New AC-130 Ghostrider A Total Loss After Departing Controlled Flight

ElPaso Pilot

ElPaso Pilot

En-Route
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
2,510
Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
Oopsie.



That's a big bird to "tumble inverted".



Twice.



http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/brand-new-ac-130-ghostrider-a-total-loss-after-going-in-1743122173



http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123462877



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...08/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



http://www.c-130hercules.net/forums/topic/8166-c-130-news-first-ac-130j-prototype-declared-loss/



Investigators declared the first prototype AC-130J Ghostrider gunship a total loss after the airframe was severely overstressed after departing controlled flight during a test sortie from Eglin AFB, Fla., officials announced.



As a result of the incident, "the mishap aircraft exceeded its design limit load to an extent that rendered it unsafe for flight and is considered a total loss to the Air Force," ...



The crew was performing a high-angle, side-slip at Eglin AFB, Fla., during handling tests of the developmental gunship when the aircraft departed controlled flight at 15,000 feet over the Gulf of Mexico, according to the AIB. The AC-130J "tumbled inverted" before test pilots were able to recover controlled flight, entering a vertical dive, on April 21. The aircraft lost 5,000 feet altitude, pulled 3.19 Gs, and oversped the flaps' maximum allowed airspeed by 100 knots before returning to level flight.



The AIB determined the pilot's excessive rudder input and failure to quickly recover from uncontrolled flight were the primary cause of the mishap. Problems with the aircraft's warning system, pilot disorientation, confusion from being hit with unsecured equipment, and inadequate technical guidance also contributed to the mishap.



The aircraft, serial number 09-5710, also suffered a similar incident in February, and has been grounded since the April mishap. A second AC-130J prototype was delivered to commence operational testing at nearby Hurlburt Field, Fla., in July. Loss of the aircraft is estimated at $115.6 million.
Click to expand...





1523571552519663909.jpg
 
Last edited:
Having the #4 engine missing entirely kinda doesn't help....
 
FYI... not actually a picture of it inverted.

getasset.aspx
 
So the pilot put the AC-130 into an unintentional spin, damn.
 
"...departed controlled flight..."

Thats a stupid way to phrase that
 
JCranford said:
"...departed controlled flight..."

Thats a stupid way to phrase that
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but it's a phrase everyone in flight test and tactical aviation is familiar with.

Trying to find the actual report. Should be an interesting read.

Nauga,
who has the T-shirt
 
JCranford said:
"...departed controlled flight..."

Thats a stupid way to phrase that
Click to expand...

Might be a military pilot thing, but I have heard that used and it makes sense to me anyway.

Sounds like a spin with an ugly entry and recovery. A spin isn't really controlled flight, I mean you have some control and you can enter/exit the spin but thats about it.

I'm guessing the 3.19G was negative and that was what destroyed the airframe. I would hope it could handle 3.19 positive G's
 
Clark1961 said:
see what happens when ya slip with flaps!
Click to expand...

Definitely could have something to do with it! Could have lost elevator authority and entered an accelerated stall while slipping.. that will turn you on your back very quickly.

Being a new gunship the thing is probably loaded down heavier and maybe different CG than the normal C130 profile.
 
nauga said:
Maybe so, but it's a phrase everyone in flight test and tactical aviation is familiar with.

Trying to find the actual report. Should be an interesting read.

Nauga,
who has the T-shirt
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially considering the disorientation comment. Did he skid when he was supposed to slip, or did he forget to get off (or stood harder on) the rudder when the low wing started to rise?:dunno: One of the two had to happen to end up in a spin entry with the nose pointed at the ground. I wonder how hard it snapped over? That's a lot of P-Factor out on on those wings.:eek:
 
I was surprised at the out of service over stress with 3.19g.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
I'm guessing the 3.19G was negative and that was what destroyed the airframe. I would hope it could handle 3.19 positive G's
Click to expand...

I'm curious how in the world they'd get to that many negative Gs on an upright spin.
 
Maciej said:
I'm curious how in the world they'd get to that many negative Gs on an upright spin.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this was no traditional upright spin, it was an unintentional spin. If you enter one from an accelerated stall while uncoordinated, as opposed to waiting for your airspeed to decay and then steadily pulling back on the elevator, the entry is more abrupt. It basically rolls you on your back, then the nose goes down and it gets to spinning if you continue to hold the pro-spin controls. This is my experience from a cub anyway.

While its probably right to assume the 3.19 G was from the recovery and positive G, it seems unlikely that 3.19 would stress it to the point of unusable?
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
So....apparently you CAN spin an airplane from a slip...
Click to expand...

Yep, establish a slip at about 1.1 VSo then yank back on the elevator real quick and hold it back. You'll do a wallowing roll to the direction you are holding the rudder. It happens slow enough if you neutralize the controls you wont roll over or spin.

Do that in a skid and the plane will tuck into a spin real fast though. The wing drops and the nose goes straight for the ground.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Yep, establish a slip at about 1.1 VSo then yank back on the elevator real quick and hold it back. You'll do a wallowing roll to the direction you are holding the rudder. It happens slow enough if you neutralize the controls you wont roll over or spin.

Do that in a skid and the plane will tuck into a spin real fast though. The wing drops and the nose goes straight for the ground.
Click to expand...

You mean it becomes FUN! :rofl:

G0018652-2.jpg
 
dell30rb said:
I'm sure this was no traditional upright spin, it was an unintentional spin. If you enter one from an accelerated stall while uncoordinated, as opposed to waiting for your airspeed to decay and then steadily pulling back on the elevator, the entry is more abrupt. It basically rolls you on your back immediately, then the nose goes down and it gets to spinning if you continue to hold the pro-spin controls. This is my experience from a cub anyway.

