airnav Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 WTF................I was on this morning at 05:40 EST and saw the pic's of the Polish Herk mishap and now they are gone! I've been telling every interested party about it all day and now they are deleted. What's up? It's not that big of a deal, but then again it's damn important to the crew's of all nation's that fly our bird. WHAT IS GOING ON? Kurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 Well the pictures have been well distributed by now to lots of folks. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3_Super_Bee Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 WTF................I was on this morning at 05:40 EST and saw the pic's of the Polish Herk mishap and now they are gone! I've been telling every interested party about it all day and now they are deleted. What's up? It's not that big of a deal, but then again it's damn important to the crew's of all nation's that fly our bird. WHAT IS GOING ON? Kurt Take a chill pill... Geez.... Do you not look at the whole forum? They are HERE as well as the original post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdaley Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 I didn't delete anything! Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberon Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 The fact is, the original thread about the mishap of the 72-1299 just wanished, so many direct links to it will no longer be valid. Anyway, I have question regarding the dammages under the wings visible on the pictures. Knowing the C-130 structure, how it's build, could they be the result of a high g maneuver or rather the result of a hard landing? Oberon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 The damage shown on that aircraft is classic overspeed and over G damage. Dont see any tree branches or scratching that would indicate any impacts. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberon Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 (edited) Thank you Dan. This is how I saw it, but I'm on the rotary side and preferred to ask. What about the fuel tank? Watching the picture, there is a trace of impact on it (I'm not talking about the areas of missing paint) or it's just my imagination. Oberon Edited February 20, 2010 by Oberon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skip Davenport Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 well said Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 What about the fuel tank? I have thought long and hard about that and my unofficial conclusion would be that fuel did it. If the tank even had a thousand pounds (or even less) and with the evident stress the aircraft suffered, that fuel will become a hammer, smashing and crushing what ever it encounters. It could easily bust through the baffles and smash the hell out of whatever it meets. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casey Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 All images have been removed. Please do not repost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobie1973 Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Polish website ALTAIR Air Agency with information about incident Polish Hercules... http://www.altair.com.pl/start-4144-lang:en Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberon Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 (edited) Dan, interesting. I didn't include the fuel in my equation, but I don't see how it could lead to such damages? I was even thinking about a propeller blade hit (somehow) but really, it doesn't fit the picture. I don't know. One thing is sure, there is a visible black horizontal scratch/mark on the tank and we are talking about the starboard wing. The main landing gear door on the same side was also damaged. Nothing so on the other side. Contrary to what was said in the news, the Herc was flying to A'stan and not from. According to some rumors, the crew had problems with some instruments and made a quick controlled?/uncontrolled? descent. Oberon Edited February 21, 2010 by Oberon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 The only dark thing I see on the external tank is a dark line that's actually a crease, or it could be a tear in the skin of the tank, from the creasing, its hard to tell which it is but there are no visible signs of impact. Follow this URL, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/FTFFTW/Herk/Scratch%20and%20Dent%20Sale/Polish%20E-Model/R_H_EXTERNAL_TANK-1.jpg ; I zoomed and cropped the picture and lightened it up so you can see it better. As to how can fuel do that?, well the tank is in three parts (except the Lockheed tanks, they are welded into one piece instead of clamped) and the forward portion of the tank only weights a few pounds - very thin Aluminum, that's why our dent limits are pretty tight on the nose of the tank. I was really shocked myself when I picked one up, I was figuring fifty pounds or more but twenty is probably a overly generous estimate:eek: As to how fuel could do that, I will try to explain it, but hopefully I don’t cloud up the waters even more. If the damage was caused by an overspeed, almost certainly it would have been in a dive. When the dive initiates; fuel moves to the forward part of the tank. If the dive is violent enough, the crew would have initially experienced significant negative G's; all that fuel, hundreds to thousands of pounds, slams straight up - POW! Remember fluids are incompressible so when it changes vector suddenly (shoots upward from the negative G’s) it’s going to hit any obstruction like a solid initially. Look really good at the blown up picture of the tank nose at that URL (I wont post the picture here) like I just did, you can see the very nose of the tank itself is fairly intact, round, nipple like even, and bent up and inward. It really looks like that intact part of the nose couldn’t hold more than thirty or forty gallons of fuel (I just now looked closely at it when I blew it up, pretty surprised that it looks to be such a small amount),it also looks like the vector the aircraft took on nose over was 30 or 40 degrees right wing down from the way its bent. Back to that incompressible fluid thing; the fuel is sitting in the nose of the tank, because of the initial nose over. When the violent negative G maneuver occurs, the (temporarily) “solid†fuel holds the nose of the tank in an almost normal shape while it uses its moment to twist the front of the tank up. The twisting and bending is probably over even before the fuel can start to spread out and dissipate its kinetic energy. As to panel tearing and loss, the right wing shows signs of over G positive or negative (very likely both) while the left side is torn away, just like the forward half of the right gear door is torn away. That comes down to Fate and luck of the draw; when your really moving faster than your designed for, the air pressure will seek out and try to find any surface that is sticking up just a bit and it is going to get under it and if the pressure is high enough it will tear away what it can. What panels are going to get ripped off and which ones aren’t pretty much depends on how flush the seam is or how tight the gasket is, as well as slip/skid attitude and other unusual flight attitudes that will affect the airflow around the airframe. So you will end up like this plane, some panels ripped and torn (some on the left, some on the right) and some will be relatively untouched by the windstream like the left gear door. Sorry for the abridge version of War and Peace but that was about as brief as I could be and still relate why I think that’s what happened. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Polish website ALTAIR Air Agency with information about incident Polish Hercules... http://www.altair.com.pl/start-4144-lang:en I do notice that you go to the site and select English for the language, this article does not translate and remains in Polish. I ran it through a translator and here are the results, only slightly more comprehensible than in the original language, but you can pick out the gist of the article. I am pretty sure this is the source of (at least initially) the huge number of hits that that thread pulled. Dan American internet forum has made public photos of blasted aircraft about step from death by polish air power crew (staff) exploited Herculesa C-130E, which (who) mandatory landed in (to) Mazer-e-Shariff. Crew (staff) has escaped its (his) miracle death. According to our earliest informations on scrap ( polish < poland > C-130E? ), In flight (lot) and it has come during landing for structural damages, which (who) make impossible him (it) farthest exploitation. It scanted a few, in order to aircraft has disintegrated in air. Congestion acted according to estimates of experts on him (it) g4. Probably, < credible > pilot (remote control) tried to bypass mountains (top) violent maneuver zbocze. Aircraft had about trees zahaczyć. Central part of hull has undergone damages on owing to acting load Herculesa, considerable part of horizontal helm fall away too. Landing was with such damages hard unusually. It has come in this situation for next damages of aircraft. It is proper to add, that several weeks ago conversations have been started regarding that possible take-over hired time number 1506 C-130E, for october by in europe last aircraft of this version exploited ( penultimate bow out (bid good-buy) ) USAF. Joint polish deposit (air raid) has totaled (has taken away; has amounted to) in (to) 2009 219 h 43 min. (face) C-130. But in january 2010 35 h 33 min. (face) only. Or from 24 march 2009 including 255 h 16 min. (face) ( delivery day – 10,5 month ) merely. Over 100 on aircraft a few h. According to informal estimates, polish fly due to extraordinary abilities of technical colleges of (technicians of) air power exclusively Herculesy. HE (IT) reported minister commander COMPANY recently, that taking a stand big aircraft usterkowość C-130 and lack causes -technical in stocks of provisions in expectation on their supplies within the confines of current needs (requests) substitutable frequent dead time aerial part < frequent >. Despite property of two (two) aircraft, one is kept (maintained) in (to) proficiency through rebuilding of proficient aggregate. Second (other) aircraft january forecast improve to the end. However, deadline (date) is subordinated substitutable from supplies ordered part < frequent > and one-time. It's known < known > today, that it has not imitated it. It has hinged (has suspended) sole flights (lot) supplied with (from) 5 contract use until now MON, 40 -years old C-130E. Anyway, and this aircraft did not fly by reason of protracted so process of improvement of deck system. Additional work were wanted from start he (it) take-over of by COMPANY, among others, hydraulic installation concerning. 