The modular pod idea hasn't been fully abandoned. Just tweeked. Instead of the pod being exterior, uniform containers are loaded and delivered. It's not 'as fast' as detaching a pod from the aircraft, but it maintains aerodynamics and flight stability as the only thing that changes about the plane is its weight.
I think the uniform container idea got real traction with commercial air cargo--look at what the likes of FedEx and UPS has done. And regular commercial airliners started to standardize on the LD3 container (most modern jet airliners use LD3's now).
@Allen Watson that’s very true, but it’s still a shame the idea didn’t take off at least for civilian purposes. With technological advances automatic handling issues, portable field hospitals or kitchens could be a great niche design for disaster relief. Like you said, standardizing the cargo and cargo bays was a simpler process for 99%+ of uses.
And with LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System), palletized cargo can be delivered out of a C-130 very quickly, without the aircraft even touching the ground .
@@pkz420 the flight control issues when unloaded. Why bother developing complex and expensive flight control software when you can have a simple tubular fuselage that can take lightweight containers built for aircraft. Just pull up your truck and roll them off the aircraft reducing unloading times compared to removing the pod and then unloading it. Also there are less things to go wrong. Damage any if the attachment points and the system fails, damage an anchoring point in side the fuselage then just use the one next to it (the fuselage anchoring points will be duplicated along the fuselage every few inches to maximise utility.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 from a civilian point of view sure but from a military point of view they could fly in 3 or 4 of those cargo pods, pre packed and set up as barracks for a FOB or base camp, another as a command post, a third is a hospital etc. In the time it takes to build, set up, and stock those in the traditional sense these can be dropped, set up and be running even quicker. In disaster relief they can prioritize pods. Drop a field hospital and blood bank then drop off say a water and food distribution point, a mobile auto shop to help locals fix needed vehicles and get their infra structure repaired. And as pods are no loger needed the clean up is simple and leaves a smaller footprint than we do now.
@@JosephDawson1986 which they do using C-130s using trailers with wheels already in place for FOBs, or fly in containerised based modules in to such locations using a heavy lift helicopter such as the CH-47, as they have find for decades.
My father was in the 101st Air in the latte '50's and spoke lovingly of his many Boxcar jumps. I thought I knew quite a bit about the 119's but this blew my mind. A "Skycrane" with wings!!
The XC-120 was a pretty ingenious idea. If the cargo hold is detachable, then when it isn't carrying cargo it can leave behind not only the dead weight of the pod, but also it's aerodynamic drag as well, and you can just load a pod with whatever you need and snap it in. It also foresaged the eventual almost universal containerization of freight by ships, trains, trucks, and eventually even aircraft through ISO containers.
@@johnnunn8688 not really the S64 is a helicopter which is not a plane , although both are aircraft; its like calling an armored car a tank, both are armored Vehicles but one is wheeled and the other tracked, makes a difference
@@UpToSpeedOnJaguar I’d never heard of them until about a week ago. Went to the hill afb museum mostly to see the B1, saw their c119 and went wth is that? Thought it looked really neat.
Such a beautiful, innovative and straightforward concept of an aircraft. That aircraft would have found many uses of today's application like that autonomous hospital in case of tornado or earthquake aftermath.
The C-119/C-120 is not a rough field assault transport. Which is vital, because in natural disasters, airports are almost guaranteed to be among the first thing to go
The C-119 is one of my favorite aircraft. I never understood why they never tried, or made a twin boom C-130 which, in my mind, would be awesome. Maybe it's just less expensive to make a single tail aircraft over a twin boom?
I will never forget when I first saw a flying boxcar. I was about seven years old and it flew over the field by and my friends used to play baseball on. It was the most amazing thing I had ever seen to that point in my life
Did Fairchild accidentally make Thunderbird 2 in real life before Thunderbird 2 was imagined!! What an amazing aircraft, there are so many ways a design like this could be useful. Unless there's more to the story, it sounds like it wasn't far away from being highly viable. This is definitely a What-If, Missed Opportunity aircraft.
Miles released a much smaller aircraft with a detachable pod in 1947. There were a number of designs in Germany prior to and during WW2. It was a concept that was very much 'in the air' at the time, you might say.
did the thought of "the creation of Thunderbird 2 plane was based from Fairchild XC-120" ever come to mind ?? . something that we build today is based from the past experiences and knowledge ....
Thanks for this video. I had never heard of this aircraft. As a child I had a toy model of the C-119 with clamshell doors and a tiny jeep and truck for cargo. It is still my all-time favorite cargo plane.
I have seen modern versions of these types of planes where they can land and have a train drive inbetween the gear and load full containers to the bottom of the plane including passenger cars. This way you can get a train to the airport and then fly without having to leave your seat.
Except maritime containers, as carried by the railways, are heavier than those needed for aircraft and have the aerodynamics of a brick. OK, if we use aerodynamic pods we'll end up wasting space on the train. Plus you'd need to straddle vehicles that stand over a 1m tall at their highest points (based on UK container wagons) design to carry standard 40' maritime containers. You can do this for freight but not for passengers due to crash worthiness standards.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Plus, there's usually way more room on a train so you can't pack passengers in like they do an airplane which means much less profit for the flight which means expensive tickets.
1:42 Within the transition from metal-based to carbon-based technologies and the resulting double increment of strength and lightness - it would be good to see this design principle taken further for commercial trans-ocean haulage. A modular (extendable/reducible) wing-frame with carbon container pods shaped to contribute to the aero-dynamic requirements of an ekranoplan-based design and which would be detachable for onward land-based haulage seems worth investigating. Deconstruction of the economy of container shipping and reconstructing as carbon vessels using ground effect to avoid the vast expense of fuel in overcoming hull drag would be the conversation. Accurate weather-forecasting and out-run speeds would be an essential consideration as would retrieval strategies if ever needing to ditch.
This wasn’t the only aircraft to use the external pod idea. The Sikorsky CH54 Tarhe, flying crane also had a suspended “office building slung under it. More versatile, as you only need a landing zone the size of the bird.
Went flying in the C-119, I think around 1957-8, with a bunch of other CAP cadets. Orientation/indoctrination to the USAF. It was called Wold Chamberlain Field back then (MSP). Of course I joined the Air Force in '62😁 and was QCI on the F-16 in 1980. We do build some really great flying machines.
When I was growing up there were dozens of C 119's at Teterboro Airport being dismantled and carted away. A few blocks away from the Bendix Corp and the Bendix Diner. Great memories.
France did build a similar aircraft, but smaller: the Nord 2501 Noratlas, with 2 14cyl SNECMA Bristol Hercules engines (sleeve valves, 2040hp), entered in service in 1953 and retired in 1986, was also used from Germany , Israël and many other countries...
What a great idea. They could do this for cargo and for passenger craft. In the event of an emergency, the pod could detach and parachute to the ground. Load passengers near the terminal and drive it like a bus to the plane and attach.
As a kid I loved the detachable pod concept of the Eagle Transporters from Space: 1999 and the modular Sikorsky Skycranes. I wonder if the XC-120 or the Skycrane influenced the designers of the Eagles?
This would be cool for civilian airlines. Land, drop off pod near runway, vehicles take you to your "gate", pick up loaded pod, etc. Airports could be smaller and handle more passengers. Missed opportunity.
This concept would be perfect today. You have a battery pack built into the bottom of the pod, electric motors use this power to fly to the destination, you arrive swop out your pod/battery pack for a fresh one, and then fly to your next destination.
This is very similar to the Sikorsky SkyCrane helicopter, that could carry pods. It's was a great concept, and I think it still is, as it can set down a "small building" onto any terrain to do whatever mission is required.
I have marketing artwork for this project showing a freight depot in operation. It was in the boxes that came home when Fairchild abandoned the commercial aviation market around 1973. That was a dark time at our house. From Fairchildren to orphans, just like that. Ed Uhl would fly over our house on his way to the Germantown MD HQ in the STOL Porter every morning back then. In the summer that thing was my alarm clock. Later my wife and I lived at the Showalter mansion across from the plant. We got to witness the initial check out of the first production A-10s from about 300’.
Former Boeing Everett... as an aviation buff, I never heard or saw this concept. It is actually very brilliant. Pods could be pre-configured depending on actual mission; hospital, cargo, rescue, recon, troop mover, etc. It had a 30,000 pound payload limit, which wasn't too bad for time period. They could put 30,000 pounds of TNT in it and make quite the MOAB lasting impression on the enemy. Today with modern aviation, much larger and capable pods and carriers could be built. The bulkhead between plane and cargo in original version looks to be flat. Pressurized fuselage might dictate different design, but concept is valid. Maybe Boeing can make a special 747 flying boxcar with detachable cargo pod. My friends in Everett would love a new 747 project and so would I.
Thanks for video. The XC-120 was a good concept. The same idea as a shipping/truck container but for the sky? However, my first thought was, "how will it fly without the pack attached?" It basically becomes a different aircraft when you remove most of the fuselage.
Henry J Kaiser purchased the Willow Run plant that Ford built to construct the B-24 Liberator during WWII. In addition to building Kaiser and Frazer cars, Kaiser-Frazer constructed the Flying Boxcar there. Kaiser complained that the USAF was constantly demanding design changes which were passed on to Kaiser-Frazer without being completely engineered by Fairchild.
What a great idea!!! An aerodynamic version of the con-x box's seen on trucks, trains and on flat ground for storage space... What makes this design so valuable is the quickly loaded and unloaded feature... And a ready made storage spot for mobilised workshops... It's hard to believe that the government actually scrapped programs like this... It would have enabled quick ultra-modern arrivals and departures of these containers, from any suitable air strip... Reduced dead-heading on return trips means that these planes could quickly generate fares in both directions of trips.... Very efficient...
based on another comment, it seems like the aeronautics were ok, but ground handling was difficult on dirt and impossible on mud . Could have been a commercial success(?) but impractical for the military
My Uncle Ray served in the 1st Marines under then Col. Chesty Puller in the Frozen Chosin! So cool to see that the flying boxcar may have personally aided him and his fellow Marines during the Korean War.
