C-133 Cargomaster - the grandfather of big airlifters
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- The Douglas C-133 Cargomaster is a heavy military cargo aircraft developed by Douglas Aircraft in the mid-1950s. It is the first strategic turboprop airlifted in the US Armed Forces. It was actively used in the transportation of heavy and oversized cargo, including ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles.
The aircraft incorporated many innovations of its time, giving rise to major changes in technology and concepts used in military transport aviation until now. However, a very large amount of innovations led to the risks increase: the C-133 was not sufficiently reliable and safe, which limited its service life. A total of 50 units were produced.
Thank you for watching!
Subscribe to the channel, comment, like!
If you want to support Skyships and our work, welcome to our Patreon. We will create some special content for you there: / skyships
Our Facebook: / skyshipscom
My mother did data reduction for the C-133.
She was hired out of UCLA to do data reduction for Ryan, Douglas, and eventually NASA.
What an honor for you , been the son of a very intelligent woman ..
In the early 1960s it was not unusual to see C-130s coming and going at fighter bases in Germany. When a C-133 dropped into Spangdahlem one day, I was amazed at the overall length of the airplane. I remarked to someone that it looked as if the control tower had flopped over and grown wings. About 20 years later, I saw one in civilian freight service in Anchorage. Too bad its service was so problematic.
That 5 engined B-17 was restored back to ww2 configuration and flew as Liberty Belle. Unfortunately, it caught fire on the ground and the fire crews couldn't get to it-fortunately, it is being rebuilt to fly again!
I thought it was the one that crashed while landing a year ago?
As an additional note, another reason for the high wing layout was it removed the obstruction of the main spar across the cargo bay.
you prolly dont care but does any of you know a trick to log back into an instagram account..?
I was dumb forgot the account password. I would appreciate any assistance you can offer me!
@Hudson Emory Instablaster ;)
@Fabian Allan thanks so much for your reply. I found the site on google and Im trying it out now.
Takes a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Fabian Allan it worked and I now got access to my account again. Im so happy!
Thank you so much you really help me out!
@Hudson Emory no problem :D
Wow, now you finally started making heavy military cargo transport plane videos, great! 😉👍
Will be more soon)
@@SkyshipsEng I can't wait!
I'm curious too. Especialy ones on hypothetical/cancelled programs ✈✈✈
@@SkyshipsEng Heavy flights and soft landings! Thanks for all the great videos😁
@@SkyshipsEng PLEASE. WE NEED THE VIDEOS! IL-76 next please!
C-124--"Old Shakey"
BTW, the 'u' in Guppy and Super Guppy is pronounced 'uh' not 'oo': 'Guh-py', not 'Goo-py'. It's a quirk of English. :)
Pete Sheppard - C-124 had tunnels out to the engines, for in-flight service. I know of no other aircraft that hat that.
@@jameshoffman552 Thanks! I'd never heard this about the C-124. I think some other large aircraft have this, such as some of the old long-range flying boats..
b36 engines can be reached via wings in flight.
@@jameshoffman552 Boeing B 314 flying boat had wing access to the engines in mid 30's.
@@jeffkopher3468 - thanks for replies. C 124 not as unique as I’d thought.
10:25 Atlas missiles seen in the factory.
Fun fact 1: they were made so light they had to be pressurised to prevent them bending in the middle when being transported, and to prevent them collapsing under their own weight when standing on the launch pad.
Fun fact 2: the first four Americans into orbit were launched by Atlases.
I Love the scene from "Strategic Air Command" Where they are loading all that material including a fuel truck and tanker into a C-97"
This is a really overlooked plane.
Very well made documentary!! Years ago I was able to see two of these old cargo beasts sitting in a boneyard in the Mojave desert.. Beautiful planes.
Thank you for this great video and story. My children know this as Grandpa's plane. My dad flew every one of the C-133s and I heard many stories of "out of box" and strategic missions. Personally observed activities at Travis, Dover and other bases in US and outside. Such a majestic plane. #c133 #cargomaster
The wing has always fascinated me, almost a parasol. I know this doesn't have much basis in theory or fact, but it seems like hanging the fuselage from a high wing is more stable.
