| Kaoschallenged | 07 Nov 2013 9:12 p.m. PST |
The XC-120 Packplane: One of the USAF's Best Failed Ideas Written by Dabney B. on Friday, June 8th, 2012 There have been some odd hybrid aircraft throughout military history. The XF-85 Goblin was part plane, part cargo. The Sea Dart was as much a boat as it was a plane. The USS Macon was both a surveillance blimp capable of spying past enemy lines, as well as an aircraft carrier that unloaded half a dozen fighter aircraft in times of danger. How about this one: what would it look like if you combined a tractor trailer with an aircraft? The result would be the XC-120 Packplane, one of the strangest aircraft in aviation history. The idea behind this aircraft was to combine the maneuverability and speed of a aircraft with the modular cargo capabilities of a tractor trailer. The XC-120 featured a standardized cargo pod that could quickly be detached and reattached. On paper this seems like an ingenious idea. Air bases could load up the cargo pods with anything they like, keep them in storage, and then just drive them out to the tarmac whenever a XC-120 was slated for take-off. Instead of taking the time to load all of the cargo individually, they would simply need to line the pod up with the XC-120, hook everything up, and the plane would be good to go. Less time dealing with crates means that the plane can spend more time in the air, saving time, money, and possibly lives. The plane's manufacturer, Fairchild, converted a C-119 Flying Boxcar cargo aircraft into the tractor-trailer-like XC-120 (an appropriate choice, no?). Basically, they just cut a C-119 in half horizontally from the nose of the plane all the way to the back and turned each half into its own self-contained unit. Voila: the world's first XC-120.
- See more at: link
|
| Kaoschallenged | 07 Nov 2013 10:08 p.m. PST |
|
| VonTed | 08 Nov 2013 4:31 a.m. PST |
That does seem pretty ingenious. Wonder what the problem was? |
| Sundance | 08 Nov 2013 4:36 a.m. PST |
Fantastic! I always liked the idea of a nuclear powered plane, but they just couldn't get it to fly because of the lead shielding that would have been needed to protect the passengers from the power plant's radiation. |
| PHGamer | 08 Nov 2013 6:02 a.m. PST |
This plane wasn't nuclear. Standard radial engine design. |
| PHGamer | 08 Nov 2013 6:09 a.m. PST |
My guess why they didn't go forward with this is that modular cargo container design hadn't been refined yet, as that was being invented in the 50's as well. I don't see a pod size in the half dozen websites I found. The original standard cargo container was only 20 feet long, well within what I see in the photo. |
| NCC1717 | 08 Nov 2013 6:51 a.m. PST |
This one worked fine: link
|
| Eclectic Wave | 08 Nov 2013 7:28 a.m. PST |
I suspect it failed more to one part of the basic concept then anything else. That would be keeping a bunch of supplies sitting around in cargo pods. Supplies that might be needed to be shipped in other methods then the strangle shaped cargo pod needed for the XC-120. It's not like you can put that pod on a truck and drive it off. If you think for a minute you will realize that the concept never went away and is in use by almost all the air freight companies today, they just changed the shape and size.
|
| emckinney | 08 Nov 2013 8:41 a.m. PST |
|
| flicking wargamer | 08 Nov 2013 11:05 a.m. PST |
One suspects that someone figured out that it was just as cheap and much more versatile to have a standard plane with a huge interior that you could just put pallets, and other containers in, and could then just load onto trucks or get easy access to while in storage by leaving them on the pallet. |
| gameorpaint | 08 Nov 2013 2:39 p.m. PST |
The original standard cargo container was only 20 feet long, well within what I see in the photo. But 8'6" wide and tall. That's a wider square than I think you'd get into a 119. The advantage of palletized cargo is it's possible to airdrop. Does this have an air drop capability? |
| Kaoschallenged | 08 Nov 2013 3:21 p.m. PST |
It looks like the pod clamshells in both the front and rear. So maybe it could airdrop out the rear? Robert |
| Whitestreak | 08 Nov 2013 7:06 p.m. PST |
One of the problems could have been simply size and power. Radial engines do have a finite limit on their power, and IIRC, the pnes designated for this plane just didn't have that much power. Let me check my sources and I'll see what I can find. |
 Dan Cyr  | 08 Nov 2013 9:35 p.m. PST |
Can remember seeing thousands of paratroopers preform a drop from C-119s in France in the late 1950s. Impressive aircraft, but I'd not have wanted to try it under AA fire. Low and slow… Dan |
| capncarp | 10 Nov 2013 6:41 a.m. PST |
"The advantage of palletized cargo is it's possible to airdrop. Does this have an air drop capability?" I imagine that if you fooled around with the release catches on the pod while in the air, it would drop…;D |
examines another pre-painted building for WWII.
