A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

c133 cargomaster returned to flight status...true?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 19th 04, 01:43 AM
w.a. manning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default c133 cargomaster returned to flight status...true?

airliners.net has a pic of N199AB with a caption that it's been
returned to flying status. does anyone have more info on this? that
would be a really amazing (and expensive) undertaking. iirc they only
made a few dozen of these in total. here's a link to the
pics/captions:

http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true

well...just googled that tail# and found this:

http://www.air-and-space.com/Douglas...argomaster.htm

freakin' awesome - i wanna see that thing in flight!
  #2  
Old August 20th 04, 02:40 AM
WaltBJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Must be a bunch of suicidal masochists. When I was at Thule flying
Deuces in 63-64 the 133s used to come in there. But even emergency
leaves couldn't get a ride out on the beasts because right then they
were silently disappearing en route. The two theories I heard was a
stall during cruise-climb on autopilot followed by an in-flight
breakup or one of the props coming off and sawing through the fuselage
or whatever. During that same tour a 133 stalled on takeoff from Goose
Bay - presumed frost atop the Davis wing - and splashed into the fuel
farm. Very little left once the fires were out - certainly not enough
to allow any conclusions. I do have a classmate who flew them - he
doesn't seem to hold any resentment towards the beast since he uses
'C133'as part of his email address.
FWIW there is/was? one in the Pima Air Museaum - it looks like a
salami with wings.
Walt BJ
  #4  
Old August 20th 04, 05:44 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(WaltBJ) writes:
Must be a bunch of suicidal masochists. When I was at Thule flying
Deuces in 63-64 the 133s used to come in there. But even emergency
leaves couldn't get a ride out on the beasts because right then they
were silently disappearing en route. The two theories I heard was a
stall during cruise-climb on autopilot followed by an in-flight
breakup or one of the props coming off and sawing through the fuselage
or whatever. During that same tour a 133 stalled on takeoff from Goose
Bay - presumed frost atop the Davis wing - and splashed into the fuel
farm. Very little left once the fires were out - certainly not enough
to allow any conclusions. I do have a classmate who flew them - he
doesn't seem to hold any resentment towards the beast since he uses
'C133'as part of his email address.
FWIW there is/was? one in the Pima Air Museaum - it looks like a
salami with wings.


I'd heard that it was a problem with the location of a fuel tank vent
and the HF slot antenna in the wing. Under the right conditions,
you'd get fuel vapor in the slot - then, when you transmit on the HF,
it would ignite, removing the wing, with generally bad results. Of
course, it would only happen over the ocean, since you didn't need the
HF over land.

IIRC, there are 2 left in possible flying, or returnable to flying
condition - One is up in Alaska, where it was used to haul outsize
cargo for the Alaska Pipeline. The other's somewhere in the desert,
either Tuscon or Mojave, after being converted into a flying
Opthamology Hospital. From what I've been led to understand, though,
All the 133's had pretty much chewed through their fatigue lives by
the time of their retirement in '70-'71. It's probably cheaper and
safer to rent an Il-75 or An-124 from the Ukraine than it is to get
the old beast flying.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #5  
Old August 20th 04, 09:43 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(WaltBJ) writes:
Must be a bunch of suicidal masochists. When I was at Thule flying
Deuces in 63-64 the 133s used to come in there. But even emergency
leaves couldn't get a ride out on the beasts because right then they
were silently disappearing en route. The two theories I heard was a
stall during cruise-climb on autopilot followed by an in-flight
breakup or one of the props coming off and sawing through the fuselage
or whatever. During that same tour a 133 stalled on takeoff from Goose
Bay - presumed frost atop the Davis wing - and splashed into the fuel
farm. Very little left once the fires were out - certainly not enough
to allow any conclusions. I do have a classmate who flew them - he
doesn't seem to hold any resentment towards the beast since he uses
'C133'as part of his email address.
FWIW there is/was? one in the Pima Air Museaum - it looks like a
salami with wings.


I'd heard that it was a problem with the location of a fuel tank vent
and the HF slot antenna in the wing. Under the right conditions,
you'd get fuel vapor in the slot - then, when you transmit on the HF,
it would ignite, removing the wing, with generally bad results. Of
course, it would only happen over the ocean, since you didn't need the
HF over land.

IIRC, there are 2 left in possible flying, or returnable to flying
condition - One is up in Alaska, where it was used to haul outsize
cargo for the Alaska Pipeline. The other's somewhere in the desert,
either Tuscon or Mojave, after being converted into a flying
Opthamology Hospital. From what I've been led to understand, though,
All the 133's had pretty much chewed through their fatigue lives by
the time of their retirement in '70-'71. It's probably cheaper and
safer to rent an Il-75 or An-124 from the Ukraine than it is to get
the old beast flying.


You must have missed the lead post in this thread--the one in Alaska is
indeed flying, though apparently only very infrequently.

Brooks


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
c133 cargomaster returned to flight status...true? w.a. manning Military Aviation 3 August 19th 04 05:14 AM
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk Jehad Internet Military Aviation 0 February 7th 04 04:24 AM
PC flight simulators Bjørnar Bolsøy Military Aviation 178 December 14th 03 12:14 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.