While its probably right to assume the 3.19 G was from the recovery and positive G, it seems unlikely that 3.19 would stress it to the point of unusable?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything to indicate this was a spin and not just post-departure gyrations. It also doesn't read like an accelerated stall, it was entered from a steady-heading sideslip, a flight test technique more or less like a slipped approach but in level flight. *Any* airplane will depart if you exceed the critical combination of angle of attack and sideslip at any given condition. And it wasn't just 3.2g, it was also a 100-knot overspeed and the *second* event in the airplane's recent history.

I'd be pretty reluctant to extrapolate GA airplane spin and/or spin entry characteristics to a C-130.

Nauga,
flopping over the top
 
I think it would have been some form of a spin, the plane is uncoordinated, slow. Departure from contolled flight in these circumstances means it is stalled, if you stall when uncoordinated, that's the entry phase of a spin.

I know a C130 is probably very different from a cub, but the wings/elevator/rudder are the basic shapes and are in the same places.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
I know a C130 is probably very different from a cub, but the wings/elevator/rudder are the basic shapes and are in the same places.
Click to expand...

I'd think it'd be very similar to a Cessna 120 or 140, afterall:
C120, C130, C140 :)
 
ebay.com:


2015 USAF Ghostrider Gunship
One of a kind
Babied...never tracked or raced...never wintered.
New wings and recently replaced OEM flight crew buckets.
$50 million OBO.
No tire kickers, no mavericks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From one of the comments on the link. I thought it was cute.
 
nauga said:
Trying to find the actual report. Should be an interesting read.

Nauga,
who has the T-shirt
Click to expand...


Let us know if you find it. Curious as to how much skin was buckled, helping drive the write off decision.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Let us know if you find it. Curious as to how much skin was buckled, helping drive the write off decision.
Click to expand...
Will do. The AF seems to be a little more open with reports lately. Just takes time. In that it was (reportedly) a flying qualities test there might be better data available than you usually find in an report like this. Once can hope.

Nauga,
and his orange wire
 
nauga said:
Will do. The AF seems to be a little more open with reports lately. Just takes time. In that it was (reportedly) a flying qualities test there might be better data available than you usually find in an report like this. Once can hope.

Nauga,
and his orange wire
Click to expand...

The board will probably release a public report, but there could be a portion of the report that will not be approved for public release (and there will be valid reasons for that).
 
nauga said:
I haven't seen anything to indicate this was a spin and not just post-departure gyrations. It also doesn't read like an accelerated stall, it was entered from a steady-heading sideslip, a flight test technique more or less like a slipped approach but in level flight. *Any* airplane will depart if you exceed the critical combination of angle of attack and sideslip at any given condition. And it wasn't just 3.2g, it was also a 100-knot overspeed and the *second* event in the airplane's recent history.

I'd be pretty reluctant to extrapolate GA airplane spin and/or spin entry characteristics to a C-130.

Nauga,
flopping over the top
Click to expand...



Yep, my plane can "depart" during a high slip as well.

"We do not recommend slipping as a crosswind or descent procedure in the Velocity, it could turn into a potentially dangerous situation.

First, there is the possibility of stalling a winglet which could result in a departure. Secondly, when slipping an aircraft with swept wings, the wing opposite the direction that the aircraft is being slipped, or the forward rear wing, is more perpendicular to the relative wind,this gives the leading wing more leverage and more lift than the trailing wing, thus allowing the possibility that the aircraft could be forced into a stall during exaggerated cross-control and slow flight. Thirdly, with the majority of the fuselage being forward of the wings, there is a chance that the fuselage could blank out the wind to the trailing wing.
If you insist on slipping or cross-controlling your Velocity, do it at a safe altitude. The best advice is do not do cross-controls or slips in a Velocity. Other than this, flying the Velocity is very conventional."
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Yep, my plane can "depart" during a high slip as well.

"We do not recommend slipping as a crosswind or descent procedure in the Velocity, it could turn into a potentially dangerous situation.
"
Click to expand...

This is part of how one spins a Vari-eze. Yes, I have done it, and it's rather messy. My advice is to follow their advice and don't slip a canard type plane. Or, if you do want to do it, have a lot of altitude and a parachute as a backup.
 
docmirror said:
This is part of how one spins a Vari-eze. Yes, I have done it, and it's rather messy. My advice is to follow their advice and don't slip a canard type plane. Or, if you do want to do it, have a lot of altitude and a parachute as a backup.
Click to expand...

It almost sounds like in the description, that the aircraft could go on its back in a slip. Done them before at altitude with do problems.

I'd imagine in the Vari you had a pretty good aft CG to get it to spin? I've kicked full pedal back and forth with full aft stick in canard stall and couldn't get mine to spin. Only way I think I could is if I pitched near vertical to stall the main wing and kick pedal simultaneously.
 
Velocity173 said:
It almost sounds like in the description, that the aircraft could go on its back in a slip. Done them before at altitude with do problems.

I'd imagine in the Vari you had a pretty good aft CG to get it to spin? I've kicked full pedal back and forth with full aft stick in canard stall and couldn't get mine to depart. Only way I think I could is if I pitched near vertical to stall the main wing and kick pedal simultaneously.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to elaborate even though very few people fly canard planes. Just - be careful what you wish for. If you are 'successful' the outcome may not be to your liking. I commend you for exploring the flight envelope of your plane, but at some point you need to stop and decide that there is just no way in heck you are ever going to get in that flight regime under any condition and let it go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top