New

Douglas C-132

Douglas C-132


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Douglas C-132

The Douglas C-132 was a design for a two-deck turboprop powered transport aircraft that never got beyond the mock-up stage.

The C-132 had a high mounted swept wing (the first swept wing on a C type cargo aircraft, with four turboprop engines carried in nacelles that jutted some way out in front of the wings. The wings sloped down towards the tips. It had tricycle landing gear, with multiple main wheels, carried on the sides of the fuselage just behind the wings.

It was a two decked aircraft (as was the more successful Douglas C-124 Globemaster II). The fuselage had an almost triangular cross section, with a wide lower cargo deck and a narrower upper passenger deck and cockpit. There was a loading ramp below the tail to give easy access to the cargo deck. There was also a forward cargo door at truck bed height, to make it easier to load the aircraft from the back of a truck. It had a pressurised flight compartment, air conditioned flight and cargo compartments, and an airline style evacuation chute to allow the passengers to escape from the top deck in an emergency.

To test the engine one was installed in the nose of a C-124C. A fully worked out design was submitted in February 1954, for an aircraft that could serve either as a cargo aircraft or as a tanker. A full scale mock-up was completed, but the project was cancelled in 1956.

Although the C-132 would have been an impressive aircraft, the jet powered Boeing C-135 Stratolifter was already under development by 1952, when the mock-up of the C-132 was completed, and would make its maiden flight in 1954. It offered a significantly higher cruising speed, and was seen as a more modern design. The C-132 thus never progressed beyond the mockup stage, while the C-135 went on to be a mainstay of the USAF for many decades.

Engines: Four Pratt & Whtiney TY57-P-1
Power: 11,000shp each at normal, 13,500shp each at military setting, 14,000shp for take off
Crew: 4 (pilot, co-pilot, navigator, systems engineer).
Wing span: 177ft 6in
Length: 179ft 3in
Height: 57ft 11in
Empty weight: 170,300lb
Loaded weight: 408,000lb
Cruising speed: 400mph
Maximum payload: 100,000lb
Maximum range: 3,400 miles


The giant Douglas XC-132, what could have been

A design that I think that may have made a big difference to the US Military, especially the US Army, that was never to unfortunately eventuate was the Douglas Model 1814 / XC-132 Long-range, heavy transport / cargo aircraft.
This aircraft was started in 1951 under the title of program ‘SS-402L’ ‘Heavy Airlift Transport’
This massive and potential transport, would have given the USAF and US Army a transport aircraft the likes and capability of that of the Soviet Antonov An-22 ‘Cook’.
But due to problems with the development of its Pratt & Whitney XT57 turboprop design of 15,000 shp each (which I think was not pursued, through more want and fascination with straight turbojets of the time) the entire program was cancelled.
I wonder if it would have been cancelled, had the US Military known that its lift-capability and range would be in such demand in Vietnam.
Instead the USAF would have to rely on older, slower and less capable and efficient types like the Douglas C-124 Globmaster and Douglas C-133 Cargomaster, which would have to soldier on until the arrival of the truly strategic Lockheed C-5A Galaxy.

Member for

By: TinWing - 12th February 2006 at 18:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

To be fair, the smaller, far less ambitious C-133 had a relatively short service life due engine problems and unexpected fatigue issues. Some might say that the C-133 should have been cancelled as well.

Could the larger C-132/KC-132 have been a success?

Perhaps, but it would appear that the decision to cancel was the right one at the time. Boeing's 717/C-135 has been one of the most successful and enduring programs in the history of aviation.

Member for

By: firstfleet - 2nd March 2006 at 06:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

If one considers 15 years a short service life, then the C-133 had that. In that time, despite engines that did not meet manufacturer's promises and propellers that pushed the limits of the technical envelope, the C-133 proved to be the first true heavy airlifter. It carried hundreds of ICBMs to and from deployment bases. It moved NASA cargo all over the world, whether rockets to launch sites or tracking equipment to Madagascar and Australia. In the Vietnam War, C-133s moved military equipment that no other airplane could load from the US to the combat zone and even within the theater.

The C-132 was ill-timed to go into service. The USAF decided to go to jets, first the C-135 and, later, the C-141. There was no funding in the FY 57 budget for the C-132. The C-132 would have been the largest turboprop airplane built, for many years. Its refueling variant woud have been able to tank up three fighters simultaneously. The engines and propeller flew a few times, sticking from the nose of a C-124 like a gigantic cigar. The propeller was built by Hamilton Standard, 22' in diameter with a 24" tip chord. For the time, that might have cut entirely through the technical envelope.

The complete story of the C-133 is in my new book, Remembering an Unsung Giant: The Douglas C-133 Cargomaster and Its People . The book is now available from Firstfleet Publishers. It will soon be available from Midlands Counties Publishing or Air Britains. With 330+ illustrations in 428 pages, the C-133 is described in the fullest possible detail. The book also includes a chapter on the C-132.

