Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Seminole Ditches off Hilo

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Put this guy in a military standup: "1000 miles from CA - You begin to develop engine trouble. Go."

"Weeeellllll, it'll go away. Yeah. I'm going to continue the flight."

"Wrong answer buckwheat, no flying for you today."
 
Never give up! There was a USAF C-97 4 engine transport (basically a Stratocruiser) who lost a prop on one engine and shredded the other engine (both on the same side) at about the same place back in 1957. It descended into ground effect and was able to maintain lift and fly for over 6 hours to get to Hilo, Hawaii. It then had a gear problem and had to go around with hardly any fuel left. They had to drop the main gear manually with a crank and finally landed safely with 67 people on board.
 
Well I would agree with the never give it up concept but you may also recall there are several Boeing Stratocuisers at the bottom of the Pacific as well. BTW, my recollection is the C97 had an electric landing gear system which is very unusual for thet size airplane.
 
TOOL CRIB said:
Never give up! There was a USAF C-97 4 engine transport (basically a Stratocruiser) who lost a prop on one engine and shredded the other engine (both on the same side) at about the same place back in 1957. It descended into ground effect and was able to maintain lift and fly for over 6 hours to get to Hilo, Hawaii. It then had a gear problem and had to go around with hardly any fuel left. They had to drop the main gear manually with a crank and finally landed safely with 67 people on board.

My grandfather had a very similar incident taking off out of Wake Island in a C-133. Lost one engine, lost prop on another. Brought it back in and got some MAC safety award that year.
 
414Flyer said:
My grandfather had a very similar incident taking off out of Wake Island in a C-133. Lost one engine, lost prop on another. Brought it back in and got some MAC safety award that year.

DId you know there's still one of those flying? I know the guy who is the FE on it. Doesn't fly much, but it does fly.
 
bocefus said:
Doesn't fly much is an understatement. More like, won't ever fly much.

Ahhh, the words of the truly ignorant. Actually, it *does* fly. The folks that operate it had about a weeks worth of work for it up on the North Slope last month. And, yes, it did fly.

I have to say, I'm truly amazed. Astounded, even. Why would someone make a statement like this when clearly they have absolutely no knowledge of the matter?
 
A Squared said:
Ahhh, the words of the truly ignorant. Actually, it *does* fly. The folks that operate it had about a weeks worth of work for it up on the North Slope last month. And, yes, it did fly.

I have to say, I'm truly amazed. Astounded, even. Why would someone make a statement like this when clearly they have absolutely no knowledge of the matter?

You gotta consider the source of a statement like that! Probably woudn't know a C133 from a C130.
 
you guys need to chill, who cares what he said............ right :D

I do too know the difference between a C310 and a C133
 
TOOL CRIB said:
Never give up! There was a USAF C-97 4 engine transport (basically a Stratocruiser) who lost a prop on one engine and shredded the other engine (both on the same side) at about the same place back in 1957. It descended into ground effect and was able to maintain lift and fly for over 6 hours to get to Hilo, Hawaii. It then had a gear problem and had to go around with hardly any fuel left. They had to drop the main gear manually with a crank and finally landed safely with 67 people on board.

Whoah.:eek: That's a pretty good story.
 
Actually, I'd bet I have more knowledge of the matter than you think. I happen to be very familiar with the engineering and airworthiness issues of the particular aircraft in question. You might want to check with your FE buddy, he can probably enlighten you and help you avoid being more ignorant on the matter. Let's just say that it is very questionable right now whether this particular 133 will fly again.
 
Well since you know so much about the C133 why don't you share just a little with us. Is this an issue regarding that particular aircraft or more C133 in general information. I probably don't know as much about the airplane up in PANC, but I do know a little about the C133 and have always found it to be an interesting if not tragic story. Let us in on some info after all this is Flightinfo.com. For starters how many C133's avoided the cutters torch to begin with and what was their eventual fate?
 
A Squared said:
DId you know there's still one of those flying? I know the guy who is the FE on it. Doesn't fly much, but it does fly.

I tripped over it on a website about big prop planes up in Alaska last night in fact. Don't remeber the URL, but Google C-133 and I'm sure you'll find it. Pretty cool pictures of the thing loading and flying. Mentions the trip up to the North Slope, too!
 
Nah, you've already considered the source, remember? C-130, C-133, C-310, what's the difference? Yes, this one has flown recently, although for a very limited time. She won't be flying very much, if at all. Maybe FSDO-03 can tighten you up a bit on her particular saga.
 
Metro752 said:
now losing a prop, is that due to overspeed or just falling off randomly?

It was an uncontrollable overspeed and a design flaw in those airplanes. The prop tore off and took the adjacent engine out with it.
 
when your 1000 miles from the CA coast...you have no choice but to continue.
 
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Reports indicated that it ditched due to engine problems. Is that to say that it simply couldn't maintain altitude on the remaining engine, or was there a fuel exhaustion issue?
 
