Fairchild XC-120 Packplane

[taildragger]

I think that the primary reasons were:
- the unavoidable weight penalty of a detachable pod. Concepts for a production variant IIRC would have reduced this penalty by having the pod attach behind a fixed nose section. This eliminated the need for the awkward forward quadracycle legs and probably reduced the weight of the cargo pod.
- to be really useful, the detachable pods, which would have to be built to airframe standards, would have to be used outside of an airfield environment (like intermodal containers are today), where they would likely be damaged. Modern intermodal containers are constructed of heavy-guage steel and can take a lot of abuse. When damaged, it's not a big deal if they fall apart in transit by truck, ship or railcar.
If the XC-120 had been adopted, I think it might have been especially well suited to:
- rapid conversion between ASW, AEW, tanker, gunship, reconnaissance and transport roles. Maybe even an amphibian.
- dropping massive ordinance
- LAPES-style cargo delivery

 

[TomcatViP]

You can't have also partial delivery. It's one pod per flight and that's it. You can't for example fly some goods at one point and then equipment to another (unless your pod has a cargo door itself).

 

[blackkite]

Hi! More images.

https://www.facebook.com/atomicsambatheoriginal/photos/a.1217307808285347/1217307818285346

https://www.breakoutcards.co.uk/fai...---transport---warplanes-collectors-club-card

From the last picture.
"The concept was workable but not effective, for the additional structure weight seriously degraded the payload."
And video.
https://www.australianflying.com.au/videos/friday-flying-video-xc-120

 

[riggerrob]

Simultaneously, Sikorsky developed the CH-64 Skycrane helicopter with a rectangular cargo pod hung under its skeleton airframe. Sikorsky hoped to sell a variety of cargo pods configured as command posts, medical aid stations, radio stations, etc. Only a few armies used the cargo pods and not very often. Military Skycranes were primarily used as flying cranes to lift artillery guns or nets full of cargo.

After retirement from military service, civilian Skycranes primarily work as flying cranes in the construction and logging industries. Loggers like to hang specialized, wedge-shaped water tanks under their Skycranes to fight forest fires. Erickson now owns the Skycrane Type Certificate and leases their orange Skycranes to loggers and fire-fighters.

Only a few armies bought Skycranes, while far more (West Germany, Israel, etc.) bought the similar-sized Sikorsky CH-53 and Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopters with conventional cargo fuselages loaded through rear ramps.

 

[taildragger]

After retirement from military service, civilian Skycranes primarily work as flying cranes in the construction and logging industries. Loggers like to hang specialized, wedge-shaped water tanks under their Skycranes to fight forest fires. Erickson now owns the Skycrane Type Certificate and leases their orange Skycranes to loggers and fire-fighters.

Apparently, demand has exceeded the supply of old airframes and Erickson plans to restart production. They had been extensively remanufacturing old airframes. The skycrane configuration must offer some tangible benefit in their applications since I'm sure that it would be easier to order more modern new-build helicopters.

 

[Yellow Palace]

After retirement from military service, civilian Skycranes primarily work as flying cranes in the construction and logging industries. Loggers like to hang specialized, wedge-shaped water tanks under their Skycranes to fight forest fires. Erickson now owns the Skycrane Type Certificate and leases their orange Skycranes to loggers and fire-fighters.

Apparently, demand has exceeded the supply of old airframes and Erickson plans to restart production. They had been extensively remanufacturing old airframes. The skycrane configuration must offer some tangible benefit in their applications since I'm sure that it would be easier to order more modern new-build helicopters.

It's very effective for the aerial crane role; for users who need something dedicated to that job, it's a great choice.

For the military, and most general users, a specialist aerial crane can't do most of the jobs required, and it's more practical to buy a conventional helicopter. That means a slightly bigger aircraft for the same lifting capability, or more likely reduced lifting ability for the same size, but avoids the need to have dedicated aerial cranes waiting around for something to do.

 

[TomcatViP]

Total cost will dictate the end of the story. Once Sikorsky would have churned out hundreds of CH-53K, the cost of a demiltarized airframe might attract civil buyers.

 

[VTOLicious]

After retirement from military service, civilian Skycranes primarily work as flying cranes in the construction and logging industries. Loggers like to hang specialized, wedge-shaped water tanks under their Skycranes to fight forest fires. Erickson now owns the Skycrane Type Certificate and leases their orange Skycranes to loggers and fire-fighters.

Apparently, demand has exceeded the supply of old airframes and Erickson plans to restart production. They had been extensively remanufacturing old airframes. The skycrane configuration must offer some tangible benefit in their applications since I'm sure that it would be easier to order more modern new-build helicopters.

It's very effective for the aerial crane role; for users who need something dedicated to that job, it's a great choice.

For the military, and most general users, a specialist aerial crane can't do most of the jobs required, and it's more practical to buy a conventional helicopter. That means a slightly bigger aircraft for the same lifting capability, or more likely reduced lifting ability for the same size, but avoids the need to have dedicated aerial cranes waiting around for something to do.

In regards of "...dedicated aerial cranes waiting around for something to do": Isn't that the perfect use case for a cargo pod?