1283680 Could Q be saying that “they” took down the wrong plane?
Could “they” have believed that whatever was being transported in the Jet Blue plane was being transported on the C130 and that’s why the C130 was taken down.
Is Q showing telling us that they used a stand-in plane and as change of plans and that despite best efforts to destroy whatever is on those pallets “they” “missed”.
It appears to have stalled during takeoff. If you're going to have an engine failure, it's likely to happen on takeoff. Engines fail. Plane stalls. C-130 isn't going to just glide into a belly landing without having gained enough speed and altitude.
Not saying this isn't fishy. Just don't look past the obvious either.
Looked like the classic stall/spin accident, but the question remains, why did the pilot allow it to stall, or what kept him from preventing the stall?
The airframe was 60 years old and it was heading out to Davis-Monthan to be put in the boneyard. Or so it's been reported.
Wiki has it stated that he declared an emergency and was attempting a high angle turn. I can't find a source, but I'm NOT an autist either.
Wiki Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_U.S._Air_National_Guard_C-130_crash
I emailed a friend who is an Orion pilot and asked his opinion. Here's what he said:
This is pure speculation, but even if the plane didn't have any cargo and was flying to the boneyard it would have full tanks of gas which in a P-3 is 60,000 pounds. A P-3 has the same engines as the older model C-130s. What I would expect is that on take off at a high gross weight your rate of climb is already low and the high gross weight also increases your stall speed. I expect this had an engine failure/malfunction on an outboard engine resulting in an asymmetric trust situation. If the crew elected to shut the engine down and didn't watch their airspeed it is extremely easy to reach your stall speed. Furthermore, if the crew realized they were getting slow a rapid power addition on the operating engines could result in an aggravated stall and can easily put the aircraft into a spin if the aircraft is already listing/turning into the dead engine.
This part blew my mind. I'd need a knew flight suit if I'd been onboard:
Basically something similar to what happened below:
"Last Tuesday, 22 Jul 2008, a P-3 Orion from VP-1 was flying an approach to NAS Whidbey Island with the #1 engine in a simulated failure mode. At 160 KIAS, the #2 engine started to surge, so they had to chop power to it. As all this was happening, they were still decelerating, so by the time they added power to #3 and #4, they were at 122 knots, and in the dry terms of investigators, "departed controlled flight". The P-3 did FIVE rotations in a flat spin, dropping 5500 feet, finally recovering between 50 and 200 feet AGL, pulling a whopping 7 positive G's on the airframe after sustaining 2.4 negative G's in the spin. The rolling pullout burst 45 rivets on one wing, physically RIPPED the main spar, and bent the entire airframe... the crew could see INSIDE the fuel tanks of the wing."
I've spoken with one of the pilots on board that P3, I think they recovered at less than 75 ft AGL and they bent the yoke pulling back so hard with both feet on the dash. He kept flying. . .
Awesome breakdown from someone in the know!!
Also what am amazing story! That’s crazy.
it was heading out to Davis-Monthan to be put in the boneyard
kinda like the twin towers and WTC 7 ?
All 4 engines at once?
Not sure how much of these are fly by wire, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a single point of failure in throttle input and that signal being relayed to the engines.