|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 6, 2024 2:22:12 GMT 9
XC-99 Unique USAF Aircraft
The United States Air Force has one and only one XC-99, built in 1947, and this absolutely "one of a kind" airplane is about to find a "new home" at the United States Air Force Museum. The birth and history of this aircraft is legendary, but to date, even some aviation enthusiasts have not heard of it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XC-99Pat P.
|
|
|
|
XC-99
Jun 6, 2024 7:23:13 GMT 9
Post by Diamondback on Jun 6, 2024 7:23:13 GMT 9
Yup. Freighter B-36, kinda comparable to the Boeing 367/377 freighter/airliner derivatives of the B-29. WAS displayed at Kelly and donated to the local VFW, but they couldn't keep up with the beast's care so it's been dismantled and moved to Wright-Pat. No timeline on when they'll fund working on it, the museum budget is probably going to be diverted to DEI or "LGBTQ In Uniform" or other Wokester Marxist Bull*cough* exhibits first with the current regime.
Color me cynical... scrapping the first B-36 to make room for the last kinda makes a statement about the institutional culture to me, as does a lack of maintenance of exhibits that saw the last WWI Caquot observation balloon in the world collapse and become un-displayable.
|
|
|
|
XC-99
Jun 6, 2024 21:59:07 GMT 9
Post by lindel on Jun 6, 2024 21:59:07 GMT 9
Where are they going to put it? The B-36 they have already fills up most of the interior space. You can't get far enough away from it to take a picture of the entire thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jun 7, 2024 0:26:57 GMT 9
Where are they going to put it? The B-36 they have already fills up most of the interior space. You can't get far enough away from it to take a picture of the entire thing. Is the old Annex that used to house the R&D and Presidential collections big enough as an interim option? Granted, a fifty-foot non-folding tail is particularly problematic... (Side note, this is why the old pre-G BUFFs have walkway stripes on the fin, it folds to starboard for hangarin or getting out the factory door. B-36s including the XC-99, Convair had to put a dolly under the tail and jack the nose as high as they could... and that's at what was the largest manufacturing plant in the world until Boeing Everett was built!) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XC-99Pat P. |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 7, 2024 12:31:48 GMT 9
They had a B-36 at Chanute AFB IL while I was stationed there, 1971-1973. During a storm one night it the wind sat it on it's tail. They ended up putting a huge concrete pad under nose and attached it to front wheels. In order to get the full plane in focus on my old Argus C-3 Matchmatic 35 mm camera I had to go almost a block away. When you see one outside on it's own it is really really big. BTW, they recently pulled a bunch of planes out and added a couple and rearranged parking. It was strange to see the XN-70 sitting outside again. It sat outside for years before space opened up. The museum has 4 big hangers, with half on one side and half on other side of entry corridor. I went recently with one of my grandsons. Neither of us could make it past 2 hangers before we tired out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jun 8, 2024 13:18:17 GMT 9
Pat, please note: The XC-99 uses so much of B-36 engineering that almost all books on the subject treat it as just another B-36 variant, closer to the parent bomber than the Boeing Models 367 Stratofreighter/377 Stratocruiser are to their parent Model 345 Superfortress (B-29).
|
|
|
|
XC-99
Jun 13, 2024 7:08:19 GMT 9
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 13, 2024 7:08:19 GMT 9
The Sc-99 was awesome idea. But here are the 2 extremes from MATS/MAC/AMC.  |
|
|
|
XC-99
Jun 15, 2024 0:30:18 GMT 9
Post by pat perry on Jun 15, 2024 0:30:18 GMT 9
The Sc-99 was awesome idea. But here are the 2 extremes from MATS/MAC/AMC.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
Thanks,
Pat P.
|
|
|
|
XC-99
Jun 15, 2024 4:26:00 GMT 9
Post by Diamondback on Jun 15, 2024 4:26:00 GMT 9
The Sc-99 was awesome idea. But here are the 2 extremes from MATS/MAC/AMC.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
Thanks,
Pat P.
If memory serves it's basically a C-141 Starlifter replacement, but with better short/unimproved-field capability and the ability to carry a single Abrams tank. Fugly thing, but functional. Makes an A-10 look beautiful. |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 15, 2024 4:31:07 GMT 9
Yes, it was a replacement for the C-141 and can carry an Abrams tank, while the C-5 can carry 2. The C-130 can carry personnel and smaller cargo as it is a Tactical Airlifter. It fulfills the need for small field and unprepared airfields. The USAF claims that the C-17 can do the same, but those big engines swallow a lot of trash, I also worked on simulator purchase for C-17 and although it has ability to do unprepared runway landings, it cannot do many before airframe is weakened. So very few have been done. While at McChord with 318 TAS Simulator Branch Chief I had to maintain currency in C-130 missions. So the OIC of Simulator Training was Lt Col Talcott. His father was a Congressman from Idaho. Anyway, he scheduled me to fly with him one night. When I got to pre-briefing I found out he was giving check rides to several C-130 crews on assault field operations. Each crew had to do 2 Assault TO and landing. The assault landing field for McChord was a strip between taxiway and runway with a light marking 4 corners of very short strip. When doing approach and TO Pilot would tell tower to turn off all runway and taxi lights. These maneuvers are a thrill. Come in low and slow and reverse engines while still 10-15 feet from touchdown. It actually hurts your bum it is so rough. Take off was full power full flaps and hold nose down until almost out of space and pull back as much as you can on wheel. By the time we qualified all crews (We taxied back to exchange crew) I was worn out and all I did was monitor crew actions. BTW I informed the instructor pilot I would prefer to not get my time on thase missions.
|
|
