Shorts Belfast for sale
Well my friend; I would have thought that you could have worked that for yourself.
For what it is worth, I am in the process of writing my second book (my first was an historical tome).
When I finish the latest book which is the history of my flying career, then you might just find out.
For what it is worth, I am in the process of writing my second book (my first was an historical tome).
When I finish the latest book which is the history of my flying career, then you might just find out.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking forward to your version of history
The C-133 carried more, flew more often, and much further. Combine that
with a fleet of 50 versus 10, a longer in service life, and you would expect a higher loss rate.
No arguing that there were design issues. Moot point.
Seesh, the Belfast currently being advertised has a whopping 11,200 Total Time
The C-133 carried more, flew more often, and much further. Combine that
with a fleet of 50 versus 10, a longer in service life, and you would expect a higher loss rate.
No arguing that there were design issues. Moot point.
Seesh, the Belfast currently being advertised has a whopping 11,200 Total Time
So you are denying that 50 C-133s during it's service killed 57 aircrew and that makes it a much better aircraft than the Belfast that killed absolutely nobody?
Even if I were to take 57 killed out of 50 versus 0 killed out 10 then I know where I would want to be.
However, I bow to your superior knowledge. I have to admit that I only flew the Belfast for six years and you obviously preceeded the Wright Brothers by four good years so there is not much else that any of us can add.
Even if I were to take 57 killed out of 50 versus 0 killed out 10 then I know where I would want to be.
However, I bow to your superior knowledge. I have to admit that I only flew the Belfast for six years and you obviously preceeded the Wright Brothers by four good years so there is not much else that any of us can add.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the the flight rate of the Belfast, you must have logged loads of time, LOL!
Not much exposure to danger sitting on the ramp.
If I understand your logic, the Belfast is superior as it hasn't had a hull loss?
Right then
Do get us that book detailing the long and dangerous sorties
Not much exposure to danger sitting on the ramp.
If I understand your logic, the Belfast is superior as it hasn't had a hull loss?
Right then
Do get us that book detailing the long and dangerous sorties
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Records
None can match the C130 Hercules in service safety record of the Royal Australian Air Force. Four models in service for varying periods, A-E-H & J, 12 of each. Fifty two years continuous operations and NEVER a loss, operating from the Antarctic to the Artic and most places in between. Now THAT IS SOME SORT OF RECORD. Go the Lockheed Legend.
Last edited by Old Fella; 30th Dec 2010 at 00:07.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, a fine record, and aircraft. However, if we apply the logic of Commander Belfast, it must be a crap airplane having had numerous hull losses and fatalities over the years with multiple operators.
The link below to a C133 article may be of interest ............
The Curse of the Cargomaster | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
The Curse of the Cargomaster | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
The Curse of the Cargomaster
Readied to transport the first U.S. ICBMs, the Douglas C-133 had a peculiar habit. It kept crashing.
By John Sotham * Air & Space Magazine, September 01, 2010
Readied to transport the first U.S. ICBMs, the Douglas C-133 had a peculiar habit. It kept crashing.
By John Sotham * Air & Space Magazine, September 01, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more choice quotes from the link;
"The C-133 had supported operations around the globe, and was even trusted with transporting Apollo command modules after they returned from the moon"
"They’d fly it again, if they had the chance. Among the group gathered at Delaware’s Dover Air Force Base, there’s a man for every crew station at the ready. They flew, maintained, navigated, and sometimes cursed one of the least understood aircraft in the history of the U.S. Air Force, the Douglas C-133 Cargomaster."
Reading the comments from those who know the airplane best are relevant as well
"The C-133 had supported operations around the globe, and was even trusted with transporting Apollo command modules after they returned from the moon"
"They’d fly it again, if they had the chance. Among the group gathered at Delaware’s Dover Air Force Base, there’s a man for every crew station at the ready. They flew, maintained, navigated, and sometimes cursed one of the least understood aircraft in the history of the U.S. Air Force, the Douglas C-133 Cargomaster."
Reading the comments from those who know the airplane best are relevant as well
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belslow for sale, hmmm...might make a great airport beer hall.
Of course, prior to civvy service, the UKCAA required a stick pusher to be fitted.
In the interim, ops were allowed with an additional crew member.
His job was to closely monitor the airspeed, and if deemed too slow, was to yell out...STALL, STALL!!!
High tech...all the way.
Of course, prior to civvy service, the UKCAA required a stick pusher to be fitted.
In the interim, ops were allowed with an additional crew member.
His job was to closely monitor the airspeed, and if deemed too slow, was to yell out...STALL, STALL!!!
High tech...all the way.
411A, Hi
"Of course, prior to civvy service, the UKCAA required a stick pusher to be fitted.
In the interim, ops were allowed with an additional crew member.
His job was to closely monitor the airspeed, and if deemed too slow, was to yell out...STALL, STALL!!!
I think it was actually "SPEED, SPEED" if the speed fell below VAT!
I did the actual stick-push air-tests with Douggie Page, then Marshalls' Chief Test Pilot. When we tried the 45Flap, U/C down and 350psi of torque on the engines, the stick-push didn't work and we stalled.....
Fortunately at 5000ft because we flicked inverted and where the sky should be there were green fields...and that wasn't an experience you'd like to try in any big aeroplane!!!
We upped our base height to 10,000ft after that!
"Of course, prior to civvy service, the UKCAA required a stick pusher to be fitted.
In the interim, ops were allowed with an additional crew member.
His job was to closely monitor the airspeed, and if deemed too slow, was to yell out...STALL, STALL!!!
I think it was actually "SPEED, SPEED" if the speed fell below VAT!
I did the actual stick-push air-tests with Douggie Page, then Marshalls' Chief Test Pilot. When we tried the 45Flap, U/C down and 350psi of torque on the engines, the stick-push didn't work and we stalled.....
Fortunately at 5000ft because we flicked inverted and where the sky should be there were green fields...and that wasn't an experience you'd like to try in any big aeroplane!!!
We upped our base height to 10,000ft after that!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it was actually "SPEED, SPEED" if the speed fell below VAT!
The C-133 was quite an advanced airplane for its time, according to some I've met who flew the type, however...it did, on occasion, have rather a bad reputation of chucking engines off the wing.
Something to do with the prop reduction gearbox, I think.
It was however, very large, could carry a lot, and was quite fast...and would fly far.
Not a bad combination.
A few were converted to civvy ops and used (mostly, as I recall) in Alaska.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont know much about either a/c but the point about the stick pusher was a CAA thing i believe . Werent the UK reg 727's the only ones required to have one ? how many of them were built !!!
You've got me worried, JW411, when is your book coming out?
If I understand your logic, the Belfast is superior as it hasn't had a hull loss?
Sounds so much less scary than "crash", "fire" etc.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 68
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides all the above `slightly off topic/thread drift` comments, where is it possible to register and operate the Belfast?
Im guessing that most licencing authorities would not entertain its application.....
Im guessing that most licencing authorities would not entertain its application.....
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: LONDON E.U.
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would of fit in well in Yellowknife once upon a time but I understand the Ice Road Truckers got alot of theta action.Still use for a good utility aircraft like that somewhere. Oil & Gas exploration.
411A:
Now none of us are getting any younger and it was 1972 when I got to the Belfast. However, I'm not sure that the habit that the C-133 had for shedding engines wasn't more connected to the electric props rather than the P&W T34 engines themselves.
I'm pretty sure in my own mind that Andy (my friend who did an exchange on the C-133) told me that there was an electrical scenario whereby all four props would feather and that could, at the very best, ruin your whole day. At the very worst, it could mean disappearing without trace.
You and I are old enough to remember aircraft that suffered cascading bus bars. The present generation wouldn't understand such a thing.
Nor would they believe that if you didn't remember to put the RR Dart into ground fine during the landing run then you would melt all four engines down within seconds as soon as you breathed on the throttles.
Incidentally, the freight bay on the Belfast was about the same length as the C-133 at just under 90 feet. However, since the C-133 was really designed for carrying IRBMs and ICBMs. it was a bit narrower.
The Belfast freight bay was a minimum of 12 foot square and was the only aircraft apart from the C-5A (and the Antonov) that could carry a JT-9 (complete with cowls etc). This we did for Pan American on a fairly regular basis.
We could also get a BAC 1-11 fuselage (or a Fokker 28) fuselage inside. All you had to with a Sikorsky S-61 (Sea King) was to take the main rotors off. Two Pumas went in easily back to back. We would take them to Belize and they were usually airborne within an hour of landing and unloading. All that was required was a quick rotor tracking check.
The aircraft was designed for moving indivisible loads and nothing else.
Having said that, one of the more bizarre loads that I ever did was a complete building for the Canadian DOT. We were at Gander on the way back from Forbes AFB when we got the request/order. The building was needed at Goose Bay and was in a hangar at St John's. So, we off-loaded and positioned down to St John's.
That year, the sea never did thaw out so we were being asked to shift the whole building by air. The building was complete right down to the toilets and even a flag pole complete with a flag! As best as I can recall, the whole thing weighed about 78,500 lbs. We would certainly not have got that sort of weight across the Atlantic!
Now none of us are getting any younger and it was 1972 when I got to the Belfast. However, I'm not sure that the habit that the C-133 had for shedding engines wasn't more connected to the electric props rather than the P&W T34 engines themselves.
I'm pretty sure in my own mind that Andy (my friend who did an exchange on the C-133) told me that there was an electrical scenario whereby all four props would feather and that could, at the very best, ruin your whole day. At the very worst, it could mean disappearing without trace.
You and I are old enough to remember aircraft that suffered cascading bus bars. The present generation wouldn't understand such a thing.
Nor would they believe that if you didn't remember to put the RR Dart into ground fine during the landing run then you would melt all four engines down within seconds as soon as you breathed on the throttles.
Incidentally, the freight bay on the Belfast was about the same length as the C-133 at just under 90 feet. However, since the C-133 was really designed for carrying IRBMs and ICBMs. it was a bit narrower.
The Belfast freight bay was a minimum of 12 foot square and was the only aircraft apart from the C-5A (and the Antonov) that could carry a JT-9 (complete with cowls etc). This we did for Pan American on a fairly regular basis.
We could also get a BAC 1-11 fuselage (or a Fokker 28) fuselage inside. All you had to with a Sikorsky S-61 (Sea King) was to take the main rotors off. Two Pumas went in easily back to back. We would take them to Belize and they were usually airborne within an hour of landing and unloading. All that was required was a quick rotor tracking check.
The aircraft was designed for moving indivisible loads and nothing else.
Having said that, one of the more bizarre loads that I ever did was a complete building for the Canadian DOT. We were at Gander on the way back from Forbes AFB when we got the request/order. The building was needed at Goose Bay and was in a hangar at St John's. So, we off-loaded and positioned down to St John's.
That year, the sea never did thaw out so we were being asked to shift the whole building by air. The building was complete right down to the toilets and even a flag pole complete with a flag! As best as I can recall, the whole thing weighed about 78,500 lbs. We would certainly not have got that sort of weight across the Atlantic!
