Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Huge Usaf Cargo Proptransports  
User currently offlineReedyreed From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 95 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2807 times:

Post WW2 years brought us some huge proptransports & some great troop & cargo carrying airlifters & even refueling aircraft in the skies by converted cargo haulers into airtankers by way of the flying boom. Boeing produced the C97 proptransport as a troop carrier & equipment hauler & then a few years later made it into the KC97 airtanker. This proptransport had been fitted with latest radial powerplants,the P&W 4360,28cyl engines. To keep up with inflight refueling of the latest jets they added jet engines,one on each side of the wings. Then there was the huge C74 which was the forrunner of the C124 troop carrier proptransport which also had the huge P&W 4360 engines. they even made a cargo version of the huge B36(onlyone)called the C99 which was in service for a short time & hopefully be preserved at the USAF museum. And let us not forget the Mighty Spruce Goose flying boat of Howard Hughes fame which today is still living & on display in a museum in Oregon. the Spruce Goose had 8 radial powerplants across the wing also the huge P&W 4360 engines. Also Boeing took the Military version of the C/KC97 Strat & made a civilian version called the 377 Stratocruiser of the 50,s only 55 went into airline service with the likes of PanAm,United,Northwest,AOA & BOAC. she even was decked out with a 14 passenger downstairs lounge with a spiral stairway from the upper deck. It also could be converted overhead with private sleeping births on upper level. What a great aircraft this was when flying to your overseas destinations! In todays world now exists also from the original Boeing C97 Strat, another conversion called the Guppy & Super Guppy with NASA. these were fitted with big turboprop engines & the fuselage was enlarged quite a bit to haul huge rocket motors for the space program & even the front part of the Super Guppy opens & swings out with big hindges. So what they started out in the post war design for cargo haulers carries on today with the Jet age & the flight line with the C5,C141,C/KC135 & C17 of todays USAF.

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

The C-123 originally was a glider design that incorporated many of the current airlift features of high wing for lower fuselage profile and high tail to facilitate rear ramp loading.

The C-82 Packet and follow on, C-119, employed similar features with their signature twin boom design. I am not as familiar with foreign aircraft lineage that may have contributed. WWII is characterized with airlift being pressed into service from off the shelf airliners like the DC-3, DC-4, Curtiss C-46 and Lockheed Constellation. This enabled the designers to focus more on bombers and fighters. Post WWII allowed for the next generation of airlifters to be designed more for bulk material handling rather than passenger transport.

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting F4wso (Reply 1):
The C-123 originally was a glider design that incorporated many of the current airlift features of high wing for lower fuselage profile and high tail to facilitate rear ramp loading.

I find that fascinating! I had zero idea about that. Could you refer me to some source material on that because I'd like to find out more about that. I did not know Fairchild or it's antecendents built gliders. Dude, stuff like this is why I read these threads!



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineRC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2707 times:

Don't overlook the imposing C-133. Spotty safety record but a notable aircraft.

User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-123_Provider

Here is one link that I have. The original reference I have is a book buried in my library. Details like this are one reason I am so fascinated with aviation history. Another interesting reference is the Osprey book on the C-47 in the ETO. I did a book review of it and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was able to tie in a lot of current airland and airdrop doctrine I see in the C-130 with it's origins in WWII.

The C-133 did have a spotty safety record but I think it could have proven itself had not the C-141 clipped it's career short.

I did a lot of volunteer work at what is now the National Museum of the US Air Force when I lived in Dayton fifteen years ago. I enjoyed comparing aircraft features such as looking at how landing gear mechanisms worked, development like the topic of this thread. and other little details that are just pixels of the big picture.

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineRC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

Quoting F4wso (Reply 4):
The C-133 did have a spotty safety record but I think it could have proven itself had not the C-141 clipped it's career short.

Gary
I did a little looking into the C-133 today, found out that the USAF worked 'em pretty hard from about 1956 to 1971 when they were effectively worn out. Originally designed for 10,000 hours, they were extended out to a 19,000 hour life. Gotta look into the one that's supposed to be active again in Alaska, or so I hear. One nickname I've heard of is "Vanisher" after two disappeared (on two different occasions) east of Dover AFB with little trace.


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

We had a former pilot, Lou Martin, speak on the 133 at a Twin Cities Aero Historians monthly meeting. He gave the best account I have ever heard about the Cargomaster. He had a good explanation about one accident (Dover to Travis?) that shed some light on what may have happened to the two lost over the Atlantic.

Another point that comes to mind in this thread is how some companies are said to have copied other designs when it fact is more a matter of similar missions with similar technology will yield similar looking aircraft.

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineRC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting F4wso (Reply 6):
He had a good explanation about one accident (Dover to Travis?) that shed some light on what may have happened to the two lost over the Atlantic.

OK, ya got me curious now. Could you elaborate on his remarks?


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

This has a synopisis of the the accidents:
http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/c133bcargomaster/c133baccidents.html

Here is the text from the 1970 accident Mr. Martin referred to copied from the above site:
10. 6 Feb 70. C-133B 59530. Location was 5 nm NNE of Palisade, NE. Five crew killed. An existing 11" crack above the left side door propagated catastrophically, resulting in tearing of the upper forward fuselage skin for about 17'. An explosive decompression caused large skin sections from the top and right side of the fuselage to be torn away. Cargo included Lycoming T53 and T55 engines in sealed shipping containers and CH-47B Chinook (possibly 67-8487), all enroute to US Army Depot New Cumberland, PA. Crew members were: MAJ Harold Tabor (AC), 1LT Duane Burdette (CP), TSG James Clouse and MSG Joe Tierney (FETs), and SSG Ira Bowers (LM).


Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Huge Usaf Cargo Proptransports
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Usaf Settles With N.J. Elementary School posted Sat Nov 4 2006 17:52:06 by GrandTheftAero
What Is A Usaf U-60 posted Thu Nov 2 2006 16:25:19 by Wannabe
Usaf Memorial Dedicated Today (Oct 14) posted Sat Oct 14 2006 17:22:39 by TaxPilot
U.S. Grants SpaceX Cargo Ship Prototype Contract posted Fri Oct 13 2006 17:03:33 by AerospaceFan
Flyover Today At Usaf Memorial posted Fri Oct 13 2006 14:13:01 by Contrails
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
Updated: USAF's Next Tanker posted Fri Sep 29 2006 04:05:32 by AislepathLight
Libyan Air Cargo AN-124s posted Mon Sep 25 2006 21:45:17 by Cruisertk421
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format