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.
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.
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!!
@@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
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.
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
@@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.
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?
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 ....
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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
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...
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.
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 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’.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?)
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
I flew the L749 Connie for PNA and Wal and we often carried an external “speedpack”that worked just like these pods.We would carry up to 8000 pounds in it and it just knocked 5 knots off our cruise speed.
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.
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
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?
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.
Makes sense. Just like containerisation for civilian shipping, containerisation for airborne transport, with potentially different modules to be slung underneath.
Most aircraft that could be converted to cargo or civilian transport were. It was a way of putting unwnted war stocks to useful purpose. Even the Avro Lancaster and B29 saw useful purpose post war. For me, the most amazing post war transport aircraft was the Super Guppy and its successor the Beluga
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
9:20 - “~ unstable without the pod”. Easy fix… always have an empty pod available. If CG was a problem with an empty one, just put some weights in appropriate places. It might seem like a waste of pods, but it would save all the man hours used in searching for a stable solution.
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.
This is pretty neat. I was just thinking about a flying wing that could load up 7 connex containers under its wings. It’d be more efficient than any cargo plane in use.
This should totally be a thing! The flaws look like they aren't surmountable, and improvements in standardization would make it easy. Google says the standard 40' shipping container didn't become popular until the 1960s. So their droppable pod didn't have an obvious and commercially available source. They could just engineer a nose and and tail fairing for the standard 40' container. With that, mounts above ground level, to use to install wheels and jack up, when they've reached the destination. They'd likely want to put flat sides down any containers with vertical ribs, but that's a piece of sheet metal or thin wood, not any sort of heavy structure. Any trailer could likely be modified in a couple days by a small team, once they have the process down and parts available. They could even include a tug, either in the container, or in the fairing, on the first few missions. The tug would be more like a forklift tractor, than a tractor trailer tractor. They only need 5 to 10 mph from it, not 70mph. The tugs already exist, and are used in warehouses and freight yards. So that's the box, the aerodynamic fix for the flat nose and tail, and a way to move the container off the runway/highway/field. The stability issue is an obvious issue. I think some of that problem comes from the vertical change of the center of gravity. With the container on, it probably flies great, because the weight is under the wings. But without the container, it's obviously going to be wildly unstable. They were focused on keeping the C-119 parts, but they should have considered redesigning it. Move the wings up to the top of the fuselage, like the C130, C5, C17, C-123, CN-235, etc. They'd likely want to keep the twin hull design, to help keep control surfaces out of the wake of the body. The XC-120 didn't even have jet engines, because they were barely a thing then. Now they're bigger, stronger, more efficient, and cheaper. There are probably enough jets and parts in the bone yard to build a fleet of these container aircraft. Well, except for the airframe itself. For deploying, they may have better options with this kind of setup. I think they could drop cargo containers while basically doing a touch and go. They show the collet clamp in the video, so that was already designed for this. Touch the ground, release the clamps, and the now drastically lighter aircraft pops back up. Or full stop and unload, as desired. This would be a *HUGE* deal for civilian purposes right now. There are a ton of hours wasted loading and unloading supplies on aircraft, going to hurricane stricken areas. Or war zones. The military will still do military stuff. I'm not in any sort of position to tell the military what to want. If I were, I'd say to resurrect this idea for both military and joint military/civilian cargo operations.
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.
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?
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.
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
What a brilliant cargo concept.
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...
An amazing concept! Sikorsky Helicopter CH-54 “Flying Crane” also used the concept of a multi-purpose detachable pod.
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.
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
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?
Brilliant idea. I'd never even heard of this aircraft.
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.
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
The C-119 is one of the coolest planes ever
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 ....
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.
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.
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
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 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.
Of course it worked.
It worked in a magnificent manner.
So naturally, it was discontinued and scrapped.
What a Wonderful Aircraft
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 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!
You had the C82, the Packet I believe and the 119 Flying Boxcar, iconic planes.
Why have I never heard of this amazing plane before. Thank you as always!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 119 was a wonderful site in the sky's of my childhood.
Best to you Scott🏁
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.
The pods …get outfitted..with an EV vehicle… tractor trailer ..for ground mobility….
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.
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...
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.
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 is actually surprisingly brilliant
That's one cool airplane . A detachable cargo box. The need use of a modern version would revolutionize air cargo.
Ah yes, the Boxcar. The first airplane I can remember seeing as a child in the sky, thinking how cool it looked (1950s).
Wow, now we know where they got the idea for, Thunderbird 2.
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.
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’.
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.
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 is brilliant. The pods would be even bigger today. It’s got to be an aerodynamic problem without pod
Fascinating concept plane. Seems like it deserved more than the cursory look.
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.....
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.
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 🤷♂️.
That's actually a pretty cool concept.
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.
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.
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 ?)
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
What a brilliant idea!! Thunderbird 2!! Obviously!! 🙂
I flew the L749 Connie for PNA and Wal and we often carried an external “speedpack”that worked just like these pods.We would carry up to 8000 pounds in it and it just knocked 5 knots off our cruise speed.
that's a really neat design. makes me think of that sky crane helicopter.