Tell us your favorite story about this plane. I remember seeing these at WPAF museum. I think the finally put her inside one of the hangars finally?.. Such a unique plane.
@@Woody-nc1ru The C-133 at AF Museum (WPAFB) is parked near a C-130. Makes it easy to see how huge the -133 was in its day. Even larger than the newer C-141.
Roden models makes a 1/144 scale plastic kit of the C-133 complete with a Thor Missile on a trailer for loading!
@@hertzair1186 Thank you. I will look into that.
The last time I was this early the Wright brothers were still jumping off of roofs.
I don't think so. You're a lying dog face pony soldier.
j g r/woooosh
Lawrence McLane 🤣👏
Just not funny. Get original. Google original. 🖕
Left wing had a disturbing tendency to stall before right wing with very little warning.
Vibration stress cracking a systematic problem. An interim platform served as well as it could.
Invaluable to Vietnam operations. A craft with a checkered past of fifty made a few remain in non flying condition.
Long Beach California. Douglas Aircraft.
Some good comments, but many are just B.S. I was stationed at Dover AFB from 1966-1970 and worked on the C-133A. Only 50 were made (35 A & 15 B models), and they did have a checkered history, however statistically it's safety record, when considering flight hours wasn't as bad as many would think. Their ability to carry to carry outsized cargo was not equaled until the C-5 was put into service in 1970. The huge props, constantly had to maintain power settings and were a constant maintance problem. Airframe vibration did cause structural problems resulting a midflight failure over Kansas in Feb 1970. The fleet was grounded. Large "straps" were added around the forward fuselage as a measure and they were retired shortly thereafter. Never was their a consideration for passenger usage, the cargo compartment rarely got to a comfortable temperature, I know, flew on an A model from Dover to Lajes (Azores) not a pleasant ride. 2008 an old Dover bird now is in the Air Force Museum in Dayton OH.
Al Wojtas, FINALLY a comment by somebody who actually knows something about the C-133 and its operational history. I agree with you that the majority of comments on this video are written by people with no idea of the facts, who are just making things up or guessing. Due to the laziness of UA-cam commenters, UA-cam is about the worst place to learn anything true and useful about almost anything. I think YOUR comment is the only one here (besides my own) that addresses the C-133's worst problem, that of sudden and unrecoverable asymmetric wing stall.
I's not often you see a picture of the B-17 engine test bed!
Neat funfact; although (to my knowledge) never tested in practice, the T34 prototype mounted to the B17 theoretically had enough power to lift the plane off the runway all by itself!
Around 5,700shp on the T34, and 1,200hp on each piston engine!
The famous Goopy! To pronounce Guppy, put "up" in the middle of it.
It bears a striking resemblence to an enlarged C-130. Much like the B-50 was a larger version of the B-29 ✈✈✈✈✈
Yeah in fact it seems like a giant C-130. So, the Hercules became much luckier
FWIW: I posted a separate comment under this video about this subject.
I have been to the USAF AMC MUSEUM at Dover AFB, Delaware a couple of times. They have a C-133 there, and on one occasion they opened it up so you could go inside. It is BIG. I was in the US Navy and later the US Coast Guard, and worked on Lockheed C-130s during part of my time in both services. The C-133 is DEFINITELY BIGGER than the C-130.
I would say you could take a Hercules *fuselage* -- with the wing roots and landing gear fairings completely removed -- and I *THINK* it would fit completely inside the fuselage of a C-133.
hello, yes it resembles a oversized c 130 , go and visit it is at Tucson museum of aviation. saludos
@@pavelavietor1 >>> The last -- and up to now only -- time I was in Arizona was in 1988. UNfortunately I do not see myself returning for the immediate future.
FWIW, when I *FIRST* saw photographs of the C-133 decades ago, in the 'pre-internet era', I had _NO IDEA_ what it was. I thought maybe some kind of modified Lockheed C-130. I only found out years later it was a different aircraft all together.
