C-130 down in Savannah-May 2018

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: incoserv

The average age of the entire Air Force inventory is something like 26-28. We have aircraft flying that are in their 60s, and have been asking them to fly every day, in an insane operations tempo, that has resulted in maintenance being deferred, aircraft pushed beyond their designed life cycle, etc. And now we're seeing the results of that.

All the 135 tankers were rebuilt, so it isn't exactly like they are flying planes back from the "I like Ike" days. The USAF received more C-17 than they wanted due to a few congressman that didn't want to see the line shut down. Not that I'm complaining about a extra C-17 or two since it has been a great airplane.

The replacement tanker fraud put a big dent in replacing them. That cost Boeing a bundle.

Let's wait for the crash report before drawing conclusions.

a reply to: gariac

I am well aware of what went into the tanker upgrades and the C-17s. That doesn't change the fact that they're still dealing with aircraft that, in the case of the tankers, are 60 years old. They've got a lot of hours on the airframes and there are parts issues still. It also doesn't change the fact that the average age of the fleet is pushing 30.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

I am well aware of what went into the tanker upgrades and the C-17s. That doesn't change the fact that they're still dealing with aircraft that, in the case of the tankers, are 60 years old. They've got a lot of hours on the airframes and there are parts issues still. It also doesn't change the fact that the average age of the fleet is pushing 30.

Except that the planes have been refurbished, so the hours have been reset.

What we really need to do is reduce the size of the military to the point where it doesn't have to be held together with duct tape and rubber bands. The scale is too large.

a reply to: gariac

No, they haven't been. They refurbished certain components yes, but refurbishing those components don't reset the hours on the entire airframe. The only way to do that is to replace every major component, which hasn't happened and won't. Certain components are no longer built, meaning they are the limiting factor of the airframe.

originally posted by: Irishhafit almost looked like they just ran out of sky. (if that makes sense) Some more altitude and they may have saved it, or at least made it survivable for some.

That's exactly how unintentional stalls/spins work. At altitude, you may lose years off your life and need a new pair of pants, but you'll still have a decent chance of recovering the aircraft into a more controllable/survivable flight mode, but if it happens close to the ground, you'll be dead before the full reality of what just happened even starts to set in.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

No, they haven't been. They refurbished certain components yes, but refurbishing those components don't reset the hours on the entire airframe. The only way to do that is to replace every major component, which hasn't happened and won't. Certain components are no longer built, meaning they are the limiting factor of the airframe.

OK. Let's pound on the door of BAE and demand our money back. They lied to us about the Kc-135 extension.

a reply to: gariac

An extension isn't the same thing as resetting the hours. You should spend some actual time with this sort of thing before trying to argue it. An hours reset can only occur if you replace all the major life limiting components with new ones.

An extension involves refurbishing certain components to extend their life cycle. The hours on them remain exactly the same, but they're limiting time is stretched out so they'll last longer. The two are not the same by any stretch.

The aircraft was flown by Maj. Jose Rafael Roman. He has two children and his wife is 5 months pregnant.

The aircraft in use by PRANG are the oldest still flying. This particular aircraft was just over 50 years old (a GANG spokesman said 40, despite it being a 1965 airframe). Two of their remaining aircraft have been grounded for at least several months due to difficulty getting parts.

After watching the video of the C-130 crash, last night, I have come to the conclusion that this was a V/mc accident. The plane must have had an engine failure and the crew let the plane slow to below the minimum airspeed for an engine out. I saw the plane in level flight, then fall off to the left resulting in a spin. I would say it was the #1 engine that caused the problem. An engine failure or an un-commanded reverse of the #1 prop is the culprit.

a reply to: buddah6

It could have been, but I'm still thinking flight control issue. Either elevator boost pack or rudder jam in full left.

I'm sticking with a center wing spar failure. This type of failure can take out the engine throttle and propeller pitch controls as well the ailerons.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It looks like a classic V/mc accident though. It was in level flight, if all engines were turning no control input would be required. If the engine had failed on the left side the pilots would be riding the right rudder pedal to keep it straight. If the right pedal was jammed the plane would have snapped to the right before rolling left. I didn't see that happen. It was a smooth roll left then impact. The vertical axis of the plane was getting steeper as it neared the ground which would indicate to me that the plane was very slow and getting lower. Most airplanes are dynamically stable and will self correct with enough altitude.

According to C-130.net the aircraft had been in Savannah for close to a month undergoing maintenance of some kind. If it was there that long it was some kind of non-standard maintenance. A phase inspection usually takes a couple weeks if there are issues, and Depot level work takes much longer.

a reply to: buddah6

If it was an elevator or left rudder jam it would have been the same result. Elevator, they couldn't get the nose down, and they'd stall. Left rudder jam, and they'd roll left, just as they did.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I'm sticking with a center wing spar failure. This type of failure can take out the engine throttle and propeller pitch controls as well the ailerons.

Wing failure happens when a load is applied to the structure. if the plane was in level flight there would be no vertical load on the wings. The only forces acting on the wing would be through the horizontal axis with acceleration. Gust loads may have been a factor though.

According to the 165th Airlift Wing Vice Wing Commander the aircraft was built in the late 70s. The problem is that the tail number of the aircraft said something completely different. The first two digits of the tail number are the year the aircraft was ordered. In this case, the full tail number is 65-0968, indicating that the aircraft was ordered in 1965. That would mean that there was a production delay of over 10 years after it was ordered.

I suspect the confusion is coming between built, and converted. It was originally built as a C-130H, and later converted to a WC-130H, before being converted back to a C-130H. The actual dates of the first conversion aren't known, but some time in the late 70s would make sense

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaph there is another video that looks like there is smoke coming out the right side possibly. This is a different angle from the same place that had the crash video. Starts at 2:40.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: AeroDev

Looks like just engine smoke. Those engines leave nice smoke trails.

Something I've heard from some guys I flew with in North Carolina is that they lost the #2 engine at 50 feet after rotating, then while climbing out lost the #1. Turning into two dead motors and stalling out would look like what happened on the video.

When losing a motor standard is to raise the dead (wing) and apply rudder input to compensate for the power differential so if they stalled it would have been with a full rudder input trying to maintain level flight with no power on the left side.

I don't know if this has been covered in here yet, but it's being said that the C-130 that crashed was the same one Trump sat in front of in Puerto Rico during a news conference, during the hurricane relief efforts.