The versatility, especially for that time was pretty impressive.
It was unique enough to warrant saving!
I remember seeing the 119 aircraft flying low over our farm, and the soldiers were clearly visible thru the open rear doors.
Location? I saw them flying near Columbus Indiana (read doors closed)
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Makes sense. Just like containerisation for civilian shipping, containerisation for airborne transport, with potentially different modules to be slung underneath.
Pack plane makes complete sense , very logical choice . Thanks for the info
We developed the 463L system. It's primary purpose was to standardize loading and unloading cargo across multiple airframes.
I remember this aircraft being the star of the film ‘Flight of the Phoenix’, one of my favourite films ever.
This is a brilliant piece of engineering. this could be used today it just needs updating and the application of modern technology and materials.
I remember reading in either Pop Sci, or Pop Mechanics of a passenger plane with a detachable passenger compartment.
Most aircraft that could be converted to cargo or civilian transport were. It was a way of putting unwnted war stocks to useful purpose. Even the Avro Lancaster and B29 saw useful purpose post war. For me, the most amazing post war transport aircraft was the Super Guppy and its successor the Beluga
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.
That's BRILLIANT !
Great idea for an aircraft to study. Very interesting
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.
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.
❤thank you for uploading this video tape, my father used to work on Tainan Taiwan airbase, it was part of USAF back in 1955.❤
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.
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.
Glad to see I'm not the only one that saw Thunderbird 2 here!
9:20 - “~ unstable without the pod”. Easy fix… always have an empty pod available. If CG was a problem with an empty one, just put some weights in appropriate places.
It might seem like a waste of pods, but it would save all the man hours used in searching for a stable solution.
If only the stability problem without the module attached was fixed. What a brilliant concept.
Looks an amazing plane and idea.I've never heard of this plane before either.
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.
This is a really clever idea, that I think could still be used today.
This is pretty neat.
I was just thinking about a flying wing that could load up 7 connex containers under its wings.
It’d be more efficient than any cargo plane in use.
Lockheed Constellation developed a “Speed Pack” which was attached to bottom of fuselage. It was used to increase general cargo capacity.
This should totally be a thing! The flaws look like they aren't surmountable, and improvements in standardization would make it easy.
Google says the standard 40' shipping container didn't become popular until the 1960s. So their droppable pod didn't have an obvious and commercially available source.
They could just engineer a nose and and tail fairing for the standard 40' container. With that, mounts above ground level, to use to install wheels and jack up, when they've reached the destination. They'd likely want to put flat sides down any containers with vertical ribs, but that's a piece of sheet metal or thin wood, not any sort of heavy structure. Any trailer could likely be modified in a couple days by a small team, once they have the process down and parts available.
They could even include a tug, either in the container, or in the fairing, on the first few missions. The tug would be more like a forklift tractor, than a tractor trailer tractor. They only need 5 to 10 mph from it, not 70mph. The tugs already exist, and are used in warehouses and freight yards.
So that's the box, the aerodynamic fix for the flat nose and tail, and a way to move the container off the runway/highway/field.
The stability issue is an obvious issue. I think some of that problem comes from the vertical change of the center of gravity. With the container on, it probably flies great, because the weight is under the wings. But without the container, it's obviously going to be wildly unstable. They were focused on keeping the C-119 parts, but they should have considered redesigning it. Move the wings up to the top of the fuselage, like the C130, C5, C17, C-123, CN-235, etc. They'd likely want to keep the twin hull design, to help keep control surfaces out of the wake of the body.
The XC-120 didn't even have jet engines, because they were barely a thing then. Now they're bigger, stronger, more efficient, and cheaper. There are probably enough jets and parts in the bone yard to build a fleet of these container aircraft. Well, except for the airframe itself.
For deploying, they may have better options with this kind of setup. I think they could drop cargo containers while basically doing a touch and go. They show the collet clamp in the video, so that was already designed for this. Touch the ground, release the clamps, and the now drastically lighter aircraft pops back up. Or full stop and unload, as desired.
This would be a *HUGE* deal for civilian purposes right now. There are a ton of hours wasted loading and unloading supplies on aircraft, going to hurricane stricken areas. Or war zones. The military will still do military stuff.
I'm not in any sort of position to tell the military what to want. If I were, I'd say to resurrect this idea for both military and joint military/civilian cargo operations.
What a Fantastic idea! I was aware of the 'Boxcar' but had never seen this!
Another Eye opener from the Dark series!
USA ingenuity and engineering at its best.
now i know where the inspiration came for Thunderbirds 2. very cool.
A shame it was scrapped, it would have made a nice addition to either the Air Force Museum or Pima Air and Space Museum.
I had this idea as a kid, wow so happy to see it actually was built lol
You should take a look at the black catalina mine layer. Very under appreciated aircraft considering what it achieved.