AC130 gunship apparently not meant to be inverted

[68RR]

Yep, sounds like he put it into a spin that led to an inverted situation. I bet that fuselage is twisted to hell. At least the tail stayed on it. We used to teach use of rudder in upset recovery in our AAMP program. Our crash of an Airbus 330(flt 587) taught us that this is not best way to recover. However these guys(C-130) were in flight test and one of the items must have been a envelope test of the side-slip with use of the rudder and aileron.
Clearly the test pilot went beyond the manufacture limits. If it was a constant "G" maneuver, I have no doubt that the C-130 could fly through the inverted position. This was an aggressive maneuver that exceeded that. Most rudder cross-over situations end in a stall-spin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...nes_Flight_587

That reference to the AA bus brought back bad memories. That -600 had recently left Tulsa after a Heavy check. I had the #1 engine. Engine had problems before hitting Tulsa and the boroscope verified it was time to go. Hung a reworked engine from the shop and engine runs went fine.
When the bird went in, we were first told that both engines had departed the the pylons before impact..WTF! Then it came out the rudder departed the bird.
I still feel the Rudder Ratio Limiter was involved in the cause...

[beefed88]

That reference to the AA bus brought back bad memories. That -600 had recently left Tulsa after a Heavy check. I had the #1 engine. Engine had problems before hitting Tulsa and the boroscope verified it was time to go. Hung a reworked engine from the shop and engine runs went fine.
When the bird went in, we were first told that both engines had departed the the pylons before impact..WTF! Then it came out the rudder departed the bird.
I still feel the Rudder Ratio Limiter was involved in the cause...

What specifically about the rudder ratio limiter?

[likeitfast55]

He might be referring to the rudder limiter that controls the deflection of the rudder in direct proportion to the aircraft speed. Slow=full deflection for control in single engine regime. Fast=little deflection. Deflection of the rudder beyond certain limits will shear it off. All aircraft I have flown(transport), this is done automatically and the indication shows up on one of your MFD's.
They were quick to blame the F.O. for over-controlling the rudder in the wake of the 747. It is just typical. While he might have been a contributing factor, the rudder limiter "should" have prevented this. .

[beefed88]

He might be referring to the rudder limiter that controls the deflection of the rudder in direct proportion to the aircraft speed. Slow=full deflection for control in single engine regime. Fast=little deflection. Deflection of the rudder beyond certain limits will shear it off. All aircraft I have flown(transport), this is done automatically and the indication shows up on one of your MFD's.
They were quick to blame the F.O. for over-controlling the rudder in the wake of the 747. It is just typical. While he might have been a contributing factor, the rudder limiter "should" have prevented this. .

The crash happened shortly after takeoff. The rudder travel limiter sys is auto on the a300. Only faults are indicated. But the sys would not have been fully limited at the speed they were going that is why is am curious why 68rr attributes the FLC system as part of the crash. I am sure the rudder was limited but the f/o was still slamming it full limited deflection.

[Ruffdaddy]

Love this comment in the article.

Found on ebay:

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.

But was it adult owned?

[68RR]

Gents... up close and personal with that bird from the first time it arrived in Tulsa until it was retired. Rather than starting raw, I highly recommend reading the full accident report first, closely, then I would be more than willing to explain my thoughts on the incident.

Bill

[likeitfast55]

The crash happened shortly after takeoff. The rudder travel limiter sys is auto on the a300. Only faults are indicated. But the sys would not have been fully limited at the speed they were going that is why is am curious why 68rr attributes the FLC system as part of the crash. I am sure the rudder was limited but the f/o was still slamming it full limited deflection.

All I have flown "auto" is the normal position for the rudder.(unless it is MEL'd and then a speed reduction is needed, going this far it is highly unlikely) I do believe he was below fl100 and the limiting speed is 250. The aircraft was well below Va, and we have been taught that full deflection of the controls can be applied below this number. This is the furthest thing from the truth.

The actual truth is significant and two-fold: Only when Va equals Vs times the square root of the load factor will the aircraft stall in a nose up pitching maneuver at or near its load limit factor. Moreover, any time the value of Va is greater than the value of VS times the square root of the load factor, as is often the case, the loads imposed by the maneuver or gust need to remain along a single rotational axis, otherwise the aircraft's load limits will be exceeded. --- And in this case the tail sheared off.

We have been taught wrong and our AAMP program has been modified.

[likeitfast55]

A devil does exist in the details. Part 23 regulations do require an aircraft to have adequate strength for a full control deflection below VA, but the regulations do not require the aircraft design to withstand full control deflection in one direction followed by another full control deflection in the opposite direction, even when operating below Va.

Further, regulations don't require the aircraft to be designed to withstand the forces caused when two or more control surfaces are simultaneously moved to their stops. These types of control movements can place incredible asymmetric loads on the airframe known as rolling Gs.

Perhaps this new and better definition of Va, which can be found in a recent Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin, number CE-11- 17, can summarize the above. "The Design Maneuvering Speed (Va) is the speed below which you can move a single flight control, one time, to its full deflection, for one axis of airplane rotation only (pitch, roll or yaw), in smooth air, without risk of damage to the airplane." This definition is not even close to what so many pilots learned long ago.