I worked in Alaska in the early 1980's and had the opportunity to fly in the C-82 Boxcar a few times. It was a great bush cargo plane. It had a chain drive landing gear extension mechanism that tended to fail. I remember they had to reskin the belly once. Carried about 20,000 pounds of cargo, anything from lumber to trucks to small bulldozers.
I remember the old Boxcars flying around when I was a kid in the early sixties. I think their was an airbase close to West Chicago where I lived. I thought they were so cool ! You'd see them flying around low and slow and could get a good look at them.
My dad wore that ATC patch almost every day from when he retired in '61 'til he passed in '06. Thanks for the memories. (Don't think officers/he could wear one unless he has piloting ?)
After all the time involved boarding , and exiting an Aircraft , I suggested to my Buddy that '' they should have a removable Fuselage , that could already be loaded '' ... I never new this had existed .
my pops was a flight engineer on c119 out of Everett AFB . then in Vietnam he got reassigned to a stinger. he said they were pretty vulnerable and took a lot of small arms fire.
My uncle, whom I never met, was killed piloting a dead stick C-119 at Fort Bragg, NC, in 1954. According to eyewitness accounts, he managed to maneuver his disabled aircraft away from occupied buildings before losing control and crash landing into an empty parade field . The aircraft then skidded into a mess hall and exploded. My uncle initially survived the crash, but he succumbed to his injuries a couple of days later. All but one of the remaining crew and passengers survived. Five soldiers in the mess hall were killed in the post-crash fire. I can't confirm this by accessible official records, but according to family lore my uncle was posthumously awarded the Air Medal for his heroic action to minimize loss of life to his crew and on the ground. I've held the medal, so it seems real enough.
I was stationed at Rosie Rhodes in Puerto Rico when the C-119s were withdrawn from service. All the planes from the Caribbean flew into the NAS at Roosevelt Rhodes Naval Station, for hour after hour, finely lining every runway and taxi way, there must have been hundreds of them. It was an awesome sight! It took several weeks for them to all leave and I have no idea where they went.
@@A6Legit . . . . not by good students turned Engineers . . . . . many of us know the value of history in EVERY field. Success can only come from not repeating missteps, and in some cases not returning down certain roads at all.
@@gilzor9376 Some of these old planes arent that far off from the shit we have today which blows my mind. 100 years later and its basically the same stuff, just different propulsion and materials
Looks like something you'd see in Starwars. I could see a version of this (sans wings and propellers) being used by a nomadic bounty hunter. His living quarters in the modified container, point defense laser cannons mounted on the top and bottom, and a turbo laser MacGyvered on the front.
Makes sense. Just like containerisation for civilian shipping, containerisation for airborne transport, with potentially different modules to be slung underneath.
I've always liked the C-119 since I watched both versions of "Flight of the Phoenix" and I quite like the look of the modular XC-120 Packplane variant.
I am working in aviation so I have some insight into the problems that civilian airlines face day by day in the post-covid era. Ground and in-flight crew shortage, strict slot time regulations, not to mention the drastic increase in fuel prices. An airplane like this could help with many of those problems nowadays. Any budget airline would kill for an opportunity just to land detach the passenger compartment reattach another one and take right off again. This could radically reduce ground time and the applications are nearly limitless! This is a good idea! Why don't we doing this?
I'm no expert but I must say I was surprised by this design. The possibilities of the modular cargo pods are endless. I could see while unloaded the flight characteristics would drastically change but that was in the mid-fifties. With fly by wire avionics the aviation industry can make a rock fly quite well.
I think it's a great idea. Bus carrier. People get into the bus in the city while the plane waits for it on a runway and then it transports people between cities.
In the summer of 1966, while I was on leave after completing my “A” school at NAS Memphis and prior to reporting to my duty station at Marine Corps Air Station ElToro, the airlines went on a nationwide strike. I had to report to McGuire AFB and flew out to California in a C-119 Boxcar. If memory serves correctly, it took us 22 hours with four stops to fly cross country.
In the mid to late 1980's there were several C-119's on contract with state and federal agencies being used for fire fighting. I worked as a Mixer-Loader at the time. I believe they held 1200 Gal. of retardant. They had a single "cam lock" loading port located at the rear of the fuselage. We had to bring the 3" loading hose under the tail section to load the aircraft. Because of this we had to add an extra section of load hose and load them at the far end of the loading ramp.
I dragged hose for a short time at Ramona, CA, and made friends with Denny Connor. He piloted a C-119, and gave me a tour of the plane. He had fashioned a small bedroom/galley area into the front of the cargo bay and could park his jeep inside the plane. He got other crews to take me on rides of their aircraft that were also deployed there (from Hemet), a B-17, a PB-4y (B-24), and something else I don't remember. For some reason, I never flew on his plane. The whole gang was redeployed to a fire near Morongo, and I never saw Denny again...his right wing detached on a drop, and he and his copilot were killed in the crash.
