this just turned up at tobago
Discussion
USAF 04-4128.
Boeing C17A Globemaster 3. No idea why it's here but we certainly knew all about the landing. i will now be spending a couple of hours putting things back on shelves etc.
easy to find images using a basic google search and not sure of possible copyright infringements so haven't linked
paul
Boeing C17A Globemaster 3. No idea why it's here but we certainly knew all about the landing. i will now be spending a couple of hours putting things back on shelves etc.
easy to find images using a basic google search and not sure of possible copyright infringements so haven't linked
paul
Mave said:
By regular planes, do you mean airliners? Most airliners are low wing, whereas most transport aircraft are high wing. With a low wing you need longer undercarriage to make space for the engines. With a high wing you've already got a bit more space to play with.
Yes airliners. Thanks for both clarifications, makes perfect sense and for a very simple reason!Mave said:
Another more subtle reason is that unlike military transports, airline dedigns tend to "grow" as stretch variants are added. The undercarriage length needs to be long enough to allow the longest expected variant to be able to take off without the tail hitting the ground...:-o
Something stretched C130's are prone to do, especially when the pilots are used to flying shorter aircraft!eccles said:
Something stretched C130's are prone to do, especially when the pilots are used to flying shorter aircraft!
Knocking the urinal drains off is more to do with the fact that the stretched Hercs tend to 'arrive' rather than land (especially when doing strip work) as opposed to over-rotation on T/O.eccles said:
Mave said:
Another more subtle reason is that unlike military transports, airline dedigns tend to "grow" as stretch variants are added. The undercarriage length needs to be long enough to allow the longest expected variant to be able to take off without the tail hitting the ground...:-o
Something stretched C130's are prone to do, especially when the pilots are used to flying shorter aircraft!Ginetta G15 Girl said:
eccles said:
Something stretched C130's are prone to do, especially when the pilots are used to flying shorter aircraft!
Knocking the urinal drains off is more to do with the fact that the stretched Hercs tend to 'arrive' rather than land (especially when doing strip work) as opposed to over-rotation on T/O.When the Dutch got their shiny new stretched C130's the pilots were trained by the Belgians in their short aircraft, within a couple of months we'd repaired two fairly hefty tail strikes and one light one due to the crews forgetting about the extra length in the heat of the moment.
I have over 2000 hrs C-130K and have never known of a tail strike on rotate on a C3. I know of a number on C1 on Tac departures.
Indeed the C3 was very sluggish on rotate and particularly poor upon flare for landing despite what people might think about the longer fuselage/ greater elevator giving better authority . In actual fact the elevator control on the C3 was poor compared to the C1. Indeed IIRC Vmcg1 on C3 was some 7 kts higher than C1 which shows the tail limitation.
As a result the C3 rotated slowly and was never flared well.
Any C-130 Pilot should be able to 'grease' a landing on a short body; it's in the hands of the gods on a long body, its up to chance.
I'm intrigued as to how you know: " I know of one that was definitely an over rotation on take off."?
I'll reiterate, most incidents with Albert tail strikes were on landing and not on T/O.
Indeed the C3 was very sluggish on rotate and particularly poor upon flare for landing despite what people might think about the longer fuselage/ greater elevator giving better authority . In actual fact the elevator control on the C3 was poor compared to the C1. Indeed IIRC Vmcg1 on C3 was some 7 kts higher than C1 which shows the tail limitation.
As a result the C3 rotated slowly and was never flared well.
Any C-130 Pilot should be able to 'grease' a landing on a short body; it's in the hands of the gods on a long body, its up to chance.
I'm intrigued as to how you know: " I know of one that was definitely an over rotation on take off."?
I'll reiterate, most incidents with Albert tail strikes were on landing and not on T/O.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I'm intrigued as to how you know: " I know of one that was definitely an over rotation on take off."?
My guess would be from the F707A entry written by the Pilot describing when the damage occurred and, as the civilian repair company (Marshalls etc) would have that entry, the repair engineers doing the work would also know how the tail strike occurred having read the entry.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I have over 2000 hrs C-130K and have never known of a tail strike on rotate on a C3. I know of a number on C1 on Tac departures.
Indeed the C3 was very sluggish on rotate and particularly poor upon flare for landing despite what people might think about the longer fuselage/ greater elevator giving better authority . In actual fact the elevator control on the C3 was poor compared to the C1. Indeed IIRC Vmcg1 on C3 was some 7 kts higher than C1 which shows the tail limitation.
As a result the C3 rotated slowly and was never flared well.
Any C-130 Pilot should be able to 'grease' a landing on a short body; it's in the hands of the gods on a long body, its up to chance.
I'm intrigued as to how you know: " I know of one that was definitely an over rotation on take off."?
I'll reiterate, most incidents with Albert tail strikes were on landing and not on T/O.
You have over 200hrs flying them, I had 16 years fixing them, doing everything from Majors , to mods to big repairs to damage, like tail strikes.Indeed the C3 was very sluggish on rotate and particularly poor upon flare for landing despite what people might think about the longer fuselage/ greater elevator giving better authority . In actual fact the elevator control on the C3 was poor compared to the C1. Indeed IIRC Vmcg1 on C3 was some 7 kts higher than C1 which shows the tail limitation.
As a result the C3 rotated slowly and was never flared well.
Any C-130 Pilot should be able to 'grease' a landing on a short body; it's in the hands of the gods on a long body, its up to chance.
I'm intrigued as to how you know: " I know of one that was definitely an over rotation on take off."?
I'll reiterate, most incidents with Albert tail strikes were on landing and not on T/O.
When an aircraft like that was coming in, it was a stand alone input for the repair, usually fairly urgent, but as you can imagine, a K3 with it's aft end stoved in causes quite a stir. We were told by the RAFLO it was an over rotation on take off that had caused the damage,and this was backed up by the crew dropping it off. I see no reason for anyone to lie to us.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Indeed the C3 was very sluggish on rotate and particularly poor upon flare for landing despite what people might think about the longer fuselage/ greater elevator giving better authority . In actual fact the elevator control on the C3 was poor compared to the C1. Indeed IIRC Vmcg1 on C3 was some 7 kts higher than C1 which shows the tail limitation.
As a result the C3 rotated slowly and was never flared well.
Apples and oranges? Are you not confusing rudder and elevator authority? Or have I missed something?As a result the C3 rotated slowly and was never flared well.
eccles said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Where these J models or K models?
The RAF ones were K's, Dutch ones were shiny new H's.MB140 said:
eccles said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Where these J models or K models?
The RAF ones were K's, Dutch ones were shiny new H's.eccles said:
You have over 200hrs flying them, I had 16 years fixing them, doing everything from Majors , to mods to big repairs to damage, like tail strikes.
When an aircraft like that was coming in, it was a stand alone input for the repair, usually fairly urgent, but as you can imagine, a K3 with it's aft end stoved in causes quite a stir. We were told by the RAFLO it was an over rotation on take off that had caused the damage,and this was backed up by the crew dropping it off. I see no reason for anyone to lie to us.
Wait, you can't possibly be saying Ginetta G15 Girl is wrong?!!!When an aircraft like that was coming in, it was a stand alone input for the repair, usually fairly urgent, but as you can imagine, a K3 with it's aft end stoved in causes quite a stir. We were told by the RAFLO it was an over rotation on take off that had caused the damage,and this was backed up by the crew dropping it off. I see no reason for anyone to lie to us.
eccles said:
We were told by the RAFLO it was an over rotation on take off that had caused the damage,and this was backed up by the crew dropping it off. I see no reason for anyone to lie to us.
I wasn't arguing with you, just trying to get my head around the fact that your experience jibes very much with mine.I would suggest that to get a C3 to tail strike on rotate it must have been relatively light and with a rearwards CoG. Possibly a lightweight T/O using full T/O power (19,600 in.lbs torque) as opposed to the more normal 18,000 in.lbs?
From my experience the C3 was sluggish on rotate compared to the C1. Looking at my LogBook I flew the C1 on the first 5 OCU sorties (7hrs 50 mins) before flying the C3 on Ex 6. Bearing in mind these were all around 1:30 duration sorties so were lightweight T/Os, the first trip in a C3 was a bit of an eye opener in its sluggish tail authority.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff