# Fairchild XC-120 Packplane



## sunny91 (Oct 5, 2008)

Sunny


----------



## <simon> (Oct 5, 2008)

A truely bizarre aircraft, good video!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

This was a brilliant concept for its era.

Good find!


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 5, 2008)

Great concept. Reminds me of the S-64 in use of modular load concept.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Oct 5, 2008)

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.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 5, 2008)

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....


----------



## Flyboy2 (Oct 5, 2008)

So why didn't the military ever use the XC-120?


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 5, 2008)

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.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 6, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> So why didn't the military ever use the XC-120?



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


----------



## Flyboy2 (Oct 6, 2008)

Oh alright thanks. Makes sense to just have a dedicated cargo carrier that always has its cargo area attached


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 7, 2008)

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.


----------