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman hello yes is a very large aircraft. saludos
These were poorly designed. They had huge problems with metal fatigue, and they only flew in service between 1957 and 1971 when they were retired. One example wound up in Anchorage, Alaska and made one yearly flight to some airstrip for the State of Alaska government and each flight was technically an FAR violation. It was finally flown to Travis Air Force Base in California in 2008, and it wound up as a display. On the way in, a window cracked and the landing was officially an emergency.
This is the result of the stupid "Cook-Craigie plan" for you. Why build prototypes for testing and ironing out problems, when you can start production right away? With few honorably exceptions, all US military planes of the fifties were plagued with huge development problems, that took a lot of time, lives and money to correct, or make tolerable.
They had learned their lessons in by the seventies, making achievement based contracts, where money was only released after a milestone is met (Grumman almost went bankrupted with the F-14 program), that assured planes where well proven before mass production.
Until some retards at the Pentagon, who had never opened a military history book in their lives, resolved to revive the "Cook-Craigie plan" in the post-Cold War era, where there was absolutely no rush to develop things, and call it the fancy word "Concurrency". The result is the mess that is the F-35 program.
I remember reading that the state government had a C-133 used for just one route well that's the State Government of Alaska for you
@@magoid That F-35 is a mess! They staged a dogfight between an F-35 and an F-16 and the 16 kicked the 35's ass every time....
@@Flies2FLL the F-35 is no dogfigher. The fuselage is wide (because it shares it with the B version where the lift fan occupies this space), it's not even designed after the area rule.
The F-35 is designed for BVR fights (beyond visual range), it has powerful sensors, at the same time it has stealth. This is a completely different tactic.
The F-35 is a aircraft designed for penetrating foreign airspace, the intercepter job is the one of F-22 and F-15.
@@simonm1447 The F-35 is a force multiplier a sort of flying command center.
Drones and ground vehicels can be controled from it.
In that regard it beats the F15/16 pants down.
On pure aviation skills the F15/16 are still one of the best dogfighters in the world.
Never knew about this plane, thanks for making this!
While I was taking Avionics Instrument Systems classes at Chanute AFB (now closed) in 1971, an instructor took us on a "field trip" to see instrument systems we'd be working on. We checked out the cockpit on a C-133 they had, and I was amazed at the size of the cockpit. Such office space! The C-133 was a transition cargo aircraft, spanning the gap between prop and jet cargo aircraft. It served the AF well for being such an interim design soon overshadowed by C-141 and C5 aircraft.
I was shown the cockpit of a C-141 and was amazed as to how small and cramped the cockpit was for such a big aircraft, and metal seats with a loose cushion for the pilots. The crew also said there was no soundproofing so the noise was pretty bad.
Well I know the USAF ain't Delta or Air France, but give the guys a little bit of comfort!
Correct you are sir!
“It carries 50 tons. Not impressive by modern standards” Just 10-15 of these could have supplied the German 6th Army surrounded in Stalingrad.the Germans said the minimum to supply the army was 500-750 tons. They would have loved this plane.
Germans and proper logistics in WWII? Hah you jest.
I take it you watched TIK's vid on the Stalingrad airlift?
the fatty said he could supply the six enough to surender the red
The FAA steadfastly refused to certify the C-133 for commercial use, refusing it an airworthiness certificate. It had unmitigated structural integrity issues that couldn't be resolved.
mike89128, that C-133s that were lost in accidents during its career were thought to have gone down due to its tricky aerodynamic issues, not structural problems, although it had those they probably were not the main concern of the FAA.
I have a piece of one with the Military Airlift Command insignia in my living room. Got it when I lived in Tucson in the late 90's. A wonderful piece of military aircraft history.
I remember that aircraft very well. It sat there on the west side of the airport for many years. I got to tour the interior of it in 1982 and was amazed at its size. I was saddened to see it scrapped in the late '90s.
FWIW: I have been inside the C-133 at the USAF AMC MUSEUM at Dover AFB in Delaware {USA}.
The C-133 is *BIG.* I worked on Lockheed C-130s in both US Navy and the US Coast Guard. While the C-133 may not _LOOK_ that much bigger than the C-130 from watching this video, trust me: *IT IS.*
The C - 130 is a tactical transport aircraft, while the C - 133 was a strategic one, in a role comparable to today's C - 17s.
@@simonm1447 >>> I understand that distinction, but to *me* it has always just been a distinction between a _big airplane_ and a _biggerer airplane._ 😉
I realized a few years ago that is partially why the Boeing YC-14 // [Whomever] YC-15 aircraft program was dropped.
.Prior to the latest model C130 the Cargo deck was 40 feet long. The C133 according to this video has a Cargo deck length of 90 feet. A little more than twice that of your average C130, and 30 feet longer than the new C130 J.
@@rancidpitts8243 >>> FWIW, all my C-130 experience has been on pre-J model airframes.
AFAIK, the cargo compartment of the "J" is the same dimensions as the previous airframes.
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman Besides the new engines, propellers, and avionics the airframe was lengthened by 20 feet IIRC for the same reason they lengthened the C141 B. They rarely carried their max weight, while using all the Cargo Deck. As a kid I have had a fascination with all Military cargo aircraft after seeing the B36 based XC 99 taking off.
Once again a comprehensive overview from Skyships Eng. On this occation we get a glim of humor: "Jolly days of the Cold War". I love that one.
I will always remember the ones I saw at my home town n anchorage, Alaska. They were parked at the airport and I was asked by one of my bosses 2 go to Nome, Alaska. On a dc-3 and help bring a fire 🔥 surpresion system 2 the new school n katchubue., Ak. I wish I could've seen it take off from ak. For the very last flight of all of them were ever made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was stationed at Nha Trang In Vietnam and saw this plane there a couple of times in 1968 or 1969. It was probably the biggest plane I saw there. The runway there was only about 5,000 ft long. Had no Idea that it was such a troubled plane.
As a side note, to my mind at least it, it is mind boggling the sums of money a nation can afford on foreign entanglements of political agreements. Space exploration alone consuming substantial sums and then add the addition of ballistic missile development not to mention the ever increasing costs of nuclear type payloads. Plethoras of engineering squads of every field in the endeavors of such aircraft ships submarines and the like. On the face of it, one would think that this just doesn’t add up. Is corn, wheat, coal etc. that valuable that we can afford such things. Where does the funding come from. Should not such bankrolls ensure infrastructure refinement first.
National defense of course but as any household on a budget knows you can spend your self into the poor house.
The capability to turn or planet into a smoking cinder at a push of a button. Who wins that one?
Thank you. Many aviation enthusiast don't know about this relatively short lived but extremely important strategic airlifter. Super important in supporting the deployment of ICBMs, moving missiles from fabircation facilites to operation depot facilities.
My father was pilot that tranistioned from C-124s to C-133s. During his career he flew almost every one of the C-133's airframes out of Dover and Travis. When a little boy, he let me sit in the left seat. I was ~ 5yo and the expreience forever changed my life. I asked for and received, books about airplanes. Fell in love with research and history of aviation and that boyhood passion remains today. Deeper and wider, some several decades hence.
One of the symbols of the Cold War I think
B-36 Peacemaker was a real dark symbol
Way too obscure of an aircraft to be a Cold War symbol. I’ve been into aviation history for decades, and this bird is much more footnote than symbol.
Douglas had so many advanced designed deemed ‘too expensive’ or ‘too complicated’ leading to rather mundane alternatives in comparison. I’d like to imagine an alternate universe where these designs all came to fruition.
Most of the large transport aircraft of the USAF were and are Douglas aircraft. The Globemaster, C-124 Globemaster II, The C-133 Cargomaster, the C-117 Globemaster III (nevermind the Boeing sticker).
@@tenkloosterherman It's ironic how Boeing lost the transport proposal that birthed the C-17, yet they ended up merging with MD anyways.
My mother did data reduction for the development of this aircraft; back then the air force and aircraft companies hired young women straight out of UCLA to cross-check the computers - in fact her initial job title *was* "computer" because that's what she did. They went for young women because they were cheap to employ.