@@bisbonian1183 So sad...There was a DC7 co-pilot named Chuck Sheridan(Don Ornbaum was the chief pilot) that flew a USFS contract out of Fresno in 1986. The following fire season he was chief pilot in a DC7. Lost his life in the high Sierra. Had an S2 pilot lose his life a couple of fire seasons later....tough way to make a living
What a bummer! I was M.A., 422X1 "Mostly Anything," and worked on all the cargo format aircraft fr C-47 to C-5 and yet never had the pleasure of the 'Dollar 19!' I recall IL Air Guard or AFReserve dropping cages of raccoons to combat the weasel problem we had in 1954-55 fr the Box Cars above Grundy Cnty and they were a real treat. Thanks for a great video!
The US government stopped developing and producing this type of aircraft, but Jeff Tracy of International Rescue took and continued to build on it. I also believe Straker of SHADO used a similar transport for some time.
I am an Army Brat, a dependent, all grown up, of the post-WWII US Occupation of Germany, and I saw some similar aircraft during the Berlin Blockade. I was very impressed by a line of that aircraft, arriving from somewhere west of me. Sorry, I cannot swear to which plane it was, I am inclined to think it was the C119, but I might be mistaken and that was ca. 1950. Your video is very wondrous, so thanks.
The improvements in the ability to successfully complete low-level air drops completely eliminated the need to have a separable cargo container. Offloading without ever landing is much faster than landing and detaching a cargo container.
The C-130 rigged for LAPES can deliver a lot of different mission specific cargoes to ground forces - pallets of ammo, vehicles, and even the M551 "Sheridan" AR/AAV light tank.
based on another comment, it seems like the aeronautics were ok, but ground handling was difficult on dirt and impossible on mud . Containers, although not quite as fast, are more practical.
As a former military combat pilot, I really look forward to your videos. Even after 22 years in aviation I am still learning a lot from your channel.
Just don’t look at the pictures, right?
Real life Thunderbird 2. Love it
Was thinking the same thing
Me too!
Me three
I hate it when people steal the perfect comment from my brain.
Beat me to it..
The modular pod idea hasn't been fully abandoned. Just tweeked. Instead of the pod being exterior, uniform containers are loaded and delivered. It's not 'as fast' as detaching a pod from the aircraft, but it maintains aerodynamics and flight stability as the only thing that changes about the plane is its weight.
Good point
I think the uniform container idea got real traction with commercial air cargo--look at what the likes of FedEx and UPS has done. And regular commercial airliners started to standardize on the LD3 container (most modern jet airliners use LD3's now).
Also the fact you can load new cargo on the return flight in a fixed fuselage loading area.
@Allen Watson that’s very true, but it’s still a shame the idea didn’t take off at least for civilian purposes. With technological advances automatic handling issues, portable field hospitals or kitchens could be a great niche design for disaster relief.
Like you said, standardizing the cargo and cargo bays was a simpler process for 99%+ of uses.
And with LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System), palletized cargo can be delivered out of a C-130 very quickly, without the aircraft even touching the ground .
Definitely brilliant. Also about the same time people decided that cargo ship should go in the direction of containerization.
I agree it seems brilliant... but it never caught on. There must be a reason for that.
@@pkz420 the flight control issues when unloaded. Why bother developing complex and expensive flight control software when you can have a simple tubular fuselage that can take lightweight containers built for aircraft. Just pull up your truck and roll them off the aircraft reducing unloading times compared to removing the pod and then unloading it. Also there are less things to go wrong. Damage any if the attachment points and the system fails, damage an anchoring point in side the fuselage then just use the one next to it (the fuselage anchoring points will be duplicated along the fuselage every few inches to maximise utility.
While watching, my thoughts went right down that corridor as well. Good point.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 from a civilian point of view sure but from a military point of view they could fly in 3 or 4 of those cargo pods, pre packed and set up as barracks for a FOB or base camp, another as a command post, a third is a hospital etc. In the time it takes to build, set up, and stock those in the traditional sense these can be dropped, set up and be running even quicker.
In disaster relief they can prioritize pods. Drop a field hospital and blood bank then drop off say a water and food distribution point, a mobile auto shop to help locals fix needed vehicles and get their infra structure repaired. And as pods are no loger needed the clean up is simple and leaves a smaller footprint than we do now.
@@JosephDawson1986 which they do using C-130s using trailers with wheels already in place for FOBs, or fly in containerised based modules in to such locations using a heavy lift helicopter such as the CH-47, as they have find for decades.
My father was in the 101st Air in the latte '50's and spoke lovingly of his many Boxcar jumps. I thought I knew quite a bit about the 119's but this blew my mind. A "Skycrane" with wings!!
My dad was airborne infantry in Europe WW2... went up in C47's & 119's 22 times, but never landed in an airplane until 1972.
The S64 Skycrane, does have wings!
@@johnnunn8688 it does not have wings, it has a rotor which is similar to a giant propeller not a wing
@@jamesberry3230, best you get yourself schooled, as it is a rotary winged aircraft, nothing like a propellor.
I love these videos. It's fascinating to see all of the strange aircraft that have been tried over the years. Thanks for all the cool stuff.
Amen to that...