Member for

Posts: 3,718

By: Schorsch - 2nd March 2006 at 12:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Very doubtful if the C-132 would have become a real great thing. Aviation technology progressed so fast that large aircraft could efficiently be built as jets in early 60s. Note that props were only adopted because jets at that time just sucked. The B-52 for example hardly made it with its eight jets. It was nearly as large as the An-22 but much faster.

Generally, the pursuit for jet-transports greatly helped civil aviation in the pioneer days of jet airliners.

Member for

By: TinWing - 2nd March 2006 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I have always wondered why the United States attempted various high horsepower turboprops such as the T34 and T57 without using contrarotating props?

Were any of the C-133's vibration and fatigue problems related to the use of a three bladed prop with the 6,500 to 7,500 horsepower T34?

Another big question mark is whether the development of the T57 (derived from the prolific J-57) would have been just as troubled as the T34's career?

Member for

By: TinWing - 2nd March 2006 at 18:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Very doubtful if the C-132 would have become a real great thing. Aviation technology progressed so fast that large aircraft could efficiently be built as jets in early 60s. Note that props were only adopted because jets at that time just sucked. The B-52 for example hardly made it with its eight jets. It was nearly as large as the An-22 but much faster.

Generally, the pursuit for jet-transports greatly helped civil aviation in the pioneer days of jet airliners.

So how does the turboprop Airbus A400M fit into your theory?

You mention the An-22, but the performance of that type was compromised by the straight wings.

The swept wing XC-132 was far closer in performance to the similarly powered Tu-95 "Bear."

It is all to easy to forget that the An-22 was far later than the C-132, but was a far less ambitious project.

Member for

Posts: 3,718

By: Schorsch - 3rd March 2006 at 06:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

So how does the turboprop Airbus A400M fit into your theory?

You mention the An-22, but the performance of that type was compromised by the straight wings.

The swept wing XC-132 was far closer in performance to the similarly powered Tu-95 "Bear."

It is all to easy to forget that the An-22 was far later than the C-132, but was a far less ambitious project.

It fits easily: the A400M is, like the An-70 or C-130, a tactical transporter. It sacrifices speed in favor for short TO and landing and stronger structure. The C-141 and C-5 were strategic transports, they can land on shorter runways, but normally they go from airport to airport. The C-17 is in-between, but much more expensive and actually the only jet-transport built since 1980 (except the An-124, which is also a strategic transport).

The C-132 would not have been a tactical transporter but a strategic transporter. It would have been outclassed by jet-powered aircraft after less than 10 years of service.

BTW: the A400M has a top-speed very close to that of some jet-transporters.

Member for

Posts: 3,614

By: Bager1968 - 3rd March 2006 at 08:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

"BTW: the A400M has a top-speed very close to that of some jet-transporters."

REALLY.
When was the flight test that produced that speed?

Until those tests are conducted, you really should use the words "planned to have a top speed", "supposed to have", or "designed to have". as even with the modern techno-whiz-bang, "gee whiz aren't these CAD programs great we don't need any real-world testing", "fire the human engineers the computer can design it all" aircraft industry, sometimes planes just don't fly the way they were meant to!!

Don't start claiming actual performance until it actually does what you claim it can!!

Member for

Posts: 3,718

By: Schorsch - 3rd March 2006 at 10:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

"BTW: the A400M has a top-speed very close to that of some jet-transporters."

REALLY.
When was the flight test that produced that speed?

Until those tests are conducted, you really should use the words "planned to have a top speed", "supposed to have", or "designed to have". as even with the modern techno-whiz-bang, "gee whiz aren't these CAD programs great we don't need any real-world testing", "fire the human engineers the computer can design it all" aircraft industry, sometimes planes just don't fly the way they were meant to!!

Don't start claiming actual performance until it actually does what you claim it can!!

Don't tell me about flight test! If you are so knowlegdable (or at least pretend to be) about it you should know that predicting airspeed is not too difficult, especially if dealing with subsonic airflow. There might be restrictions in terms of engine power output but the proposed M0.72 can be met. Normally there is always room to increase engine power by some percent. It is very unlikely to meet the drag divergence mach number or buffet onset at your design mach number.

Member for

By: firstfleet - 7th March 2006 at 14:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I have always wondered why the United States attempted various high horsepower turboprops such as the T34 and T57 without using contrarotating props?

Were any of the C-133's vibration and fatigue problems related to the use of a three bladed prop with the 6,500 to 7,500 horsepower T34?

Another big question mark is whether the development of the T57 (derived from the prolific J-57) would have been just as troubled as the T34's career?

