Hitched to the Tri-Star – Disaster at Lockheed Would Cut a Wide Swathe.” Barron’s (March 15, 1971). Pp. 5-14.
New York Times Historical Archives. 1954 – 2013.
Scott, Kelly. CISA (Certified Information Systems Auditor), EA (Enrolled Agent), instrument rated private pilot, aviation enthusiast. (BS, MBA. Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley).
Time. (August 21, 1972). Page 62.
RESEARCH SUPPORT
Scott, Kelly. Industry/Historic/Technical Research. CISA (Certified Information Systems Auditor), EA (Enrolled Agent), instrument rated private pilot, aviation enthusiast. (BS, MBA. Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley). Mr. Scott worked for NASA Human Factors Laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center testing pilot heads up displays (HUD) simulation of ground taxi in poor visibility. Subsequently in later years, using C130′s, the Army Air National Guard Rescue Group at Moffett Field would approach and land with all lights off occasionally using HUD devices. He was proud to be a part of the simulation testing and its connection with the C130 Hercules!