4428 Number 1501 ( C-130E, it has been supplied air power in march 70-1273 2009 ). According to internet forum herkybirds.com, photos date from which (who), aircraft number 1503 ( 4426, it proceeds in (to) on florida 70-1272 ground tests ) Crestview, number 1502 ( 4414, it is tested in (to) in texas 70-1262 ) Waco, in aircraft number 1504 ( 4415, it mention 70-1263 ) until now awionikę, but modernization of aircraft number 1505 ( 4435, it start 70-1276 ) else. Program of repair and it is delayed for modernization COMPANY more and more ( Herculesów Hercules better late absolutely than? ) And it costs more and more, but thus, it incurs greatest expenses more MON. It for poland next gifts USA C-130, among others, scrap for (after) frigates ( – floating < swim > ) OHP ORP Pułaski and step after step to part vehicles ( ) HMMVW HMMVW, call commuting coffin, which (who) cause problems more than benefits. Among others, it has incurred huge cost in relationship (association) for their exploitations in (to) accommodation of (adjustment of) infrastructure ( first ) MON Hercules Powidzu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberon Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 (edited) Thank you for the lecture Dan :wink: The key information is the fact how light, and given the size, how thin walled are those fuel tanks. The tanks I know are quite heavier and bulkier. I didn't know that and that shed a totally new light on that picture for me. My two cents regarding the traffic, I don't think it came frome the Altair site, but rather from a military forum in Poland, but it's just a guess. Oberon PS. The translation is far from perfect. Shortly, the crew was lucky; probably it will be the end of 72-1299; 70-1273 is still grounded, still waiting for the others Hercs; investments made in the Powidz AFB and finally - they didn't put it straight here, but taking into account that one and some other articles from the same author - why refurbs and not new Jays (even just 2 for starters). Edited February 21, 2010 by Oberon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casey Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 My two cents regarding the traffic, I don't think it came frome the Altair site, but rather from a military forum in Poland, but it's just a guess. There are two sites that are sending the majority of the traffic. http://www.wp.pl/ http://www.pardon.pl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberon Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Everything explained in the parallel thread. Yes, those are new sites. Dan, if your fuel tank theory is correct, the tank on the left wing should be also dammaged (but we don't have any pictures of it). Oberon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC130FE Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/22/338666/pictures-poland-grounds-hercules-fleet-after-afghan.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAXTORQ Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Does anyone know if the tail number on this plane 1506 was changed from 72-1299 c/n [cn]4527[/cn]? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATOPS1 Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Maybe they should have had the inverter on.... sorry KC-130FE could not resist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdaley Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Yes it was, Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberon Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Yes, 1506=1299. Grounding :cool:, 1506/1299 is going nowhere (obvious) and the first Polish C-130E is not flying already for some time because of technical problems. Polish MOD (means Ministry of Defence and not MODerator) official statement talks about problems with fuel installation - they had to replace it. No comments on that. I wrote about instruments problems a few days ago. Oberon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyclark Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Ext tank front tip is .055" thick after being worked, the rest of the front nose part is .066". Isn't the foam supposed to prevent hard fuel shifts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATOPS1 Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Take a look at the external tank and think of the damage that would be caused by a portion of the prop or boot or lockfoam or spinner...??? flying off in a trajectory that would impact the external tank. Just a thought... Also the Main landing gear door would be on the same vector...(with airflow taken into account.... Left wing damage looks like the panels just scraped up the side of the aircraft and impacted the fillet at the wing root.... Not much impact damage that I can see (from trees or other stationary objects) Elevator is missing with no leading edge damage or underwing damage...pure overstress and failure? Hope we can get more information LOTS MORE.... I would like to hear about the control imputs they use. We teach a Boost out approach but.... COME ON!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.