Based upon what I have learned in the last six years, the answer is definitely "Yes." The Curtiss props had long blades, with an 18' diameter. THe tip chord was over 7", and tip speed was M 1.03 during takeoff and climb and M .97 at cruise. Tips on the inboards were close to the fuselage and sonic impingement on the airframe was huge. Also, because the T34s did not meet manufacturer's specs, the airframe was lightened three times before metal was even cut. So, it was even more susceptible to vibration effects than a more robust structure might have been.

I believe the props were pushing the technical envelope of the time. The 24' Hamilton prop on the C-132 might have cut through the envelope. They had a square-cut tip with a 24" chord. From earlier readings, other manufacturers were working on prop issues. I remember that the Britannia was advertised as the "whispering giant," because its prop tips were designed to mitigate tip noise. There was certainly a difference between the C-130A, with three-bladed props, and later models, with four-blade paddle designs. High-time Herk pilots in those days would cup their ear and say, "What's that? I fly A-models."

Knowing all of the problems the C-133 had with nose case failures, I can only imagine the issues there would have been with contrarotating props. Perhaps, though, the overall load on the nose case gearing might have been lessened with more blades to convert turbine power to thrust. I wonder how the TU-95 fared with nose cases.

At the time, the T57 might have had similar problems as the T34, simply because of the nose case issues. Even, then, however, it appears that large propeller technology was a dying craft, from what I have read of the time. The designers of the T57 (one is Dick Mulready) remark on how few there were who knew anything aobut propeller gearing.

Member for

By: TinWing - 7th March 2006 at 15:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The C-133 makes an interesting comparison with the Shorts Belfast. The production Belfast featured 16' props with four blades, driven by 5,730shp Rolls-Royce Tynes - less powerful than the 6,500-7,500hp T-34, but still worthy of technical comparisons.

The Belfast had an even shorter military carreer than the C-133 - although there is still at least one Belfast flying in commercial service today.

It should be admitted that the Belfast was a smaller, less powerful, less ambitious design, though.

Member for

Posts: 7,877

By: Arthur - 11th March 2006 at 14:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Note that the first Tu-95 prototype also crashed because of it's prop gear failing.

Member for

By: firstfleet - 17th March 2006 at 19:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Italian analysis of heavy airlifters

In the course of writing the C-133 book, I was contacted by Simone Frigiero, an Italian aero engineering student at the University of Turin. He and two classmates, Carlo Di Marino and Gianluca Frangi, were doing a required project to analyze a particular airplane in comparison to similar contemporary airplanes. They found the C-133 web site and contacted me for information.

They compared the C-133 to the Belfast, Constellation, C-124, C-5, C-130, C-141 and AN-22. I received a DVD with their complete report, but it was in Italian. So, I could only look at the pictures. Someday, I'll find someone who can translate it. It is quite lengthy.

When I told another C-133 person about the project, he remarked "It's too bad Douglas didn't do an engineering analysis before they built the C-133." A cheap shot, perhaps, but understandable, knowing about the airplane's history.

Latest
Sections
Support
General

© 2021 Key Publishing Ltd

Key Publishing Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with Company Number 2713662. VAT No. GB445558329.


Douglas C-132 - History

The Navy&rsquos Striking Eagles Squadron, Part II

While the initial aim of the American thrust had Rabaul, New Britain, as prime target, this changed to Guadalcanal when a decrypted enemy message indicated the Japanese had begun an airfield there.
Earlier the Japanese had occupied the tiny island of Tulagi tucked into a pocket of the bigger island called Florida. Tulagi lay slightly over two nautical miles, across what Navymen would later call "Ironbottom Sound."
The troops selected for the thrust into the Solomons were the hard bitten, well trained professionals of MAJGEN Alexander A. Vandegrift&rsquos First Marine Division.
Control of the air was a daunting task in planning operations in the South Pacific. At Rabaul and Lae in Papua, New Guinea, the Japanese held in its 5th Air Attack Force 39 fighters, 48 bombers, eleven patrol bombers, and six floatplane fighters ( the latter at Tulagi ). The air groups of SARATOGA, ENTERPRISE and WASP were tasked with the formidable mission of countering this threat as the Marines moved ashore.
RADM Leigh Noyes in WASP was Commander Air Support Force which included the carriers plus battleship NORTH CAROLINA, six cruisers, 16 destroyers and three attending oilers. Shortly after 0530 on 7 August Noyes ordered the carriers to launch their fighters and . . . . . .

On 14 Feb 57, the U.S. Air Force announced a new transport aircraft. It would be capable of moving more than a half-million pounds of airplane faster than 460 mph. The airplane was the Douglas C-132, to be built at Douglas Aircraft Company&rsquos plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma.# In the end, though, the airplane progressed no further than a full-scale mockup and inflight testing of the Pratt & Whitney T57 turboprop engine mounted on a modified C-124C. Had the Air Force gone ahead with the project, the result would have been a turboprop transport and aerial refueler nearly twice as large as the C-133.
Because of the Air Force type numbering system, the C-132 had been perceived as a predecessor to the C-133. The Douglas model numbers were quite distinct, however, being 1333 (C-133A) and 1430 (C-133B) and 1814 (C-132), respectively. The C-132 was, in fact, a separate project with no design commonality with the C-133, though it would have carried turboprop applications to a point not attained until the Antonov AN-22 Anteus debuted at the 1965 Paris Air Show. The U.S. Air Force would also have gained outsized cargo transport capabilities beyond even those of the C-133 that it did not enjoy until the Lockheed C-5 entered service in 1968.
The C-132 was one of the first three USAF transport aircraft procured under the weapons system concept first implemented in 1949. It was the SS-402L (Support . . . . . . .

Max Holtzem: An "Old Eagle" of the First World War. Part Three:
Test Pilot and Aerobatic Performer In the "New World "

As a result of the Communist-led revolution in Germany, "Soldiers Councils" began to influence the Armistice Commission.
Jasta 16b was ordered to surrender its Fokker D VIIs in Cologne. This was Holizem&rsquos home area and he knew it so well that he was selected to guide the Jagd.staffel to this Rhine city. In fact, several other units joined Jasta 16b and Max found himself at the head of a small armada. All was confusion in Cologne and the men were forced to guard their planes lest they be stolen. When he discovered that a Communist Soviet Soldiers&rsquo Council was to be in command Max decided to escape. He arranged to have his Fokker D VII fueled and ready for flight and, at an opportune moment, he took off. Where could he go? Yes, he would fly down the Rhine to Speyer and visit his friend Alfred Eversbusch at the Pfalz Werke. When he arrived, Max found that other German pilots had the same idea. Among the more famous flyers at Speyer were Lothar von Richthofen and Ernst Udet. Herr Eversbusch presented Udet with a brand new Pfalz D XV fighter plane which was orignally intended as a replacement for the Pfalz D XII. The men discussed the Armistice and whether hostilities would resume. They also talked about the prospects of jobs in the event that a peace treaty was signed. All agreed that there would . . . . . .

SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY, The Air Fields of the Sixth Air Force,
ALBROOK FIELD

As noted in the first essay in this series, dedicated to the first permanent air field in the Panama Canal Zone, France Field, locating sites for the infant Army Air Service in the environs of the area then known as the Zone was a challenge for the pioneers in that tropical region.
Before the Army&rsquos first field in the Canal Zone was even five years old, it was clear to Army leaders that the existence of a solitary field, on which was based the entire defensive air strength of the Canal, was ill-advised. Additionally, the Air Service had chosen a location that was nearly as far away as one could get in the Zone from the administrative and military headquarters of the Panama Canal Department, which was located more than 60 miles away to the south at Balboa, near Panama City, on the Pacific approaches to the Canal. Connected at the time by a single track railroad and the Canal itself (a trans-isthmian highway was still some distance in the future), France Field was also bedeviled by . . . . . . . . .

Compagnie Aerienne Antillaise

The island Tintamarre, locally better known as Flat Island, is situated just off the north-east point of St. Martin. It is a most unlikely place to be the home base for an international airline, but that is just what it became in 1946. The island measures only about 2500 x 1000 meters, is separated by a 3 km channel from the the island of St. Martin and, most odd of all, it is uninhabited! Still, Tintamarre has a very interesting history. For instance, it was once the private property of the last descendant of the prominent Dutch Van Romondt plantation dynasty, who ran the island like an independent kingdom, growing high grade sea-cotton, weaving and dying it and even issuing his own currency to be used by the plantation laborers. The island had a brief spell of fame when a visiting French journalist wrote a story about "le Roi de Tintamarre" and with his story unleashed a flood of love letters from French womanhood offering their services as van Romondt&rsquos "queen".
Alas, van Romondt preferred things as they were and remained, at least legally, a bachelor and when in 1932 he retired back to the ancestral home at St. Martin, Tintamarre regressed to its former desolate state, visited only now and then by itinerant fishermen. However, an even more exiting episode was to follow just after World War II: it became the birthplace of aviation for St. Martin and surrounding islands. In 1946 an enterprising young man named Remy De Haenen started a unique airline operation at Tintamarre which pioneered the airways in the area.
Remy De Haenen was born in London of Dutch parents (the original family name was Van Haanen). His father had been a war correspondent and illustrator for the Illustrated London News, based in France during the Great War. The family stayed on in France and this was .. . . . . . . . . .

For those of us who recall the period, a boom in general aviation was to take place following World War II. It was anticipated that returning airmen would trade their wartime aircraft, flown in hostile skies, for light planes flown over peaceful American terrain. The return of many veteran pilots, aviators and airmen were to be the catalyst behind the figurative statement "an airplane in every garage," and it gave impetus to artists&rsquo conceptions of smiling families flying to vacation destinations in futuristic light planes. Aviation magazines of the day reinforced this vision by depicting modern-day housing developments with a runway and individual taxiways leading up to each new home.
Aircraft companies and subcontractors shared this optimism as they converted their wartime facilities into the manufacturing of general-aviation aircraft. Soon their drawing boards were busy as they transitioned from the manufacturing of bomber and pursuit aircraft of war to the postwar pursuit of building light planes. In some cases, and for expediency, their aircraft were prewar or updated designs. Other companies, however, capitalized on wartime knowledge and transferred newly developed technology into modern and innovative aircraft designs.
New light-plane designs and prototypes from major aircraft manufacturers, including Douglas, Grumman, Lockheed, North American and Republic, entered into development. Additionally, new light planes from many other aircraft companies entered the developmental stage at the end of the war (see listing of aircraft). Concurrently, production was resumed on prewar aircraft, including the Erco Ercoupe, Globe Swift, and the Luscombe Silvaire.
However, the aviation boom was not to be. Many war-weary pilots turned their vision from the sky to earthbound goals, including home, automobile, family . . . . . . . .

Flying Aircraft Carriers of the USAF: Wing Tip Coupling, Section 1: EC-47A/Q-14B


Top 40 Most Dishonest Acts in Mormon Church History

One of the most common questions asked of me is, “Do the brethren know that the church isn’t what it claims to be? Are they intentionally misleading the membership at this point?”

Up until recently, my answer has always been, “No. They are sincere men who genuinely believe that the church is true.”

After my recent interview with Shannon Caldwell Montez — about the handling of the B.H. Roberts/Book of Mormon faith crisis affair of 1922 — I started to think about how outrageously dishonest it was for the Mormon church to intentionally withhold from its members the legitimate scientific concerns surrounding the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham for almost 100 years, while also attempting to erase from church membership any memory of the life of B.H. Roberts.

This reflection led me to make a starter-list of the most outrageously dishonest actions by the Mormon church and its leadership over the years. I have created a starter list below. Will you please review my list, and help me include any other actions that seem particularly egregious to you?

It would be amazing to turn this list into a book someday. Does anyone want to help?


Historical Snapshot

The Douglas C-133 Cargomaster, a four-engine turboprop transport, was larger and faster than earlier Douglas military cargo airplanes. The Cargomaster went into production without a prototype and had an unusual circular fuselage with top-mounted wings.

The C-133 could fly the equivalent of 22 loaded railroad boxcars nonstop between Los Angeles, Calif., and New York for about 5 cents per ton per mile (907 kilograms per 1.6 kilometers). It carried fully assembled tanks and transported the Douglas-built Thor intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Douglas built and delivered the last Cargomasters in 1961. NASA used Cargomasters to drop-test early space capsules and to transport a variety of space products. Douglas built 50 Cargomasters, but after the C-133, Douglas did not build transports specifically for the military for another 10 years.


AHC: McDonnell Douglas Survived and is Successful

I hate to say it but while a good idea that is like Sea Mammal level of ASB and I am not exaggerating. This is US domestic politics at its most bipartisan brain addled stupid. Look at the goat screw that is the KC-46 tanker. The contract was initially awarded to combined bid from Northrop and EADS (Airbus North America) for a tanker based on the Airbus A330 airframe. The planes were going to be assembled in the great state of Alabama (the same state my Korean sedan was built in) providing good paying manufacturing jobs to hard working blue collar Americans. Boeing protested the contract award and it was rebid and they won the second round to build a tanker based on the 767. The plane has been plagued with problems and its 2020 and it's still barely operational.

IMWO you can trace a lot of the problem with Boeing's planes today (military and civilian) to the decision to yank the contract Airbus/Northrop and award it to Boeing. I think the executives and Boeing took the message from that whole mess that they can build a second rate plane and the US Government will have their back.

Sorry for the rank cynicism.

Jellico

I come back to something that was pointed back to me years ago. All the worlds wide bodied aircraft are so sophisticated and specialized that all the past century's major aircraft producers have had to be amalgamated down to two (plus whatever the Russians and Chinese cobble together) in order to produce them.
Of course politics and kickbacks etc have something to do with that, but the ecosystem is such now that it might not be able to support more than a few manufacturers.

So to keep MDD alive it will probably need to either wipe out Boeing, or get foreign help.

Zheng He

SsgtC

Ok, so after thinking about it a little, I think there are some ways you can get MDD to survive longer on its own.

1. Kill the MD-11 as designed. ETOPS was coming and the days of the tri-jet were numbered. Design it from the start as a twin jet. That will get you more orders and will keep you alive longer.

2. Don't design the MD-95 (known today as the Boeing 717) with an oddball cockpit. Either use an updated MD-80 series cockpit so airlines can maintain a common pilot pool, or redesign the MD-90 cockpit to match the -95.

3. Begin designing all your aircraft with a common cockpit so pilots qualified on one MD type can easily transition to another. This has the huge benefit of encouraging airlines to standardise on MDD aircraft. (MDD was trying to do just this by designing the MD-95 with a cockpit almost identical to that of the MD-11, but seeing as the -11 was a huge flop with passenger airlines, it left the -95 as an outlier. This ties in with my second point. By the time MDD was designing the MD-95, they already knew the MD-11 was a dud and should never have given them a common cockpit.)

4. Move them the hell out of Long Beach. The manufacturing plant wasn't even connected to the airport. It was across the street. To move finished aircraft from the hanger to the flight line, a very busy street had to be closed to allow the movment. And IIRC, Long Beach only allowed them to do this at night when traffic was less. This really hurt their efficiency and slowed production. Plus the taxes in CA didn't help either.

5. The MD-90 needed different engines. Instead of the IAE 2500 as the sole engine option, offer the CFM-56 as well. The IAE 2500 isn't a bad engine. But it just isn't that common, making maintenance more expensive. For example, a total of 7,600 engines have been delivered since it was introduced. The comparable CFM-56 has delivered over 32,000. That gets you more orders as well since it gives airlines some commonality with their 737 fleets which makes maintaining the aircraft cheaper, making it more attractive.

6. They need a mid range aircraft to compete with the 757 and A321. And it needs to enter service in the 80s. Make it a narrow body twin jet and pitch it to replace the 727. That gives MDD a product line ranging from short range 100 seaters to long range 300+ seaters.


Saturday, February 27, 2016

Pentagon Battle for the RF-4C

A fascinating article by retired Col. Cecil Rigsby on the background, problems and politics with the Pentagon for the procurement of the RF-4C. A good read! From the Spring 2008 issue of “The Recce Reader”. Credit: F4Phantom.com


Journey through the Ancient Tabernacle

As in modern temples, the symbolism in the tabernacle can teach us about our journey back to God’s presence.

Illustrations by Steve Creitz/licensed from GoodSalt.com

For thousands of years, temples have been a place where God uses priesthood ordinances and sacred covenants to teach His children eternal truths about His plan of salvation.

During their travels in the wilderness, the people of Israel were commanded to build a tabernacle so that God could “dwell among them” (Exodus 29:46). “Tabernacle literally means ‘place of dwelling’ and was so called in the belief that God literally lived within its sacred confines. When Israel camped, the tabernacle was set up in the precise center of the camp (symbolizing the idea that God was to be the center of his people’s lives).” 1

Consider these items in the tabernacle and what they can teach us about our return to God’s presence.

Tabernacle: The tabernacle consisted of three divisions through which one must pass to reach the presence of God: the outer courtyard, the holy place, and the Holy of Holies (see Exodus 25–30).

Altar: The law of Moses set forth the sacrifices to be offered here, foreshadowing the Savior and His “great and last sacrifice” (Alma 34:10). Sacrifice can also symbolize our repentance—giving up our sins and offering a broken heart and contrite spirit (see 3 Nephi 9:19–20 Guide to the Scriptures, “Sacrifice,” scriptures.lds.org).

Laver of water: Before entering the holy place, priests used the brass laver of water to wash their hands and feet (see Exodus 30:19–21), reminding us of our need to be clean as we prepare to return to the Lord’s presence (see 3 Nephi 27:19–20).

Table of shewbread: Twelve loaves of unleavened bread were placed each Sabbath on the table of shewbread, a word meaning “bread of the presence” in Hebrew (see Exodus 25:30). The loaves were eaten in the holy place every Sabbath as “an everlasting covenant” (see Leviticus 24:5–9).

Candlestick: The seven lamps burned pure olive oil, providing light to the holy place (see Leviticus 24:2–4). This can remind us of the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the sources of spiritual light.

Altar of incense: The priests burned incense each morning and night on an altar placed before the veil. The ascending smoke can represent prayers ascending to heaven (see Revelation 5:8).

Veil: The high priest entered the Holy of Holies through a veil. Cherubim, or angels, were embroidered on the veil (see Exodus 26:31–33 D&C 132:19). The veil can remind us that as we are now veiled from God’s presence, the great High Priest—Jesus Christ—can part the veil.

Holy of Holies: The high priest entered this most sacred part of the tabernacle once a year, on the Day of Atonement. The Holy of Holies represented the presence of God and contained the ark of the covenant, the lid of which was called the mercy seat. “There I will meet with thee,” the Lord told Moses, “and I will commune with thee” (Exodus 25:22 see also Exodus 29:43 30:36). 2


Douglas C-132 - History

rechercher Douglas C-133 Cargomaster en :

. veikimo transportinio lėktuvo projektinę studiją . Siekta pakeisti pasenusį Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster ir patobulinti esamą , tačiau per mažą Lockheed C - .

