>
>> Some Navy pilots did that with a C-130B, which resulted in the external
>> tanks being torn off. The result of that was that pressure reducers were
>> added to the aileron controls so that you couldn't deflect them enough to do
>> a barrel roll.
>
>Did that ever result in any incidents where the roll-rate was reduced
>enough that the plane was unable to recover from an unwanted attitude?
>
None that I know of, but the amount of control is still generous. I was
in an incident where we were #9 in a nine-ship formation. At takeoff, we had
just cleared the field boundary at less than 500' AGL. We got caught in at
least one vortex from the aircraft ahead of us and found ourselves flying at a
90-degree bank. We both yanked the yokes full in the opposite direction of the
bank and recovered. Pretty scary, and it could have been fatal if we had
hesitated.
The C-130 also has a somewhat unique condition known as "fin stall", or
something to that name. If you are flying too slow, the vertical stabilizer
can stall out and you lose rudder control and have to use differential thrust
to recover, especially if you have the flaps at less than 15% where the
hydraulic pressure is reduced from 3,200 PSI to 1,400 PSI. This happened to a
training aircraft at Little Rock AFB shortly after I left there. The aircraft
crashed on the runway with the loss of all crew members. The "fin stall"
concept was not at all familiar until Lockheed figured out what had happened.
Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|