The Dover AFB has a C-133 on display that she actually flew on, on display. Somewhere, underneath a wing skin panel, her autograph may yet be present.
Also: due to the cargo bay dimensions and shape, the fuselage had noticable flex while in the air, especially when unladen.
_Why were the aeronautical engineers obsessed with making nose configurations that resembled a bewb with a nip?_ 🤔
The aircraft was originally designed without the radome because it wasn't fitted with weather radar in the early models. When they decided to fit radar, the somewhat ugly radome was added almost as an afterthought.
I was at Travis AFB, CA when one of these landed to become a museum piece. It had been made airworthiness just to move it once more. This was ~10 years ago
hey I saw that plane also at the Museum at Travis AFB.
Cool reference to Travis , I was at Travis in ‘84 when B-52d retired and is now at the museum..we got to mess around inside on the weekends as I was in Fire Protection and it sat for a month out at old SAC alert pad..great memories
I’ve seen this plane many times at the Air Mobility Command Museum in Dover DE.
Thank you Sky! The C-133 had a very unique and specific sound-and it was _Wow._ I remember as a kid in the early 1960’s, seeing _and HEARING_ that magisterial bird fly overhead in Long Beach, California. I loath that they are gone. 😔
I thought that photo at time stamp 5:56 looked familiar! 44-85813 (at least a chunk of it) is comin back to life at the Champaign Aviation Museum in Urbana, Ohio. I'm one of the volunteers there, and I built two aileron trim tabs 'from scratch).. We knew that aircraft did in-flight tests on the Wright Aeronautical "Typhoon" turboprop, but not the Pratt & Whiney.
Calling an aircraft "groundbreaking" is ill fated.
In March 1957 I went to the Douglas Factory to learn all the systems. I was stationed at Kelly AFB at the time. We had a class of 12, including 2 flight engineers and 10 maintenance guys. I was only 20 years old, and it was an exciting time.
YOU . . . remain an active history, of this model ! 🇺🇸
How long did this model remain active, within Air Force inventory ? 🇺🇸
Ar what time did the C-130 become the major airlifter . . . in the C-130 series ? 😎 🇺🇸
I was also part of MAC . . . support staff for UH-1F & HH-1H at Minot AFB, North Dakota in support of 91st Missile Wing - part of Strategic Air Command - security for missile support and winter transport of missile launch officers, to their Launch Control Facilities. 🇺🇸
@@paulsuprono7225 I really do not know how long. Probably a few years.
Like a stretched Lockheed C-130. But far shorter lived.
Since both the C-130 and C-133 were both introduced in 1956, one could also say that the C-130 is like a shrunken C-133.....
My dad was stationed at Travis from 1959 to 1965. He cut his mechanical chops working on the C133's. As an Air Force retiree, he made a pilgrimage to Tuscon just to revisit one the old birds. He would have loved this video had he still been around to see it. Thanks for the memories!
I love your videos! Such a nice break from the daily news.
The C-124 is not the Globemaster 2.
Yes it is. Check your research.
@@garyw8481 You are correct. The C-17 is the Globemaster 3.
When will we see the Mil Mi-38 review? )))
You've got a very good English))
I was USAF 66-70. Worked on C-133 instrument avionics along with C-124 and C-141 67-70 at Dover AFB, Delaware. Had to transition from fighters to transports, big change for me since Dover was very busy during Vietnam and Cold War years. Believe me working on these large planes can be dangerous. Lots of cold, windy, wet flight line nights fixing them. We maintained the stall warning system on the 133, which always made us nervous with the planes crash history. 🗽🇺🇸
In 1970, flying an Army helicopter into Dover AFB in Delaware, I was told to hold short of the active runway as there was a plane on final, a C-133 from Vietnam. Its call sign was Air Hearse. What do you think the cargo was?
Hmmmmmm . . . our departed Vietnam returnees 🇺🇸 💀
HAND SALUTE . . . ready Front ! 😢 🇺🇸
Thanks to Skyships for an informative video, and looking forward to your upcoming stories of other monster cargo planes.