C-133 — The Cargomaster Survivors

By John Weeks

hitlist.asp
rainbow.gif

Airlift has been a key strategic factor in warfare since it was developed in WWII. However, the WWII era cargo airplanes were simply airliners with the passenger seats ripped out. This left a lot to be desired. Planes like the DC-3, a tail-dragger, had a sloped cargo deck that was hard to load. Others sat so high off the ground that they were difficult to load and unload. Plus, the cargo had to go in and out of a side door.
The ultimate version of these early cargo planes was the Douglas C-124, often called “Old Shaky”. It did have a nose that opened up, but it was so high in the air that the drive-up ramps were nearly at a 45-degree angle. To help ease the loading of pallets, Old Shaky had a cargo elevator, which was a piece of the floor that was suspended on cables and could be lowered to the ground.
In the early 1950’s, the USAF issued a request for the first Strategic Airlifter. This was to be a plane that could carry any piece of equipment that the Air Force or Army had in inventory. The plane would need to be low to the ground to ease loading, have a drive in back door with a built-in ramp, and be able to carry a very heavy load. Finally, it would need to be pressurized to allow it to carry troops along with their equipment.

What emerged was a proposal from Douglas for the C-132, which was essentially a giant-sized C-124. It did have swept wings and turbo-prop engines, a first for USAF cargo aircraft. But the Air Force decided to hold out for an all-jet cargo plane, such as the KC-135 that was proposed and built by Boeing a few years later.
In the mean time, a new requirement appeared...the strategic airlifter would need to be able to carry the Atlas ICBM. Thus was born the C-133 program, again, from Douglas Aircraft.
The C-133 Cargomaster was essentially the smallest airplane that would fit around the Atlas. The Atlas was about 80 feet long and about 18 feet in diameter, so the C-133 cargo bed was made 86’10” long and about 20 feet in diameter. The wings were placed on top of the C-133 to keep the main spar from entering the cargo area. The wings were canted at a slight up angle since a plane this long would not be able to move nose-up or nose-down on take-off or landing. The main gear was placed to the side of the cargo hold to allow the cargo floor to be as close to the ground as possible. To power this beast, (4) powerful 6500HP turboprop engines were installed.
The production C-133 was 157’6” long, with a wingspan of 179’8” wide. It sat empty at 125,000 pounds, but could carry a payload of 150,000 pounds. The Cargomaster would cruise at just over 300 MPH, but could hit 359MPH at its ceiling of 19,000 feet.
The C-133 entered service in the late 1950’s, and was on front line duty until they were retired in 1971. 52 were built, with 50 going to the USAF and 2 held back by Douglas as test beds. Of the 50, 15 were C-133A, 18 were C-133B, and 17 were intermediate versions. All were eventually upgraded to be C-133B’s. The B model had more powerful engines, and had a clam-shell door on the back rather than a split-ramp door. This allowed for better fitting of the Atlas missile.
The C-133 served well during its service life. It was the only plane that could haul the ICBMs from the factory to bases across the US. The Cargomaster was also key in moving large and outsized cargo back and forth from the US to Vietnam.
If there was a flaw with the C-133, it was their tendency to fall out of the sky for unexplained reasons. 10 of the 50 were lost in crashes. Many of these crashes were over water and left little or no debris. As a result, some of these crashes remain unexplained. The C-133 was also prone to stalling, especially on take off. There were also wing cracks and electrical problems. In an era of big budgets, these problems would have been solved as more planes were produced. But in the case of the C-133, its days were numbered as pure jet airlifters were being developed.
The C-133 was a majestic giant. It paved the way for modern strategic airlift, proving the concepts that would make such big successes out of the C-141, C-5, and C-17. Today, only 4 Cargomasters survive in museums, 3 are rotting away on the civilian registry, and remarkably, one has recently returned to active duty flying out of Anchorage, Alaska.
rainbow.gif

C-133’s On Display At Museums


Serial Number Aircraft Type City State Location Notes 56-2008 C-133A Dayton OH US Air Force Museum Moved indoors in mid-2003 after many years outdoors. 56-2009 C-133A Rantoul IL Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum Former fire training aircraft. 59-0527 C-133B Tucson AZ Pima Country Aerospace Museum Displayed outdoors. 59-0536 C-133B Dover DE Air Mobility Command Museum Outdoors. Formerly on display at the SAC Museum in Nebraska.
rainbow.gif

C-133’s That Survived Military Service


Serial Number Aircraft Type Last Known Location Notes 54-0136 C-133A Mojave, CA Last registered to Airborne Relief Project, was to be converted into a flying hospital, but the project stalled. Reported to be owned by the Cargomaster Corporation from Anchorage, Alaska. 54-0137 C-133A Tucson, AZ Last registered as N2251X. Owned by HAVECO, used for aircraft parts storage. Reportedly on the list to be scrapped. 56-1999 C-133A Anchorage, Alaska Reported to having flown on Aug 30, 2002, registered as N199B. Reported active again in 2006. 56-2000 C-133A Mojave, CA Last registered to Airborne Relief Project, was to be converted into a flying hospital, but the project stalled. Reported to have been scrapped in Long Beach. 56-2001 C-133A Mojave, CA In storage. Reported to be owned by Maurice Carlsson, Anchorage, Alaska. 59-0529 C-133B Winsdor Locks, CT Was on display at Bradley Air Museum (now New England Air Museum). Destroyed by a freak tornado in 1980 and later scrapped. Part of the flight deck and misc. parts were saved. 59-0531 C-133B Tucson, AZ Was in storage at Tucson Intl Airport, reported scrapped Jan 2001. 59-0533 C-133B Anchorage, Alaska Scrapped in spring of 2000.
Note — click on the Serial Number to see a photo of each airplane.
Note — Serial number research was done by Cal Taylor. His excellent web site is the C-133 Project.
rainbow.gif
Return To John Weeks Hobby Page
Return To John Weeks Home Page
Authored by John A. Weeks III, Copyright © 2004, all rights reserved.
For further information, contact: [email protected]
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom