Fairchild XC-120 Packplane
- Thread starter sunny91
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
<simon>
Airman 1st Class
A truely bizarre aircraft, good video!
syscom3
Pacific Historian
This was a brilliant concept for its era.
Good find!
Good find!
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Aaron Brooks Wolters
Brigadier General
Very cool guys. Great video Sunny and I've always liked the S-64 Matt. I use to see them on a regular basis where I grew up.
Thanks Sunny!
First read about the XC-120 in the "Golden Book of Airplane Stamps" (1954)...
Somewhat similar but less efficient(?) was the "Speedpak". Designed to be raised and lowered from the bellies of Constellations by cables/winches, it could carry 8,300lbs of cargo and reduced the planes speed by only 12mph. Ground handling was accomplished by semi-recessed wheels mounted at both ends....
First read about the XC-120 in the "Golden Book of Airplane Stamps" (1954)...
Somewhat similar but less efficient(?) was the "Speedpak". Designed to be raised and lowered from the bellies of Constellations by cables/winches, it could carry 8,300lbs of cargo and reduced the planes speed by only 12mph. Ground handling was accomplished by semi-recessed wheels mounted at both ends....
Flyboy2
Senior Airman
So why didn't the military ever use the XC-120?
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Likely, the logistical need for a detaching pod from an airplane did not fit the operation. A "roll on, roll off" cargo plane was cheaper to produce. And the number of operations where an XC-120 would need to disgorge its cargo and deadhead back to its next pickup without an attached container were far and few between.
Cargo planes maximize their efficiency when... (wait for it)... hauling cargo! So designing a plane that carried an aerodynamically shaped cargo carrier that had to be detached and attached was just not efficient.
Just take a look at some of the follow on aircraft that were developed and you can see that in play.
Cargo planes maximize their efficiency when... (wait for it)... hauling cargo! So designing a plane that carried an aerodynamically shaped cargo carrier that had to be detached and attached was just not efficient.
Just take a look at some of the follow on aircraft that were developed and you can see that in play.
Attachments
Hi FB2.
Matt summed up its demise well. All I can add is that one source I have states that "The concept was workable but not effective, for the additional structure weight seriously degraded the payload"
A British equivalent, but a lot smaller, would be the Miles M68 which could shed its 'torso' and be removed as a trailer...
Miles M.68 Boxcar - transport
Attachments
Flyboy2
Senior Airman
Oh alright thanks. Makes sense to just have a dedicated cargo carrier that always has its cargo area attached
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Good points Matt.
But in some circumstances, it would be an advantage to detach the payload canister. This would remove "dead" weight for the trip back to base, ie; faster return speed, further range.
It could also carry oversize cargo that wouldn't fit in a standard fuselage.
But in some circumstances, it would be an advantage to detach the payload canister. This would remove "dead" weight for the trip back to base, ie; faster return speed, further range.
It could also carry oversize cargo that wouldn't fit in a standard fuselage.