The XC-120 was a pretty ingenious idea. If the cargo hold is detachable, then when it isn't carrying cargo it can leave behind not only the dead weight of the pod, but also it's aerodynamic drag as well, and you can just load a pod with whatever you need and snap it in. It also foresaged the eventual almost universal containerization of freight by ships, trains, trucks, and eventually even aircraft through ISO containers.
but do you create more drag due to the squared off end instead of an aerodynamic end?
What a brilliant cargo concept.
The plane equivalent of the Sikorsky S64 Skycrane.
Was thinking the same thing
And given a practical trial in Vietnam, the Army abandoned the pod idea and just used the Tarhe as a skycrane
@@colbeausabre8842 Mississippi National Guard used the pods, I saw sky cranes flying ppl around in the 80s
The S64 IS a ‘plane’. (Aircraft)
@@johnnunn8688 not really the S64 is a helicopter which is not a plane , although both are aircraft; its like calling an armored car a tank, both are armored Vehicles but one is wheeled and the other tracked, makes a difference
The C-119 Is one of my favorite aircraft. I wish more were left today.
Me as well, very cool airplane! I was lucky enough to get to crawl all over them when I was kid, and my father flew them.
@@scottminshall6420 very jealous lol. It's too bad only something like 15 are left in the world in every condition I believe.
@@UpToSpeedOnJaguar I’d never heard of them until about a week ago. Went to the hill afb museum mostly to see the B1, saw their c119 and went wth is that? Thought it looked really neat.
Such a beautiful, innovative and straightforward concept of an aircraft.
That aircraft would have found many uses of today's application like that autonomous hospital in case of tornado or earthquake aftermath.
The C-119/C-120 is not a rough field assault transport. Which is vital, because in natural disasters, airports are almost guaranteed to be among the first thing to go
The C-119 is one of my favorite aircraft. I never understood why they never tried, or made a twin boom C-130 which, in my mind, would be awesome. Maybe it's just less expensive to make a single tail aircraft over a twin boom?
Yup. While a twin-boom C-130 would look neat, what would be the practical advantage that justifies the added cost?
@@horusfalcon if one tail falls off you still got another one
@@hunterbear2421 uneven drag
Aerodynamics concerns. Flutter, shock wave at high speed etc.
@@hunterbear2421 If a tail falls off, you aren't flying much longer
An amazing concept! Sikorsky Helicopter CH-54 “Flying Crane” also used the concept of a multi-purpose detachable pod.
I will never forget when I first saw a flying boxcar. I was about seven years old and it flew over the field by and my friends used to play baseball on. It was the most amazing thing I had ever seen to that point in my life
Did Fairchild accidentally make Thunderbird 2 in real life before Thunderbird 2 was imagined!! What an amazing aircraft, there are so many ways a design like this could be useful. Unless there's more to the story, it sounds like it wasn't far away from being highly viable. This is definitely a What-If, Missed Opportunity aircraft.
Miles released a much smaller aircraft with a detachable pod in 1947. There were a number of designs in Germany prior to and during WW2. It was a concept that was very much 'in the air' at the time, you might say.
did the thought of "the creation of Thunderbird 2 plane was based from Fairchild XC-120" ever come to mind ?? . something that we build today is based from the past experiences and knowledge ....
Brilliant idea. I'd never even heard of this aircraft.
Thanks for this video. I had never heard of this aircraft. As a child I had a toy model of the C-119 with clamshell doors and a tiny jeep and truck for cargo. It is still my all-time favorite cargo plane.
You had the C82, the Packet I believe and the 119 Flying Boxcar, iconic planes.
This was a cool idea I’m surprised they don’t have something like this now
Except today they'd have to call it Mrs. Pac Man... (( wa ka~wa ka ((
What advantage would it have over pallets and ICAO containers designed to be carried by aircraft, ships, trains and trucks?
The C-119 is one of the coolest planes ever
I have seen modern versions of these types of planes where they can land and have a train drive inbetween the gear and load full containers to the bottom of the plane including passenger cars. This way you can get a train to the airport and then fly without having to leave your seat.
Except maritime containers, as carried by the railways, are heavier than those needed for aircraft and have the aerodynamics of a brick. OK, if we use aerodynamic pods we'll end up wasting space on the train. Plus you'd need to straddle vehicles that stand over a 1m tall at their highest points (based on UK container wagons) design to carry standard 40' maritime containers. You can do this for freight but not for passengers due to crash worthiness standards.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Plus, there's usually way more room on a train so you can't pack passengers in like they do an airplane which means much less profit for the flight which means expensive tickets.
Why have I never heard of this amazing plane before. Thank you as always!!
Of course it worked.
It worked in a magnificent manner.
So naturally, it was discontinued and scrapped.
C-119s are my fav blast. Jumped 130s, 141s, A-7s, Hueys, Chinooks, C47s and skydived just about everything else up to todays modern sport aircraft.
1:42
Within the transition from metal-based to carbon-based technologies and the resulting double increment of strength and lightness - it would be good to see this design principle taken further for commercial trans-ocean haulage. A modular (extendable/reducible) wing-frame with carbon container pods shaped to contribute to the aero-dynamic requirements of an ekranoplan-based design and which would be detachable for onward land-based haulage seems worth investigating. Deconstruction of the economy of container shipping and reconstructing as carbon vessels using ground effect to avoid the vast expense of fuel in overcoming hull drag would be the conversation. Accurate weather-forecasting and out-run speeds would be an essential consideration as would retrieval strategies if ever needing to ditch.
What a Wonderful Aircraft
This wasn’t the only aircraft to use the external pod idea. The Sikorsky CH54 Tarhe, flying crane also had a suspended “office building slung under it. More versatile, as you only need a landing zone the size of the bird.
Went flying in the C-119, I think around 1957-8, with a bunch of other CAP cadets. Orientation/indoctrination to the USAF. It was called Wold Chamberlain Field back then (MSP). Of course I joined the Air Force in '62😁 and was QCI on the F-16 in 1980. We do build some really great flying machines.
When I was growing up there were dozens of C 119's at Teterboro Airport being dismantled and carted away. A few blocks away from the Bendix Corp and the Bendix Diner. Great memories.
That's one cool airplane . A detachable cargo box. The need use of a modern version would revolutionize air cargo.
I actually designed a C117 like this when I was in high-school. Awesome to see that they thought of this in the 50s. Thanks for sharing.
This channel is the closest thing to the old Wings program that was on the Discovery Channel back in the 1990s! Amazing work by you and your team!
France did build a similar aircraft, but smaller: the Nord 2501 Noratlas, with 2 14cyl SNECMA Bristol Hercules engines (sleeve valves, 2040hp), entered in service in 1953 and retired in 1986, was also used from Germany , Israël and many other countries...
What a great idea. They could do this for cargo and for passenger craft. In the event of an emergency, the pod could detach and parachute to the ground. Load passengers near the terminal and drive it like a bus to the plane and attach.
As a kid I loved the detachable pod concept of the Eagle Transporters from Space: 1999 and the modular Sikorsky Skycranes. I wonder if the XC-120 or the Skycrane influenced the designers of the Eagles?
Ah yes, the Boxcar. The first airplane I can remember seeing as a child in the sky, thinking how cool it looked (1950s).
Surprising that the concept hasn’t been taken up and fleshed out and modernized.
To a point it has. The skycrane has been incredibly useful in various civilian industries, plus it's multitude of usefulness in the military.
@@tacomundo imagine what fleets of these things could do for a country’s supply chain, drop one container pick up another refuel and go again.
Although a bit off topic, wasn't one of the proposals for the Airlander airships to be configured such that it could carry a shipping container?
This would be cool for civilian airlines. Land, drop off pod near runway, vehicles take you to your "gate", pick up loaded pod, etc. Airports could be smaller and handle more passengers. Missed opportunity.
This is actually surprisingly brilliant
This is brilliant. The pods would be even bigger today. It’s got to be an aerodynamic problem without pod
This concept would be perfect today. You have a battery pack built into the bottom of the pod, electric motors use this power to fly to the destination, you arrive swop out your pod/battery pack for a fresh one, and then fly to your next destination.
This is very similar to the Sikorsky SkyCrane helicopter, that could carry pods. It's was a great concept, and I think it still is, as it can set down a "small building" onto any terrain to do whatever mission is required.
Yes this still exists and is still made.
The pods …get outfitted..with an EV vehicle… tractor trailer ..for ground mobility….
I have marketing artwork for this project showing a freight depot in operation. It was in the boxes that came home when Fairchild abandoned the commercial aviation market around 1973. That was a dark time at our house. From Fairchildren to orphans, just like that. Ed Uhl would fly over our house on his way to the Germantown MD HQ in the STOL Porter every morning back then. In the summer that thing was my alarm clock. Later my wife and I lived at the Showalter mansion across from the plant. We got to witness the initial check out of the first production A-10s from about 300’.
The 119 was a wonderful site in the sky's of my childhood.
Best to you Scott🏁
that's a really neat design. makes me think of that sky crane helicopter.
Wow, now we know where they got the idea for, Thunderbird 2.
Former Boeing Everett... as an aviation buff, I never heard or saw this concept. It is actually very brilliant. Pods could be pre-configured depending on actual mission; hospital, cargo, rescue, recon, troop mover, etc. It had a 30,000 pound payload limit, which wasn't too bad for time period. They could put 30,000 pounds of TNT in it and make quite the MOAB lasting impression on the enemy.
Today with modern aviation, much larger and capable pods and carriers could be built. The bulkhead between plane and cargo in original version looks to be flat. Pressurized fuselage might dictate different design, but concept is valid. Maybe Boeing can make a special 747 flying boxcar with detachable cargo pod. My friends in Everett would love a new 747 project and so would I.
Fascinating concept plane. Seems like it deserved more than the cursory look.
I never knew a plane like that ever existed. Thanks for the history lesson👍👍
We'd probably never see it other than on a controlled military base or overseas.
Pack plane makes complete sense , very logical choice . Thanks for the info
What a brilliant idea!! Thunderbird 2!! Obviously!! 🙂
Thanks for video. The XC-120 was a good concept. The same idea as a shipping/truck container but for the sky? However, my first thought was, "how will it fly without the pack attached?" It basically becomes a different aircraft when you remove most of the fuselage.
