Fairchild XC-120 Packplane

[Skybolt]

The most eminent example of a certain not taken road...
everything you would know on the Fairchild XC-120 Packplane with detachable and interchangeable cargo pod.
Beware, large files etc etc..

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADB803042
Basic Aerodynamic Data - Model XC-120

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADB803066
Performance Calculations - and Appendix I - Model XC-120 (M-107)

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADB803059
Ground Handling Loads Criteria - Model XC-120

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADB803064
Basic Flight Criteria - Pack on - Model XC-120 (M-107)

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADB803065
Basic Flight Criteria - Pack Off - Model XC-120

 

[Michel Van]

nice Idea

Take a C-119 Flying Boxcar
a removable pod replace most fuselage.
but Wat wend wrong and end the program ?

]

 

[saturncanuck]

It was a great idea, and with so much commonality with the C-119 the USAF was very interested. However, what killed it was the other support equipment that would be needed to make it operable, such as the tugs, support bases and the pods themselves.

In the end, the USAF felt that conventional transports would be cheaper.

 

[Pioneer]

The applications for the under-fuselage / pods could have been interesting!
Does anyone have a 3-view drawing of this odd bird?


Regards
Pioneer

 

[cluttonfred]

As a concept it was great, but the "cargo pods" were just too unwieldy and expensive I imagine.

Miles Aircraft created a four-engine derivative of the M.57 Aerovan called the M.68 Boxcar <http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/a_miles.html> that was much more manageable. The cargo pod was a 10' x 4.5' x 4.5' unit that could be trailered on it's own wheels. I'll try to scan the pics with and without the pod and the other info when I get home.

 

[Skybolt]

For everithing you'd ever wanna know on the XC-120
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4472.0.html

 

[saturncanuck]

I watched that video again, and wanted to say two things.

1) The first picture on the video shows two XC-120's -- one flying and one on the ground. This was a composite photo, as there was only ever one built.

2) It really reminded me of the NASA Transport from the movie, "Doppelganger" or "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (as it was known on this side of the pond).

 

[Michel Van]

That this Plane
good old Gerry Anderson Stuff B)
except for poor pilots in the cockpit

source:
from German version "Unfall in Weltraum"
screen caption with VLC

 

[saturncanuck]

That this Plane
good old Gerry Anderson Stuff B)
except for poor pilots in the cockpit

source:
from German version "Unfall in Weltraum"
screen caption with VLC

That's the one!!!

BTW, picture 5 should be number 2 in the sequence.

Also, this model was reworked and became the SHADO transporter for the Mobiles in UFO. The "airline" that operated this aircraftwas called "Shadair".

I love Gerry Anderson stuff!

 

[saturncanuck]

That this Plane
good old Gerry Anderson Stuff B)
except for poor pilots in the cockpit

source:
from German version "Unfall in Weltraum"
screen caption with VLC

Oh, and I just used Babelfish to translate, and "Accident in Space"? What is wrong with the title, "Doppleganger"?

 

[Michel Van]

That this Plane
good old Gerry Anderson Stuff B)
except for poor pilots in the cockpit

source:
from German version "Unfall in Weltraum"

Oh, and I just used Babelfish to translate, and "Accident in Space"? What is wrong with the title, "Doppleganger"?

oh that is typical for 1960's & 1970's German Cinema Distributor they change the Movie titel make it "more" interesting
best example is the Diango Movies, there only Three made with Franko Nero B)
but German Cinema Distributor relabeled 23 different italowestern in to Diango movies !

 

[saturncanuck]

That this Plane
good old Gerry Anderson Stuff B)
except for poor pilots in the cockpit

source:
from German version "Unfall in Weltraum"

Oh, and I just used Babelfish to translate, and "Accident in Space"? What is wrong with the title, "Doppleganger"?

oh that is typical for 1960's & 1970's German Cinema Distributor they change the Movie titel make it "more" interesting
best example is the Diango Movies, there only Three made with Franko Nero B)
but German Cinema Distributor relabeled 23 different italowestern in to Diango movies !

But, I don't understand -- "Doppelganger" IS GERMAN!!!!

MY favourite is when the French translate "Star Wars" it becomes, "War of the Galaxies".

LOL

LMAO

Ok off topic now

 

[Skybolt]

mmm, maybe Doppelganger was too literature-related to a German ear (Heine and Hoffmann). By the way, the translation of Doppelganger in Japanese could be Kagemusha.. connections connections...

 

[cluttonfred]

I did in fact post the Miles M.68 Boxcar specs and pics in a new thread:

<http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6295.0.html>

 

[Stargazer]

That this Plane
good old Gerry Anderson Stuff B)
except for poor pilots in the cockpit

source:
from German version "Unfall in Weltraum"

Oh, and I just used Babelfish to translate, and "Accident in Space"? What is wrong with the title, "Doppleganger"?

oh that is typical for 1960's & 1970's German Cinema Distributor they change the Movie titel make it "more" interesting
best example is the Diango Movies, there only Three made with Franko Nero B)
but German Cinema Distributor relabeled 23 different italowestern in to Diango movies !

But, I don't understand -- "Doppelganger" IS GERMAN!!!!

MY favourite is when the French translate "Star Wars" it becomes, "War of the Galaxies".

LOL

LMAO

Ok off topic now

No, that's not the title those movies were screened with in French-speaking countries. It was "guerre des étoiles", which is the exact translation for "Star Wars". LOL on something else.

 

[Stargazer]

British Pathé has another great video of the XC-120 Pack Plane:

FLYING BOXCAR PASSES TEST
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=34351

 

[Spook]

1950 Press Photo Artist Conception Of Fairchild Pack Plane XC-120 Airplane.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1950-Press-Photo-Artist-Conception-Of-Fairchild-Pack-Plane-XC-120-Airplane-/390826262361?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item5aff0f7f59

 

[Richard N]

The Swadar Fairchild XC-120 Pack-Plane with Jeep and Tank Cargo


IT LOADS!.....IT UNLOADS!.....FRONT AND REAR DOORS OPEN


Wingspan 10.375" Length 8"


Available in red with yellow cargo or gray with red cargo.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Very nice! How much.

 

[Richard N]

There is a kit version on eBay now for $85 and shipping: http://www.ebay.com/itm/SWADAR-FAIRCHILD-XC-120-CARGO-PACK-PLANE-CONSTRUCTION-KIT-BOXED-1950s-RARE-/221415787236


One of the assembled ones in the pictures went for $135 in April 2013, so the price on the kit pretty good. The kit differs in having silver plastic rather than clear cargo area parts and the cargo jeep and tank are blue rather than red on the gray example I have.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

A little off-budget at the moment. Still nice tho.

 

[Richard N]

This is the classic box art from what may have been an earlier release of the kit by the Saunders-Swadar Corporation: http://www.oldmodelkits.com/index.php?detail=17206


From the picture caption: "The original name of the company was Saunders-Swadar, but only a few kits were every issued that that name. This is one of the very rare early issues with the full color box. The top of the box says 'Saunders', and the side says 'Manufactured by Swadar Plastics Co. For Saunders-Swadar Toy Company Aurora Illinois."[/size]

 

[hesham]

And a Model;

http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/periodici/PDF%20Riviste/Alata/Alata%201950%2002.pdf

 

[VTOLicious]

Great video that gives some details on the cargo pod...

 

[RanulfC]

I watched that video again, and wanted to say two things.

1) The first picture on the video shows two XC-120's -- one flying and one on the ground. This was a composite photo, as there was only ever one built.

2) It really reminded me of the NASA Transport from the movie, "Doppelganger" or "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (as it was known on this side of the pond).

That this Plane
good old Gerry Anderson Stuff B)
except for poor pilots in the cockpit

source:
from German version "Unfall in Weltraum"
screen caption with VLC

Poor pilots nothing, how does that thing NOT fall over since it's 'only' balanced on the main gear? The cockpit and engines have to be EXACTLY balanced and lord help you if there's even a stiff breeze. Don't get me wrong I still thought the sequence was neat, (as was the movie itself) but yeesh...

As I understand it part of the Packplane's issues were the seals and fasteners weren't as effective as they'd thought they would be, (it was a prototype so not sure why they thought they'd get it right the very first time) in that the drag between pod and airframe was inconsistant and the pod tended to 'rattle' during flight. Given time and more development efforts I think the concept had a good chance of success but this wasn't going to happen under the circumstances.

But we're still looking into trying the concept in the real world with various concepts:

Modular aircraft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/309/309070/final1-fantassy-final-publishable-summary-with-figures.pdf

Among others.

Randy

 

[Archibald]

They should bring back the idea for Stratolaunch. A passenger pod could carry a helluva amount of people (800 of them ?)

 

[RanulfC]

They should bring back the idea for Stratolaunch. A passenger pod could carry a helluva amount of people (800 of them ?)

Was something 'considered' while Roc was a-building but as it was a 'one-off' aircraft the utility wasn't clear or even likely.

Randy

 

[martinbayer]

They should bring back the idea for Stratolaunch. A passenger pod could carry a helluva amount of people (800 of them ?)

I really hope the Roc will end up in good hands...

 

[Archibald]

They should bring back the idea for Stratolaunch. A passenger pod could carry a helluva amount of people (800 of them ?)

Was something 'considered' while Roc was a-building but as it was a 'one-off' aircraft the utility wasn't clear or even likely.

Randy

Whaaaat ?!

 

[taildragger]

The dream lives on. This isn't a serious design but a concept from a design house featured in a recent AW&ST. If a pod were limited to use at the airport, as suggested in this article, with no requirement to survive potholes and loading docks, I wonder if it would necessarily impose a big weight penalty. You could even imagine the attachment being adjustable fore and aft to optimize CG.

 

[dan_inbox]

If a pod were limited to use at the airport

... then would there be much benefit over a standard rolling floor? Meh.

 

[taildragger]

If a pod were limited to use at the airport

... then would there be much benefit over a standard rolling floor? Meh.

For passenger operations, detatching the passenger cabin and processing it (disembarking passengers, cleaning and stocking the cabin, boarding passengers) separately from the airframe could, I think, provide benefits. The 2 operations are colocated now because they have to be, but its a compromise:
- walking down a long tube to go through a small door and turn a corner into another tube while cayyring luggage and children is not all that efficient. If the passenger cabin could be brought right up to the terminal at roughly ground level, without having to work around the airframe, the whole process could be done in a smaller area more quickly.
- The pod configuration depicted looks like it could accommodate larger, simpler doors in the end bulkheads since they wouldn't be in the external skin, allowing straight-in loading.
- The pod and airframe could be on different turnaround schedules if required or different pod configurations could be swapped out to match the ticket class mix sold. Since the pod would probably be relatively inexpensive compared to the airframe, the pressure for utilization would be less. Different pods could also trade off fuel vs. payload volume for different trip lengths. The pod could also be shifted fore and aft to optimize CG without aerodynamic trimming.
- Servicing the airframe could probably be done more efficiently if it didn't have to coexist with the terminal, jetbridge, baggage carts and galley service.
As far as a weight penalty, I could imagine it being relatively small if both the airframe and pod were structurally adequate for flight only when joined.
I'm not placing any bets on this actually happening but think it could bring theoretical benefits.

 

[dan_inbox]

Your concept does have some operational appeal.
However, "for passenger operations" with their attending mandatory safety overload, I can't see how weigh and cost could possibly work out.

 

[RanulfC]

It must be shared, enjoy

Randy

 

[Grey Havoc]

I was planning to post this a while back but totally forgot all about it!

 

[taildragger]

Packplane coverage from the Fairchild employee newspaper.

 

[riggerrob]

Sikorsky tried a similar concept with their S-64 Skycrane helicopter (US Army designation T-54 Tarhe).
Only a few cargo pods were built and they were only used part-time by the US Army. The US Army primarily used them as flying cranes to deliver sling loads of artillery guns, ammo, small vehicles, etc.
Since they retired from military service, most S-64s only work as flying cranes. The only pods - routinely fitted - are specialized water tanks for fighting forest fires.

After they built the last S-64, the Sikorsky factory used the same rotor system to build several generations of CH-54 Stallions, Jolly Green Giants, etc. with conventional cargo fuselages and cargo ramps under the tail. The most visible users are West Germany, Israel and the US Marine Corps. The USMC recently adopted an enlarged version called the King Stallion.
USMC prefers CH-54 because it can fold to stow below deck on US Navy carriers.

 

[TomS]

CH-53, not -54.

And to nitpick further, the Jolly Green Giant nickname really applies to the HH-3, not the -53, which was the Super Jolly.

 

[blackkite]

We can see two XC-120 shapes. (Also we can see two pack shapes.)
They are...
(1) Without dorsal fin.(Perhaps initial design)
(2) With dorsal fin.(After modification to increase directional stability)
I feel initial shape's directional inherent stability was not enough, becuase pack side area before air center was very large.
http://www.luftfahrtmuseum-hannover.de/images/wehrmann/Fairchild XC-120 Packplane.pdf
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=36928

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

American Secret Projects 2 had a section about the XC-120 and other American projects of a similar configuration, with many concepts including podded hospitals and command centres which would be flown or dropped in by aircraft like the XC-120. The idea was based off of experience from the Island Hopping Campaign in the Pacific Theatre during the Second World War. However, the XC-120 and similar projects never entered service. If such concepts had such a large amount of promise, then why did they never enter service?