I was a student at Chanute AFB Illinois in 1971. I watched the last landing of one of these AC while marching to school. Someone commented that it was nicknamed the C133 crashmaster. He said that they crashed because the stability augmentation system (SAS) went haywire and caused many of the crashes. I wondered why they just didn't redesign that system. I was going to school at Chanute to become an Instrument system technician. I was a little later taught the operation and repair of the Automatic flight control systems (AFCS) which the stability augmentation sys SAS is a part of on the F111. It has a redundancy that makes a single failure very difficult to cause a serious problem. My guess is that the crashes were due to many different problems.
jnbfrancisco, from the books on the C-133 I have read, the crashes were largely due to inherent aerodynamic design failings, and if a pilot allowed the plane to get into certain narrow parts of the flight envelope, it would roll over into an inverted spin and fall from the sky. I don't recall seeing the crashes blamed on the failure of a stability augmentation system, but maybe I am forgetting something.
But you did not see the last landing of one of these (C-133) aircraft (in 1971). The last flight of a C-133 was when the last airworthy example was flown from Alaska to Travis Air Force Base (to its museum there) about 10 years ago.
@@youtuuba thanks for the info. I'm puzzled about why you think that the C133 that I saw wasn't the last flight of that C133. I didn't mean that it was the last flight for all C133s.
@@jnbfrancisco , I thought what I did because you wrote, "I watched the last landing of one of these", which according to to normal interpretation of English sentences could mean you saw the last landing of the type of thing, or the last landing of one example of the type of thing. In other words, you were not clear in your writing, and a reader could just as easily interpret what you wrote to mean either of two very different things. I was trying to help clarify things.
The F-35 is the most expensive design failure in in aviation history . Unless your a exceptional american who believes the propoganda of our technical superiority .
A somewhat contrived take on "the last of the old is better than the first of the new" or the Innovator-tragedy. Still, the 133 has the looks in my eyes.
On USAF cargo aircraft, the "cargo operator" is known as the loadmaster. Very interesting subject matter in the video, thank you.
I had seen C-133, N199AB parked off in a corner of Anchorage Ted Stevens International airport ever since I started flying there in 1989. On rare occasions it would be used to fly one type of cargo charter or another. I had heard that since the FAA never granted it a civilian airworthiness certificate that they fined the operator something like $12,000 for every flight, which they gladly paid as the profits form the cargo charters made it worthwhile. I believe in 2004 it was ferried down to Travis and placed on display in a museum.
By the way..... I love your aviation videos!! They are very well done and entertaining!! Thanks for making them.
Some of these after a prop changeout never returned from a mission. The talk was if you want to get to your destination safely stay away from one of these.
Norman are you thinking of 1611 out of Mildenhall I just posted? If I remember correctly it was three props and two engines to get rid of vibration and it still went down.
Norman Silver, from all my reading in my study of the C-133, it seemed that most of the C-133s that were lost went down due to its tendency to roll over suddenly and fall from the sky if the pilot allowed it to get into a certain part of the light envelope.
If this were true my dad would not have survived flying it for 7 years.
The 133 was actually a rather pretty plane for its size. I was in the Navy at Moffett Field in Calif. The 133s would come in and land at Moffett to pick up rocket made next door at Locheed.
I only saw ONE C-133 in my entire life. That one is on static display at the Travis Air Force Base Museum in Fairfield, California. So this video is a pleasure for me to watch. 👍
..the PW T-34 was also used in an experimental version of the Lockheed C-121, the military version of the famous Constellation airliner. A civilian version (the L-1249B) was also considered, but by then it was too little too late as the first US jet transports (707 and DC-8) were already in under development. A Navy C-121 was also fitted with Allison 501-d13 turboshafts (military designation the T-56) during development of the L-188. In spite of the improved performance, the company cancelled both projects and ceased building civil transports until the 1970s when it introduced the L-1011.
You are a true student of aviation history. I know this because my dad flew the YC-121F for 2 years at Kelly AFB, TX. MY dad loved that aircraft. He said it was very, very fast.
