C-141 Star Lifter

[kitnut617]

Just a quick enquiry, was there a competition for the C-141 and if so who were the other competitors and what did they offer?

Robert

[B777LR]

Yes, there was a competition, and no, i dont remember what was offered. I do know that the C-141 was the nicest of all entries

[retro_seventies]

The USAF issued SOR 182, a requirement for freighter - i know that at least 3 companies (Lockheed, GD and Boeing) entered...not sure what the entries looked like though.  I'll have a dig around...

****update

Make that Lockheed, Convair, Douglas and Boeing.

****

...and don't forget that for a while, the MATS was looking at buying over 200 CL-44's.

[sotoolslinger]

Coolest looking transport ever

[Sentinel Chicken]

Take a 707 and mount the wings above the fuselage and add fuselage mounted fairings for the main landing gear and you'd have a pretty good approximation of the Boeing design.

[kitnut617]

Take a 707 and mount the wings above the fuselage and add fuselage mounted fairings for the main landing gear and you'd have a pretty good approximation of the Boeing design.

I had wondered about that, I was comparing my Lockheed C-141A with a C-135A I just got.

[elmayerle]

it's amazing what's actually out there....

I believe that's one of Lockheed's C-5 design studies, at least it was labelled that in the AIAA C-5 Design Case Study.  I keep thinking that with tandem fans and a bit of creative ductwork, you could have a low-obervable stealthy stol transport from that configuration.

[AS.12]

Some other nations which nearly operated the C-141:

- Canada: for the 'standard heavy' requirement.  In the end they split the purchase across the 707 and P-3 / CP-141
- France: seriously considered it as a strategic supplement to the Transall in the late 1960s but didn't commit
- Germany: selected four 707-320Bs instead


Interestingly as early as 1964 civilian operators were telling Lockheed that the Starlifter's fuselage was too short, that it would bulk-out at around 60,000lb with normal freight densities ( wasting 35,000lb of payload capability  )*.  So they had no real interest in the original model, to the disappointment of the USAF which was to receive a royalty on each civilian sale! 

One of the requirements of the USAF contract was that the Starlifter had to be FAA-certificated to Cat 3B autoland, the same as the Short Belfast.


* Of course the USAF later came to the same conclusion about internal volume but at that time it wasn't considered critical as they had the CX-4 project underway to move bulky things and the C-141 was to be complementary, carrying troops and their direct equipment.  CX-4 proposals looked like a fatter six-engined C-141 able to lift about 135,000lb but later went up-scale and resulted in the C-5.  The C-141B stretch later filled the CX-4 gap.

[AS.12]

Something I've just found in Flight ( August 1967 ).  The proposed Canadian purchase came closer to reality than I had realised:

Ottawa has confirmed that negotiations are to begin on the purchase of four Lockheed C-141 Starlifter strategic transports

...

Negotiations will centre on the model already in USAF service, but with the addition of an in-flight refuelling system.

If negotiations are successful, the first aircraft will be available by late 1969.  The four C-141s will augment the RCAF's Hercules and Yukon transports, and undertake the refuelling of CF-5 tactical fighters on ferry flights.

The intention was that sufficient Starlifters were to be available at any time to ferry a squadron of 16 CF-5s in one wave. Later reports added that one Starlifter was to be equipped to carry a 'VIP module' to replace two Yukons used for that task. 

Even more intriguing: the RCAF planned to order three C-5s for delivery in 1972!

[AS.12]

Another nearly:

- Australia:  the army wanted the RAAF to procure at least six Starlifters as of 1964 to support obligations in South-East Asia for which the Herks weren't really suitable.

Interest then escalated to the C-5; three were thought sufficient.  Even the Navy was onboard with that idea as they could get rid of HMAS Sydney and redistribute its personnel to sharper-end ships.

But instead a dozen C-130Es were ordered to supplement the 130As.  Lots of disappointed faces.

.

[PR19_Kit]

That's interesting as it indicates that the Canadian 141s would have had AAR booms or hose drums in RCAF service. I've not seen any RW Startanker proposals before, but there's one in build on here right now.

[Captain Canada]

I think Ratty is building one right now

[The Rat]

I think Ratty is building one right now

Yep, as a KC-141!

[PR19_Kit]

I think Ratty is building one right now

Yep, as a KC-141!

Does yours have a boom or hoses or both Ratty?

[The Rat]

Does yours have a boom or hoses or both Ratty?

I've swiped the boom from the Hasegawa 1/200 KC-10, if I have hoses they'll have to be scratched, unless someone does them in that scale.