What to you think happened /k/

File: DPT0ZHQ[1].webm (519KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 720x404px

>>34507348
It was carrying quite a bit of ammunition, I'm guessing it came loose and threw off the plane's CG.

There was quite a bit of fuel at the crash site, I doubt it had quadruple engine failure, it was flying across fairly flat terrain, it's not a pressurised plane so it wasn't an oxygen or pressurisation issue and the C-130 has manual control reversion if the hydraulic controls fail.

Maybe it could have had a fuel system failure, but IIRC no single pump failure should be able to stop fuel flowing to all 4 engines. Not sure how the oil system works on the C-130, but I'd assume each engine has their own pump system that works off each engine's accessory drive.

>>34509079
(For those not familiar with planes; that's not footage of the C-130, that's footage of a 747 cargo variant that was transporting MRAPs out of Bagram; one broke loose during take-off, knocked at least a second MRAP free and they slid to the back, causing it to stall; IIRC there were 4 crew that died in the crash).

neat i live in mississippi where did it crash at nothin ever happens in my state

>>34509089
hard to watch, the pilot did everything right to try and save themselves and the plane, just not enough altitude

>>34507348

16 dead, worse than the navy one

>>34507348
>C-130
>First flight 23 August 1954

Imagine sending Napoleons honor guard to fight in WW1. It's that old and that outdated.

>>34509388
>Imagine sending Napoleons honor guard to fight in WW1. It's that old and that outdated.

>Thinking that new-build C-130Js have anything in common with mid-50s C-130As except being approximately the same shape.

>>34507348
terrists

>>34509089

That C-17 Galaxy was shot down by taliban anti-AA missiles.

>>34509397
I just want funds made available for a new mid sized transport plane to replace them.

>>34509411
>I just want funds made available for a new mid sized transport plane to replace them.
Why? The C-130J is fine.

>>34507348
>Just to let it be known, ALL crashes involving military A/c's are called 'Mishaps' no matter the severity. They are differentiated into 'letter classes' such as a 'A' Mishap or 'B' Mishap... ...Usually determined by the cost of the damage or if a fatality was involved. I don't know if they've changed from my TIS but its was a Fatality and/or damage above $50,000 (these days, a engine blade could fall out of its seat and it would mean $50,000!

As to what I saw, the fuel is stored on the center axis in what's known as BLIVETS. The intactness of the fuselage and the lack of fire aft, tells me that the fuel storage did NOT burst (or that there was no or very little fuel onbaord to begin with). The wing tanks (which are NOT part of the refueling cycle) -- they are only for the A/c itself -- they ignited. There seems to be a rather small amount of 'tracks' leading up to the final resting place, this coupled with the A/c still remaining largely intact aft, leads me to believe that this was a nose first, low speed impact. I begin to wonder if the structual failure that had been talked about might have been one of the blivet mounting points, failing and the 'Center of Gravity' (CG) drastically changed? Generally speaking, the blivets don't have much room to transition backwards. They can, however, move forward and when they do, the resultant change of CG will make them nose heavy and could very cause a nose-down attitude because of a drastic change in longitudinal stability, and hence, a crash.

File: 1496708220980.jpg (32KB, 576x1024px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 576x1024px

>>34507348
I think that the plane crashed

Probably something extremely stupid like pilot overcorrection for a minor issue.

I think it was a b-17 lost in europe in wwii because a copilot changed the pitch of a propellor that caused an unrecoverable stall when they lost a single engine.

>>34509668
Of the millions of c130 or t56 related FSEs you instead refer to an event from ww2?

>>34509502
With no survivors

>>34507348
>What do you think talked to cause this
probably overloading the aircraft past its weight limits

>>34509411
Hey you should be a politician. They are pretty good at spending money on shit we Don't need.

File: friendlys crayola color me vanilla ice cream container.jpg (36KB, 440x272px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 440x272px

>>34507348

File: goddamn 4chan.jpg (21KB, 399x299px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 399x299px

ITT:
>HURPIDEY DURR! DAT ONE PLAEN HAD CARGOES BREEAKED LOOSE AN CRASHT SO DAT MUS BE WAT HAPPEN HERE!! HURRRRRRR"

Jesus you bastards are dumb. Fucking read before you post your stupidity and shit up the board worse than you already shit it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States_Marine_Corps_KC-130_crash

Is there any info on why a refueler had 16 people on board? Was it training or people hitching a ride? Honestly this is confusing the heck out of me.

File: 1499195835074.jpg (216KB, 806x908px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 806x908px

>>34507348

File: 1499508295097.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

All these fuckwits thinking a kc 130 and a c 130 are the same thing

>>34509079
Little known fact about this crash. Apparently they were transporting dangerous cargo and one of the straps broke loose due to anti-AA fire sending the cargo crashing into the wall. The cargo contained mustard gas which caused the pilots to die and crash the plane.

>>10mm

>>34509411
The C-130 is a great aircraft for what it does, same with the C-5.

>>34511770
>linking Wikipedia instead of the article it's referencing
Retard

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/11/16-dead-after-military-plane-carrying-weapons-explodes-mid-air-then-crashes-6769599/

Sounds like an engine or fuel related issue.

File: 1479000728669.png (1MB, 1022x574px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1022x574px

>>34507348
>the Big Guy was traveling back to the States with his Prize in the Noshur Viverse
>CIA returned in an An-224 he borrowed and duped Bane into getting skyjacked
>CIA flew away with Pavel
>the Noshur Viverse may or may not have crashed with no survivors
>feds needed a cover story so they claimed it was a muhreen plane
>cover story is plausible because lol muhreens

>>34511804
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States_Marine_Corps_KC-130_crash
Could be both. When dudes get leave, often times they hitch a ride with a transport of some kind if it's going in the direction they need to go.

File: nwbYmX5.jpg (40KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x300px

>>34509405
1/10

>>34509089
You're actually wrong. 747s have very high tolerances for change in CG. The MRAPs destroyed the hydraulic lines (as well as the black box), causing the pilots to lose authority over the elevator and rudder.

>>34511835
>not jah-lah-pen-oh cheese

>>34509340
Aint no saving an airplane with a cg shift.


As far as op goes. Eye witness reports say the plane was spinning. Bodies were found upto 1 mile from crash.

My bet is on a loss of controll surface. In flight, causing an unrecoverable spin , and possible compromised fuselage due to dynamic forces.

Haha my bet is a marine , being hard core, thoufh it would be fun to drop a grenade from the window.


Pulled the pin

Couldnt get the window down.

Boom
Crash
Blam-ooooooh

>>34507348
Okay who was taking pop shots at planes with their 10mm?

Poor bastards.

>>34507348
Shit.

That is not a joke, it really does happen.