Henry J Kaiser purchased the Willow Run plant that Ford built to construct the B-24 Liberator during WWII. In addition to building Kaiser and Frazer cars, Kaiser-Frazer constructed the Flying Boxcar there. Kaiser complained that the USAF was constantly demanding design changes which were passed on to Kaiser-Frazer without being completely engineered by Fairchild.
What a great idea!!! An aerodynamic version of the con-x box's seen on trucks, trains and on flat ground for storage space... What makes this design so valuable is the quickly loaded and unloaded feature... And a ready made storage spot for mobilised workshops... It's hard to believe that the government actually scrapped programs like this... It would have enabled quick ultra-modern arrivals and departures of these containers, from any suitable air strip... Reduced dead-heading on return trips means that these planes could quickly generate fares in both directions of trips.... Very efficient...
based on another comment, it seems like the aeronautics were ok, but ground handling was difficult on dirt and impossible on mud
. Could have been a commercial success(?) but impractical for the military
That's actually a pretty cool concept.
Thank you for this video. I love airplanes and hold an A&P license, but I've never heard of this plane, a little bit mind-blown.....
My Uncle Ray served in the 1st Marines under then Col. Chesty Puller in the Frozen Chosin! So cool to see that the flying boxcar may have personally aided him and his fellow Marines during the Korean War.
Great idea for an aircraft to study. Very interesting
I worked in Alaska in the early 1980's and had the opportunity to fly in the C-82 Boxcar a few times. It was a great bush cargo plane. It had a chain drive landing gear extension mechanism that tended to fail. I remember they had to reskin the belly once. Carried about 20,000 pounds of cargo, anything from lumber to trucks to small bulldozers.
I remember the old Boxcars flying around when I was a kid in the early sixties. I think their was an airbase close to West Chicago where I lived. I thought they were so cool ! You'd see them flying around low and slow and could get a good look at them.
My dad wore that ATC patch almost every day from when he retired in '61 'til he passed in '06. Thanks for the memories. (Don't think officers/he could wear one unless he has piloting ?)
❤thank you for uploading this video tape, my father used to work on Tainan Taiwan airbase, it was part of USAF back in 1955.❤
After all the time involved boarding , and exiting an Aircraft , I suggested to my Buddy that '' they should have a removable Fuselage , that could already be loaded '' ... I never new this had existed .
my pops was a flight engineer on c119 out of Everett AFB . then in Vietnam he got reassigned to a stinger. he said they were pretty vulnerable and took a lot of small arms fire.
My uncle, whom I never met, was killed piloting a dead stick C-119 at Fort Bragg, NC, in 1954. According to eyewitness accounts, he managed to maneuver his disabled aircraft away from occupied buildings before losing control and crash landing into an empty parade field . The aircraft then skidded into a mess hall and exploded. My uncle initially survived the crash, but he succumbed to his injuries a couple of days later. All but one of the remaining crew and passengers survived. Five soldiers in the mess hall were killed in the post-crash fire. I can't confirm this by accessible official records, but according to family lore my uncle was posthumously awarded the Air Medal for his heroic action to minimize loss of life to his crew and on the ground. I've held the medal, so it seems real enough.
I was stationed at Rosie Rhodes in Puerto Rico when the C-119s were withdrawn from service. All the planes from the Caribbean flew into the NAS at Roosevelt Rhodes Naval Station, for hour after hour, finely lining every runway and taxi way, there must have been hundreds of them. It was an awesome sight! It took several weeks for them to all leave and I have no idea where they went.
Looks an amazing plane and idea.I've never heard of this plane before either.
These are always my favorite dark skies videos! I love seeing all the weird and unique planes that history has largely forgotten.
So much R&D that seems forgotten
@@A6Legit . . . . not by good students turned Engineers . . . . . many of us know the value of history in EVERY field. Success can only come from not repeating missteps, and in some cases not returning down certain roads at all.
@@gilzor9376 agreed! People think history is boring but forget what the real purpose is.
@@gilzor9376 Some of these old planes arent that far off from the shit we have today which blows my mind. 100 years later and its basically the same stuff, just different propulsion and materials
@@A6Legit (I just saw this) I agree, it is amazing what some had achieved without today's technology in manufacturing.
That's BRILLIANT !
I remember this aircraft being the star of the film ‘Flight of the Phoenix’, one of my favourite films ever.
Looks like something you'd see in Starwars. I could see a version of this (sans wings and propellers) being used by a nomadic bounty hunter. His living quarters in the modified container, point defense laser cannons mounted on the top and bottom, and a turbo laser MacGyvered on the front.
You need treatment 🤷♂️.
Makes sense. Just like containerisation for civilian shipping, containerisation for airborne transport, with potentially different modules to be slung underneath.
Lockheed Constellation developed a “Speed Pack” which was attached to bottom of fuselage. It was used to increase general cargo capacity.
I had this idea as a kid, wow so happy to see it actually was built lol
Among other planes, my Dad flew a C-119. He always called it _a dollar nineteen._
It was unique enough to warrant saving!
