Read the forum code of contact
By: - 18th August 2013 at 01:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Canadians probably had a requirement for more tankage than their 707s with hose & probe pods could accommodate. Of course they could have modified their 707s to full tanker configuration (not the cargo/pax/tanker combos) to get more tankage.
As for it being an odd choice, it actually makes sense...IF the wing could structurally accommodate the refueling pods.
Lockheed was probably right in turning down the offer...the last USAF aircraft was delivered in Feb of 68, but with long lead time items, I'd guess any order would have to be placed a year or two before.
Maybe they delayed ordering until they knew Lockheed would say no with the hope that the USAF would provide the aircraft free (or at a discount or might do the tanker R&D for them).
C-141 fun fact...Short Bros.had paper designs for a follow on to the Belfast with a new fuselage mated to C-141 wings.
By: - 18th August 2013 at 08:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C-141 fun fact...Short Bros.had paper designs for a follow on to the Belfast with a new fuselage mated to C-141 wings.
Hope they would have been the improved wings!
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/c141/pics02.shtml
By: - 18th August 2013 at 10:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C-141 fun fact...Short Bros.had paper designs for a follow on to the Belfast with a new fuselage mated to C-141 wings.
The "Georgia Bel" (or "-Belle")
By: - 18th August 2013 at 11:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hope they would have been the improved wings!http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/c141/pics02.shtml
According to the item you posted, it was NOT a structural issue....
"The cause of the mishap came down to fatigue and bad communication. A fuel leak had developed in the accident wing in the #2 main tank. The plane was pulled into the fuel barn (the hangar in the background of the photos). The leak was repaired and pressure plugs were inserted in the place of the vent plugs. The wing was charged with compressed air. The theory being that if the tank would hold a certain pressure for a certain time, then the leak must be fixed. This also allowed for the replaced panels to "seat."
The plane was then taken back out to the line and refueling started for her next trip to Germany later that day. The personnel who performed the repairs had put in a 20 hour day and went home. Follow on personnel did not swap the pressure test plugs for the vent plugs. As fuel flowed into the #2 main, which is the closest to the fuselage, the air had nowhere to go and compressed until it blew out the skin. Unfortunately, the pressure was so great that it broke the wing spar in the process. " An "improved" wing would not have helped here.
Both the C-130 and C-5 had wing issues in their lives, but not the C-141. However, they did eventually wear out in the 90s. I was on headquarters staff at the time and IIRC, their forward fuselages/cockpit window frames began to leak after 30 years or so.
By: - 18th August 2013 at 16:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess you are correct in THIS instance for this occurrence. Below is a great selection of photos of that incident.
By: - 18th August 2013 at 19:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you mean "guess"? it's very clear. :) Next time, I suggest you carefully read the item before you post it trying to make a point. ;)
Seriously, I've never heard of 141s having major wing issues. In the end, they just wore out.
By: - 19th August 2013 at 08:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to the item you posted, it was NOT a structural issue....Sounds like a structural issue to me. Fatigue leads to structural failure, if that's not a structural issue I'd like to know what is.
"The cause of the mishap came down to fatigue and bad communication. A fuel leak had developed in the accident wing in the #2 main tank. The plane was pulled into the fuel barn (the hangar in the background of the photos). The leak was repaired and pressure plugs were inserted in the place of the vent plugs. The wing was charged with compressed air. The theory being that if the tank would hold a certain pressure for a certain time, then the leak must be fixed. This also allowed for the replaced panels to "seat."
The plane was then taken back out to the line and refueling started for her next trip to Germany later that day. The personnel who performed the repairs had put in a 20 hour day and went home. Follow on personnel did not swap the pressure test plugs for the vent plugs. As fuel flowed into the #2 main, which is the closest to the fuselage, the air had nowhere to go and compressed until it blew out the skin. Unfortunately, the pressure was so great that it broke the wing spar in the process. " An "improved" wing would not have helped here.Both the C-130 and C-5 had wing issues in their lives, but not the C-141. However, they did eventually wear out in the 90s. I was on headquarters staff at the time and IIRC, their forward fuselages/cockpit window frames began to leak after 30 years or so.
By: - 19th August 2013 at 09:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, it was a structural failure. But it wasn't a wings-dropping-off-mid-flight sort of structural failure indicative of poor design that Newforest's initial reply had suggested (whether he meant to or not). The failure happened only happened due to a catastrophic and entirely avoidable mistake during refueling that stressed the wing beyond its design parameters.
By: - 19th August 2013 at 10:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This also happened to a Merchantman at East Midlands, necessitating the acquisition of a replacement wing from Perpignan.
By: - 19th August 2013 at 18:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IIRC the C-141 did end up having wing issues later in life, (and not the fuel overpressurization on the one aircraft above) and many had to have the center wing box replaced in the 1990's, a rather big task as the box was never designed for replacement.
http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc92papers/1992_0151.pdf
http://www.c141heaven.info/dotcom/61/pic_61_2778.php
which states: "In the early 90's it had its center wing box replaced due to cracking (as most of the C-141s did) and also underwent conversion from a B to a C model"
So it does look like the the C-141 had wing issues, not early like the C-5, but later on. And yes they were worn out.
Back on topic I think the 141 would have been a good choice for a multi-purpose cargo/refueler, even though the US airforce was not inclined to put much emphasis on probe and drouge pods, I think it would have been a great force multiplier or a good choice for other air forces that could not afford both large tankers and large lift. Perhaps a more compromised design than an airliner inspired tanker, as it is less efficient, but would have been quite versitile. I also think it a shame that the RAF specifically had the refueling capability of the A-400 deleted- sure the Airtanker group lawyers were all over that.
Posts: 1,376
By: Mr Creosote - 17th August 2013 at 20:15
Recently read that because of the obvious difficulties in rapidly deploying it's CF-5 fighters overseas in an emergency, Canada in 1967 tried to place an order for 4 Lockheed C-141 tanker aircraft. Lockheed turned down the order as uneconomical when they were switching to C-5 production, and the USAF also rejected a Canadian request for 8 C-141's because of the commitment in Southeast Asia. I would have thought the C-141 was an odd choice as the basis for a tanker, and I wondered if anyone had any further info?