. el Mando Aéreo Táctico , en combinación con el Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster , hasta 1970 , cuando fue sustituido por el Lockheed .

. Premier vol de l ' avion de transport américain Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster . • 21 mai : Un Boeing B - 52 Stratofortress .

. Antonov An - 22 and the 128 - tonne Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster , but more than the C - 130 Hercules . .

. 129 Super Dakota • Douglas C - 132 • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Douglas CC - 129 Dakota • Douglas Dakota • .

. Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Douglas C - .

. Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Douglas C - 133B Cargomaster , AF Ser . .

. voci di aerei militari presenti su Wikipedia Il Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster era un quadrimotore turboelica da trasporto strategico ad ala alta .

. • 1956 • 1965 • 1964 Note •^ Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster Military Transport in Boeing History . •^ a b c d .

. . •^ a b c d e f g h Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster in The Aviation Zone . •^ a b c ( EN .

. Development in Remembering an Unsung Giant - The Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster and Its People . http :// www . angelfire . .

. consultato in data 24 lug 2010 . •^ a b Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster in Virtual Aircraft Museum . •^ Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster .

. C - 133 Cargomaster in Virtual Aircraft Museum . •^ Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster in Уголок неба •^ ( EN ) C - 133B History .

. History in Remembering an Unsung Giant - The Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster and Its People . http :// www . angelfire . .

. Accidents in Remembering an Unsung Giant - The Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster and Its People . http :// www . angelfire . .

. Numbers in Remembering an Unsung Giant - The Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster and Its People . http :// www . angelfire . .

. Units in Remembering an Unsung Giant - The Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster and Its People . http :// www . angelfire . .

. Bill . " Forgotten Airlifter : The Short - Lived Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster ". Air Enthusiast , Number 110 , March / April .

. progetti • Commons • Commons contiene file multimediali su Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster Collegamenti esterni •( EN ) Remembering an Unsung Giant .

. •( EN ) Remembering an Unsung Giant - The Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster and Its People . URL consultato in data 24 lug .

. 24 lug 2010 . • Maksim Starostin . ( EN ) Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster 1956 in Virtual Aircraft Museum . http :// .

. 18 gen 2010 . • Mike Neely . ( EN ) Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster in The Aviation Zone . http :// www . .

. . •( EN ) Boeing : History -- Products - Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster Military Transport in Boeing . http :// www . .

. consultato in data 25 lug 2010 . •( RU ) Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster in Уголок неба . http :// www . airwar .

. 47 Skytrain • Douglas C - 54 Skymaster • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Douglas DC - 3 • Douglas DC - 8 .

. 1 • Douglas C - 124 Globemaster II • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Douglas C - 21 Dolphin • C - 47 .

. studying heavy jet transport designs that would replace the Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster and complement Lockheed C - 141 Starlifters . In addition .

. is a Blum integer . In the military • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster was a United States cargo aircraft built between 1956 and .

. - 22M - 4 " Fitter " ( USSR ) - • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Convair F - 102A Delta Dagger • Convair F .

. - 132 •^ Remembering An Unsung Giant - The Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster and Its People •^ Donald , David , ed ( .

. Douglas C - 124 • 27 November 1949 • • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Circa 1956 • • Handley Page V / 1500 • .

. C - 118 , Douglas C - 124 , Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster and Lockheed C - 130 aircraft . During the 1950s .

. . decolagem • 125 . 000 kg O Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster foi um avião cargueiro pesado construído pela Douglas Aircraft Company .

. 129 Super Dakota • Douglas C - 132 • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Douglas CC - 129 Dakota • Douglas DC - .

. trasporto pesante a getto in grado di sostituire il Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster ed integrare nel servizio il Lockheed C - 141 Starlifter .

. Douglas C - 132 • C - 132 : Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • C - 135 : Boeing C - 135 Stratolifter .

. Douglas C - 132 • C - 133 : Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • C - 134 : Stroukoff YC - 134 • .

. ) • Soukhoï Su - 17 Fitter ( URSS ) • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Convair F - 102A Delta Dagger • Convair F .

. 129 Super Dakota • Douglas C - 132 • Douglas C - 133 Cargomaster • Douglas CC - 129 Dakota • Douglas DC - .

. 131 Samaritan - Convair • C - 132 - DouglasC - 133 Cargomaster - Douglas • C - 134 - Stroukoff • C .

. 130 Hercules • Fairchild C - 123 Provider • Douglas C - 133 A Cargomaster • Boeing C - 135 Stratolifter Un avion espion .

. Globemaster II • C - 129 Super Dakota • Douglas C - 132 • C - 133 Cargomaster • CC - 129 Dakota • Douglas Dakota • DC .

. los veteranos aparatos de transporte pesado , como el Douglas C - 124 Globemaster y el C - 133 Cargomaster , complementados por un considerable número de los igualmente anticuados .