Growing up in the 50's and into the 60's (born in 1951) , my family lived only a couple of residential blocks south of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport. At that time Douglas Aircraft had a manufacturing plant on the north side of the airport. While I don't think the C-133 Cargomaster was built there, I did see a M.A.T.S. C-133 land at the airport on occasion (and the C-124 Globemaster II before it). I remember the airport holding an 'open house' one year, and a C-133 was there on display, and you could walk through it, from one end to the other, Biggest airplane I had ever seen at that time. By the way, the Santa Monica Airport runway was only around 6,000 feet long, so not too much margin for error, if the plane was loaded to its maximums.
Also remember a C-124 coming in to land a bit too low, and shearing off its left main gear on the embankment in front of the runway. Can't find any reports on that incident, though. The plane was repaired within a couple of weeks and departed. This would have been around 1958 maybe.
The C-133 was built in Long Beach.
We used to line up and watch the ferried Space Shuttle land at Columbus Air Force Base for their scheduled refueling stop.
And the occasional C-133 would fly over the house when I was a little kid. We used to get every kind of military aircraft overhead, especially during the Vietnam War years
14:20
"Pregnant Goopy was born."
I think Sky's pronunciation is great!
Yeah, at least give him some examples: gun, sea gull, gust of wind
And what the heck, here's to the most ironically named airplane I know of
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guppy
My father worked on this and the Thor missile project for Douglas 1955-1960
i think that the 133 was vastly underpowered but it was a beautiful a/c I have seen 2 in my life that i can remember 1 was at the old Chanute AFB in Rantoul IL was a display the other was in Anchorage Alaska it has since been flown down to the lower 48
A good and fair evaluation of the C-133. I was stationed at Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona in 1969 and 1970. Saw a few of these on the intake ramp for MASDC (Military Aircraft Storage and Disposition Center), now known as AMARG (Aircraft Maintenance and Regeneration Group).
Great video as always Sky!
typical Russian channel. direct, objective, clear, no fuzz, simple to explain simple to understand. God bless the Russian people
Haha, you didn't watch the Russian television)
@@trash4cash454 i did but compared to the brazilian television is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more objective. this is why Brazilian novelas/soap operas last 1 year while american ones last 3 months XD
@@rodrigonogueiramota4433 Haha) Interesting)
@@rodrigonogueiramota4433 that's because your he went seen American novela ( soap opera) called " Days of our lives" it debuted in 1965 and still running ..
Fast flights and soft landings? Dude, it's a cargo plane. We don't do fast or soft. ;)
The c17 was developed by macdonell/Douglas as yc15 before merger with Boeing
No, The YC-15 was developed as a possible replacement for the C-130 back in the 1970's. Long before the merger with Boeing.
Very good...Thanks very much...!
Another great video Sky! Thanks
Saw the C-133's at Lowry AFB (we were in Electech school).....Lowry was where the C-133's picked up the missiles made a Martin......IIRC these were ICBM's ......
C-124 Globemaster II was likely the true heavy lifter grandpa…..
The C-124 could not load what the C-133 could.
The Civilian Service of the C-133 is a weird story. In fact, quite a few Cargomasters got Civilian registrations but ALMOST none saw much operation. The one exception is 56-1999, which was based in Anchorage AK from 1976 to 2008. It actually flew a lot in that time. School buses, earth moving equipment, and whatever else they could win a government contract to move. in "Last flight of the Cargomaster" (the one hour version) one of the pilots says the last revenue flight was in April 2006 (for comparison the USAF retired the last C-141 in May 2006). They flew it to Travis AFB in August 2008 during which there was a day-long stop at McChord AFB. So one, just one, C-133 saw considerable civilian service for 30+ years after retirement from the USAF.
amazing documentary video,,,,nice,,,,
I've been waiting for this. Thanks
Consistently converts knots to mph incorrectly!
I never got to fly on that airplane, but years later got to work on the C-130's and fly on them also and the first MAC base was Norton AFB, California where they had the C-141's and I loved working on and flying on that airplane.
Belive it or not the C133 could carry very long cargo the C-141 could not.