I've always liked the C-119 since I watched both versions of "Flight of the Phoenix" and I quite like the look of the modular XC-120 Packplane variant.
The C 82 was used for the movie.
Good movie both of them.
That’s really interesting, thanks for the video !!
I am working in aviation so I have some insight into the problems that civilian airlines face day by day in the post-covid era. Ground and in-flight crew shortage, strict slot time regulations, not to mention the drastic increase in fuel prices. An airplane like this could help with many of those problems nowadays. Any budget airline would kill for an opportunity just to land detach the passenger compartment reattach another one and take right off again. This could radically reduce ground time and the applications are nearly limitless! This is a good idea! Why don't we doing this?
I'm no expert but I must say I was surprised by this design. The possibilities of the modular cargo pods are endless. I could see while unloaded the flight characteristics would drastically change but that was in the mid-fifties. With fly by wire avionics the aviation industry can make a rock fly quite well.
I think it's a great idea.
Bus carrier.
People get into the bus in the city while the plane waits for it on a runway and then it transports people between cities.
In the summer of 1966, while I was on leave after completing my “A” school at NAS Memphis and prior to reporting to my duty station at Marine Corps Air Station ElToro, the airlines went on a nationwide strike. I had to report to McGuire AFB and flew out to California in a C-119 Boxcar. If memory serves correctly, it took us 22 hours with four stops to fly cross country.
I bloody love this thing, never knew about it. Thanks for the video.
Amazing plane and a fantastic idea. Perhaps, to my mind, the inspiration for Thunderbird 2 in the TV show, which showcased the idea brilliantly.
In the mid to late 1980's there were several C-119's on contract with state and federal agencies being used for fire fighting. I worked as a Mixer-Loader at the time. I believe they held 1200 Gal. of retardant. They had a single "cam lock" loading port located at the rear of the fuselage. We had to bring the 3" loading hose under the tail section to load the aircraft. Because of this we had to add an extra section of load hose and load them at the far end of the loading ramp.
I dragged hose for a short time at Ramona, CA, and made friends with Denny Connor. He piloted a C-119, and gave me a tour of the plane. He had fashioned a small bedroom/galley area into the front of the cargo bay and could park his jeep inside the plane. He got other crews to take me on rides of their aircraft that were also deployed there (from Hemet), a B-17, a PB-4y (B-24), and something else I don't remember. For some reason, I never flew on his plane. The whole gang was redeployed to a fire near Morongo, and I never saw Denny again...his right wing detached on a drop, and he and his copilot were killed in the crash.
@@bisbonian1183 So sad...There was a DC7 co-pilot named Chuck Sheridan(Don Ornbaum was the chief pilot) that flew a USFS contract out of Fresno in 1986. The following fire season he was chief pilot in a DC7. Lost his life in the high Sierra. Had an S2 pilot lose his life a couple of fire seasons later....tough way to make a living
This is a brilliant piece of engineering. this could be used today it just needs updating and the application of modern technology and materials.
Ingenious! Thanks a lot.
What a bummer! I was M.A.,
422X1 "Mostly Anything," and worked on all the cargo format aircraft fr C-47 to C-5
and yet never had the pleasure of the 'Dollar 19!'
I recall IL Air Guard or AFReserve dropping cages of raccoons to combat the weasel problem we had in 1954-55 fr the Box Cars above Grundy Cnty and they were a real treat. Thanks for a great video!
Glad to see I'm not the only one that saw Thunderbird 2 here!
We developed the 463L system. It's primary purpose was to standardize loading and unloading cargo across multiple airframes.
As a kid in the mid 60's I had seen many flying boxcars flying in and out of Willow Run airport at Ypsilanti Michigan.
Great video as always
What a Fantastic idea! I was aware of the 'Boxcar' but had never seen this!
Another Eye opener from the Dark series!
This is a really clever idea, that I think could still be used today.
The versatility, especially for that time was pretty impressive.
The US government stopped developing and producing this type of aircraft, but Jeff Tracy of International Rescue took and continued to build on it. I also believe Straker of SHADO used a similar transport for some time.
I am an Army Brat, a dependent, all grown up, of the post-WWII US Occupation of Germany, and I saw some similar aircraft during the Berlin Blockade. I was very impressed by a line of that aircraft, arriving from somewhere west of me. Sorry, I cannot swear to which plane it was, I am inclined to think it was the C119, but I might be mistaken and that was ca. 1950. Your video is very wondrous, so thanks.
The improvements in the ability to successfully complete low-level air drops completely eliminated the need to have a separable cargo container. Offloading without ever landing is much faster than landing and detaching a cargo container.
The C-130 rigged for LAPES can deliver a lot of different mission specific cargoes to ground forces - pallets of ammo, vehicles, and even the M551 "Sheridan" AR/AAV light tank.
Yes, a great concept and much faster than in-plane cargo containers. Amazing that someone hasn't cracked this engineering "nut" to this day.
based on another comment, it seems like the aeronautics were ok, but ground handling was difficult on dirt and impossible on mud
. Containers, although not quite as fast, are more practical.