. 1947 ( model 240 ) • C - 132 • • Douglas • Abandonnne • • C - 133Cargomaster • Douglas • • 23 Avril 1956 • C - 134 .

. 7 ( 1955 ?) • F5D Skylancer ( 1956 ) • C - 133 Cargomaster ( 1956 ) • F6D Missileer ( 1958 ) • 道 格 .

. 27J Spartan • Lockheed C – 130 Hercules • Douglas C133 Cargomaster • Antonov An – 12 Cub • Antonov An – .

. 美 国 洛 克 希 德 公 司 • C - 133 运 输 霸 王 Cargomaster 美 国 道 格 拉 斯 公 司 • C .

. 1954 )• F5D Skylancer ( 1956 )• C - 133 Cargomaster ( 1956 )• F6D Missileer ( 1958 ) Ohjukset ja .

. 塞 斯 納208 基 本 款 , 配 備PT6A - 114A 發 動 機 。 • 208A Cargomaster 與FedEx 聯 邦 快 遞 共 同 研 發 的 .

. Cessna 208 Caravan 33 架 Cessna 208B Super Cargomaster 4 架 Fokker F27 Mk600 来 自 “ .


Douglas C133B Cargomaster

This product was added to our database on Thursday 19 December 2019.

Your reliable Aircraft Modelling Source since 1989

In 1952, procurement of a new type for the Military Air Transport Service was announced in the United States under the SS402L Logistics Carrier Support Program. According to its requirements, the aircraft would have to lift more than 45 tons, including oversized items.
The Douglas Aircraft Company, which has a long history of supplying transport aircraft to the military, proposed two projects, the C-132 and the C-133. The C-132 was rejected due to a number of technical problems, and the C-133 immediately received an order for a preliminary batch of 12 machines, even without building a prototype for testing. Construction of the first aircraft began at the end of 1953, and on April 23, 1956, the first test flight of the new giant took place. After a few shortcomings were eliminated, the C-133 went into series production, officially named the Cargomaster, and as early as August 1957, the 39th Transportation Brigade at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware was the first to receive a production aircraft, while the next machine of this type was delivered to the 84th Brigade based at McCord.
Intensive operation of the C-133 began in 1958. The world was already on the verge of widespread confrontation, especially in Europe, where the US and USSR were vying for influence over the entire region. The C-133 was the only type that could carry nearly 100 percent of US military equipment, including most of its principal armored vehicles, and so its role in transferring military units to Europe was particularly important at this time.
During series production of the C-133, its design was constantly modified to improve performance, in particular to increase its load capacity or to transport an ever increasing range of oversized loads. Starting from the eighth airframe, the tail section was slightly modified, and from the 33rd aircraft, the shape of the cargo compartment door was changed, now being split down the middle to open to each side. This made it possible to transport the assembled Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman missiles, because beforehand they were transported exclusively by road.
The last 15, making a total of 50 aircraft, were designated C-133B. Like the later C-133A, they had double doors in the tail, which made it possible to enlarge the range of loaded military equipment. This was especially important for the carriage of missiles, since their outer dimensions were as close as possible to the internal dimensions of the cargo compartment of the aircraft. The main difference of the C-133B was the much more powerful Pratt & Whitney T34-P-9W engines of 7,500hp each, which greatly improved the basic flying characteristics of the airplane.
The C-133B together with the C-133A were heavily used for strategic transportation of military equipment from the US to Western Europe, and they also had to perform many military transport flights to Southeast Asia during the long war in Vietnam. The use of these aircraft was very intensive, which obviously contributed to the accelerated wear of the structure.
As one of the measures to strengthen the structure external tightening strips of thin metal were used on the frames of the fore section of the fuselage, but this forced measure only improved the situation for a short time.
Already by the late 1960s, after careful examination, it emerged that the C-133 had numerous points of fatigue and the possibility of an air crash at any time could not be eliminated. All the C-133s were immediately decommissioned. For security reasons, the military decided to extend the use of other transport platforms, the smaller but more reliable C-130s and C-141s. In addition, testing of the ultraheavy Lockheed C-5A Galaxy had already been completed and serial construction had begun, and the C-5A exceeded the capabilities of the C-133 in every measure. Attempts to use the C-133 in the field of civil freight were unsuccessful for safety reasons.
After the successful tests of the C-5 Galaxy, the fate of all the serviceable C-133 airframes was finally resolved - they were completely decommissioned and transferred to storage bases or immediately to aviation museums.
In total, 15 aircraft of the C-133B version were manufactured.

Shopping cart

Your shopping cart is empty.

Login

Shop near Amsterdam-Schiphol Airport. LOOK INSIDE !

When in the Netherlands,
visit our shop near
Amsterdam-Schiphol Airport.


Watch the video: Lockheed C-141 Starlifter Departing LAX (December 2022).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos