Author Topic: C-141 Starlifter and related proposals  (Read 7515 times)

Offline kerick

  • Responsible for all surrendered booty....Arrrr!!!!
Re: Lockheed C-141 Starlifter
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2013, 12:00:09 PM »
I always wondered how hard it would be to get a C-141 and convert it to a house. Lots of head room for sure. Others have used airliners.
http://www.airplanehome.com/
I'm sure the C-141s have been scrapped by now.

Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: Lockheed C-141 Starlifter
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2013, 01:53:47 PM »
Remember being at McChord AFB seeing first C-141 to ever be there.
Was on a look-see tour showing off C-141.  This was before McChord had one delivered.
Now,,, is off to bone yard and beyond.  :icon_sueno:

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Lockheed C-141 Starlifter
« Reply #27 on: April 06, 2013, 02:19:18 AM »
I remember having the bejesus scared out of me and a group of mates when a long flying C-141 with all the lights out went over us near Woomera back in the early '90s... :o
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Boeing's XC-141 proposal, the Boeing 731
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2020, 02:20:44 AM »
I've had this idea of building a Boeing C-141 as if it had won the competition. I had found that the C-135 was almost the same size as the Lockheed C-141A so my thoughts were to put the C-135 wings up on top of the C-135 fuselage, giving it anhedral and then using the type of engine nacelles the Lockheed C-141 had.

A week or so ago in a thread on the What-If forum I had laid out the idea there too, and low and behold this morning, on SPF, there's a thread there all about it. It's not far off what I had envisioned, the only thing I would have got totally wrong was the main undercarriage arrangement. Now I have something to work on ---  (it would also suggest some arrangement for Boeing's XC-5 proposal)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2020, 04:31:13 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Boeing's XC-141 proposal, the Boeing 731
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2020, 03:47:17 AM »
Interesting...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Boeing's XC-141 proposal, the Boeing 731
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2020, 10:11:43 AM »
Looking forward to this!  :D

... then using the type of engine nacelles the Lockheed C-141 had.

Curious though ... why the C-141 nacelles? Is it just an aesthetic preference? Or a set of Lockheed nacelles in the spares box?

To me, the 707's JT3D nacelles look quite similar to a B-52H's TF33s (from the side). That would seem to reinforce the family resemblance.
"And loot some for the old folks, Can't loot for themselves"

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: C-141 Starlifter and related proposals
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2020, 11:51:08 AM »
C-141 Lockheed documents link, 5 files:
https://c141heaven.info/dotcom/lockheed/476l.php

Vol. 2 includes a drawing of a GE MF239 C-3, aft-fan engine installation.   :smiley:
Lots of fun stuff to root through.   :smiley:
« Last Edit: January 04, 2020, 11:58:59 AM by jcf »
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Boeing's XC-141 proposal, the Boeing 731
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2020, 11:32:00 PM »
Looking forward to this!  :D

... then using the type of engine nacelles the Lockheed C-141 had.

Curious though ... why the C-141 nacelles? Is it just an aesthetic preference? Or a set of Lockheed nacelles in the spares box?

To me, the 707's JT3D nacelles look quite similar to a B-52H's TF33s (from the side). That would seem to reinforce the family resemblance.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the engine used for the C-141 had won it's competition --- so my thoughts were it would've been use on the Boeing. As to the shape of the nacelle, you're probably right, Boeing might have come up with something else. But when you look at the designs for XC-X (C-5) competition, IIRC, they all used the same engine nacelles.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: C-141 Starlifter and related proposals
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2020, 11:45:30 PM »
I think the utility and overall success of the RAAFs C-17 acquisition suggests that the C-141 procurement would have had great potential if it had gone ahead.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: C-141 Starlifter and related proposals
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2020, 11:49:57 PM »
I think the utility and overall success of the RAAFs C-17 acquisition suggests that the C-141 procurement would have had great potential if it had gone ahead.

The same for the RCAF with the C-17, the best acquisition the Government ever made for the C.A.F.