Help support TMP


"c133 cargomaster drop paratroops??" Topic


9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2006) Message Board

Back to the Modern Aviation Discussion (1946-2006) Message Board



617 hits since 15 Feb 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

wardog15 Feb 2017 2:03 p.m. PST

the c133 cargomaster was a long range transport (replaced by c5 galaxy) my understanding is it could carry about 200 troops ,
question was it ever used to drop paratroops, if so how many in that role

Rubber Suit Theatre Inactive Member15 Feb 2017 2:50 p.m. PST

picture

I'm not sure if it ever was used in that role in any meaningful way, but it certainly looks quite capable of it – I would have mistaken the beast for a C-130.

Legion 415 Feb 2017 4:11 p.m. PST

When you see it from the front especially, it looks a bit different than a 130. I don't know if it was ever used to drop Paratroops.

As a side bar, the C5A, would not generally be used to drop troops. As it had to maintain a higher speed because of it's size, etc. And the higher speed would cause too many parachute malfunctions. Plus it would take too much time to drop all those troops. The DZ would have to be very, very, large. And troops would scattered everywhere. Or the C5A would have to fly in circles over the DZ to get everyone out of the aircraft. You don't want to loiter over a DZ anymore than you have to if you are big slow transport. The 133 may have had the same situation.

According to this : link The 133 was designed primarily as a heavy lift transport like the C5A that replaced it. And again, I have never heard of any jumps made from a 133. Maybe for the same reasons as the C5A.

Rubber Suit Theatre Inactive Member15 Feb 2017 8:16 p.m. PST

That, and only 50 were built (of which 10 were destroyed by accidents). The poor safety reputation and general rarity would seem to be factors keeping it away from airborne operations.

Legion 416 Feb 2017 8:01 a.m. PST

Yes that makes sense … As I said, I've never heard of any troop drops from the 133.

Ed von HesseFedora16 Feb 2017 9:46 a.m. PST

As a former airdrop navigator in both the C-130 and the C-5, I can state that Fred (the C-5) was more than capable of dropping paratroopers without any risk of higher-than-normal malfunctions or scattering. My last checkride was dropping Rangers on a fairly small DZ in Louisiana.

The main reason of not using it to do much of that is risk: it is too valuable for outsize cargo carrying to risk in most tactical environments.

As to the C-133, it does not appear to have troop doors, from which most (but not all) personnel drops occur in the C-130, C-141, and C-5.

Legion 416 Feb 2017 4:27 p.m. PST

Good to know, I was just repeating what I was told waaay back in '79 … old fart But that was a very long time ago … My jumps were from 130s and the now "vanished", 141.

And yes, if the 133 was used to drop troops, looks like they'd have to use the ramp.

wardog17 Feb 2017 2:13 p.m. PST

question on the cargo bay, the height was about 12 feet
what was the width of the bay (cant find that info)
one of my scenarios entails tank uplift to the battle zone (m48/m60 tanks) i assume it could /did carry them?

Legion 417 Feb 2017 2:30 p.m. PST

An M48/M60 weights in a @ 40 tons …

C-133 has a Payload: 110,000 lbs.= @ 50 tons

The C-133 could probably carry 1 M48/M60. If it could fit in the cargo bay. But 12 Feet is a bit low for those MBTs. E.g. an M60 is about 11 feet tall …

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.