C-133 where known for tail pipe fires on start. I was at Edwards AFB CA and unbelievable as it sounds had to use a very high stand with a fire extinguisher. The plane was not there for long as it was used for some flight control problem. I was a mechanic on a TB-58 at the time. And when asked helped out with that airplane Now 76 a remember those like they where yesterday.
Oh well, I read somewhere that an in flight failure of a single engine in a B-58 could lose the airplane....is this true? Remarkable airplane, years ahead.
I just found your channel, why hasn’t this been recommended to me earlier? Subbed up
I was stationed at a hellhole base, Altus AFB OK. Besides B-52s we had 12 ATLAS-F ICBMs. When the 577th Missile Sqd was deactivated a C-133 would show up periodically and an ATLAS would be slipped in the rear. 3 Went to Vandenburg AFB in CA and the rest went to NASA.
I remember watching these land at Tachikawa AFB in Japan back in the '60's...
I was stationed at Tachi from January '66 to January '68.
When hitching a ride to Clark we were told if you want to get there stay away from C-133. They were right.
At 15:04 he talks about the planes going to storage at Davis-Monthan AFB, but the pictures being shown are of the two C-133's at Mojave CA that have been there since the early 1970's. They can still be seen there on satellite in the boneyard.
One of the big problems was a few disintegrated inflight. 1611 left Mildenhall after several engine and prop changes due to vibration. The nose gear was found floating off the US east coast. I spoke to a pilot with a 133 patch on his flight bag a number of years after my discharge. He told me they found they were using a non-compatible lube in the prop and gear box. If a blade goes out of sync with the other blades there is a huge vibration. The engine guys at Mildenhall thought the engine vibration they saw was caused by the props. As a side note the electrical buss bars were changed from aluminum to copper to eliminate a power failure to the radio equipment. They thought there was a power failure to radios that prevented crews from calling a mayday.
At first glimpse I thought it looked similar to the C-141 which replaced it. The C141 was turbo fan powered though and was a little shorter than the 133. Had a few rides in the C-141 in the 1980s.
Excellent video Sky, thanks.
A mini-series on the timelines of these cargo planes would be amazing.
Great video on a fine aircraft - but I would like to offer one small correction. Just engines were not used because of reliability concerns - it was because turbojets used far more fuel than turboprops. Afterall, a turboprop IS a jet engine - but instead of a large exhaust nozzle, it has a smaller nozzle and a gearbox to drive the propellor.
1:07 please don't use blue to mark landmass on a map... I live on the continent shown and still got confused LOL.
I was gonna ask why the Douglas C-133 was retired and the smaller C-130 Lockheed Hercules wasn't ! But I read the comments and didn't know about the structural problems of the C-133s. Too bad had the 133s not had them, then it could have been the C-130 retiring in Arizona instead!
After being retired from the USAF some C-133s entered into civilian service mostly in Alaska and continued to serve in that role until 2004.
Everts?
@@roriquevernonii8439 Cargomaster Corp
Excellent vid Sky.
my life was largely funded by aerospace and my world shaped by it
Well told and soft landing to you too.
Your videos keep getting better...file footage, edits, narration, research. Thanks for all of the effort.
Pregnant Goopy? Never heard of it!! lol. BTW Last Flight of the C 133 Cargomaster ua-cam.com/video/JY26Uaws4DI/v-deo.html
My Father was a Flight Engineer on the C133 when he transitioned out of the KC97 in 1962 and we moved from Pease AFB, NH to Travis AFB, CA.
Your video is pretty good but you are slightly unfair about the problems for the C133. Most all of the issues were wing spar related….breaks that occurred when the planes were over stressed moving an Army Tank unit into Vietnam.
3:16 - 'The solution was obvious'. Uh, yeah, use the layout proven in combat by the Messerschmitt Me 323 Gigant fifteen years before.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_323_Gigant
That is one HUGE bird for sure
There's a restored one in the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. It's delivery flight to the museum was the last flight ever made by a C-133.
It was not speed that assured the jet engines' success! It was economics.
Good evening from St John Parish, Louisiana 15 Oct 20.