C-141's

[The Wingnut]

There were two at Sheppard AFB when I went through the KC-135 program. They were no longer being used as trainers and civilian contrators were picking them apart piece by piece. Evidently they weren't even in suitable condition to be brought up to airworthy status and flown out to Davis-Monthan.

Great aircraft, but with the advent of the C-17, of no value to the U.S. military.

...does make me wonder why we're not selling them to our allies. They're not bad aircraft, just no longer of value to the U.S. They'd make a great civilian cargo aircraft, as well...loading and offload would be a breeze with the rear ramp.

 

[kampkatz]

Government decisions often don't make a lot of sense. The 141 could absolutely be utilized by some ally.

 

[Ecuador Jim]

That aircraft flew me across the Pacific more times than I could count. As I recall it was cold as a penguin's feet in there. Most of the time I was in Navy Tropical Whites, and they would stow my seabag somewhere where I couldn't retrieve my peacoat. [huh]

I hate to see old aircraft busted up. There must be some work they are still good for. Maybe it's the fuel consumption; newer planes are more fuel efficient. It's a shame though....

 

[cooncatbob]

Haven't the C-141 exceed the maximum hours flown for the service life of the air frame? They're over 40 years old and fly a lot more often then the B-52Hs.
Bob

 

[indycop]

C141s have taken me to Germany, Panama, Puerto Rico, and desert Shield. This is sad, I hope the C130 is not next.

 

[cooncatbob]

C141s have taken me to Germany, Panama, Puerto Rico, and desert Shield. This is sad, I hope the C130 is not next.

They're still making C-130s.

 

[DeeDub]

I don't understand why this airplane isn't eminently suitable for civilian use.

I know of at least one proven civilian use of the C-141: The Kuiper Airborne Observatory

 

[troyd]

1st post...

As an AF Aerial Porter, I can tell you that the C-141 was GREAT cargo plane. As for the reasons why they aren't employed more by civilian enterprise...I have a couple of ideas. One, we literally flew the wings off them. By the time they were retired, they were literally falling apart. Two, the Russian version, IL-76 is plentiful and cheaper.

As far as use by an American commercial carrier, well, the DC-10, DC-8' etc are more flexible in terms of being used as either a passenger or cargo aircraft (or a combination of both)....plus, airframes such as the DC-10 and the 747 are equipped with power driven conveyor systems that make loading pallets/containers much easier.

Now, the C17, is a dream from our perspective, easy to load....not many restrictions etc etc.

In regards to the C-130, there is an extensive refurbishment program for those...but, too, we are flying the wings of those too. Unfortunately, we haven't come up with a tactical (short range) airlifter that could replace it. The C17 would be a good fit but there just isn't enough of them plus, a lot of the airfields that we have to deal with can't sustain the weight of a C17.

Cheers,

Troy, TSgt, USAF
Tall Afar, Iraq

 

[Vornholt]

Those airframes must be experiencing massive metal fatigue by now. One two many takeoff and landing cycles, and some civilian owner would be in for a major mess.

 

[dhermann1]

It all makes sense. I hope a few are preserved.

 

[kampkatz]

A good aircraft museum will most likely get a hold of one.

 

[indycop]

As an AF Aerial Porter, I can tell you that the C-141 was GREAT cargo plane. As for the reasons why they aren't employed more by civilian enterprise...I have a couple of ideas. One, we literally flew the wings off them. By the time they were retired, they were literally falling apart. Two, the Russian version, IL-76 is plentiful and cheaper.

As far as use by an American commercial carrier, well, the DC-10, DC-8' etc are more flexible in terms of being used as either a passenger or cargo aircraft (or a combination of both)....plus, airframes such as the DC-10 and the 747 are equipped with power driven conveyor systems that make loading pallets/containers much easier.

Now, the C17, is a dream from our perspective, easy to load....not many restrictions etc etc.

In regards to the C-130, there is an extensive refurbishment program for those...but, too, we are flying the wings of those too. Unfortunately, we haven't come up with a tactical (short range) airlifter that could replace it. The C17 would be a good fit but there just isn't enough of them plus, a lot of the airfields that we have to deal with can't sustain the weight of a C17.

Cheers,

Troy, TSgt, USAF
Tall Afar, Iraq

I have oftened wondered why we could not bring back the P-51 in a tank buster/ground support role for areas that we have air superiority. They were used into vietnam and to me you could buy a whole lot more of those than some of the modern planes. You could modify them to carry small rockets and such and update the electronics. Maybe I just dream of turning on fox news and seeing grunts on the ground with mustangs flying low overhead takin care of business! I will wake up now.

 

[dhermann1]

I would think they'd be mighty vulnerable to shoulder launched SAM's. I think the trend for situations like that is unpiloted drones.

 

[imported_the_librarian]

Being a Field Arty mech. at one time, I flew in one of those over to Iraq the first time, stopping in Spain. I could never get over the nylon jump seats....can you tell I didn't fly much? I feel more comfortable in my '578. Nice post, makes me want to go to Dayton....

 

[Diamondback]

P-51? The P-47 or Corsair would be a better choice for CAS--that huge engine is built-in armor for the pilot, plus the Jug and Corsair were more durable airframes.

Wright-Pat has the first C-141 into Hanoi, and IIRC McChord's kept one of ours. Another reason they're headed out is so the TF33 engines can be transferred to the BUFFs. (But if that's the case, since the difference between G and H-model '52s is the engines, why not rebuild some Boneyard G's to H spec? To say nothing of the fact that an old LTC prof and I were working on hatching a re-engine concept that's eliminate the need for TF33s in the BUFF force... and a GE tech-guy I discussed it with's already said they could start designing the uprated engines required as soon as the money was in hand.)

 

[KilroyCD]

It was tried...

I have oftened wondered why we could not bring back the P-51 in a tank buster/ground support role for areas that we have air superiority. They were used into vietnam and to me you could buy a whole lot more of those than some of the modern planes. You could modify them to carry small rockets and such and update the electronics. Maybe I just dream of turning on fox news and seeing grunts on the ground with mustangs flying low overhead takin care of business! I will wake up now.

There was an attempt to bring an updated version of the P-51 back as a counter-insurgency and/or tank buster back in the 1980s. Piper had taken over the project from Cavalier (who started the program back in the 1970s). Cavalier (aka Trans-Florida Aviation) was well known for refurbishing P-51 Mustangs back in the 1960s for Third-World nations (through MAP, or the Military Assistance Program) as well as civilian use. A few MAP Cavalier Mustangs were retained by the Army in the late '60s, but were not used in any combat roles. Piper's highly-modified aircraft was known as the "Enforcer", and was tested by the USAF in 1983-84 and rejected for a number of reasons, one of which was the fact that it is a tail-dragger and the air force doesn't train pilots on tail-draggers anymore. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614

 

[Diamondback]

And the Black Widow or A-26 Invader would be better CAS choices--the Black Widow's quad of 20mms and quad-.50 could be upgraded and it was frequently used as a "night intruder" in areas of Allied air-control, and the Invader's up to 14 .50s were murder on anything below...

No taildragger retraining requirement, either!

 

[KilroyCD]

And the Black Widow or A-26 Invader would be better CAS choices--the Black Widow's quad of 20mms and quad-.50 could be upgraded and it was frequently used as a "night intruder" in areas of Allied air-control, and the Invader's up to 14 .50s were murder on anything below...

No taildragger retraining requirement, either!

The Black Widow was out of service by the early 1950s, and there were too few surviving airframes to allow resurrection of the type. The A-26 Invader was used through 1960s, but wing spar fatigue cracks ultimately led to some breaking up in mid air so the USAF ultimately grounded the remaining fleet of unmodified Invaders. The B-26K (later redesignated A-26A) "Counter Invader" did have beefed up main spars (as well as other numerous modifications), and the last of those was consigned to storage in 1973. This puppy packed an eight-gun nose, and was a great night interdiction aircraft.

 

[Diamondback]

Kilroy, I wouldn't want the surviving originals "reactivated", I'm talking about new-production, reengineered and up-armored and stronger but still lighter versions... like a further-evolved "Counter Invader", or like "Blackout" in WONK without the 40mms and the AI.

 

[KilroyCD]

New production would mean reverse engineering an existing example, because unlike the Russians (who started up Yak-3 and 9 production for Warbird collectors), our industry typically disposes of obsolete tooling and dies. Then the powerplants would have to be redically different, as R-2800s have been out of production for decades. A turboprop conversion would be most likely, but then you'd have an aircraft of the same complexity (if not greater) than the A-10, which is already doing the job quite well, thank you. It's romantic notion to think that a classic combat aircraft design might be able to be upgraded to be used in today's world, but that's unfortunately all it is, a romantic notion. Otherwise, I'd be out there lobbying for squadrons of upgraded Spitfires! lol