Talk:Lockheed C-141 Starlifter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Number of C-141s built

There were 270 C-141's built!

Nope. 285 built, 270 converted to C-141B. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Farewell

I was privileged to witness the final flight of the Hanoi Taxi today. After a period of stabilization, she will be on display tat the U.S. Air Force Museum, in my hometown of Riverside, Ohio. This aircraft holds a place of honor & deserves our thanks for evacuating literally thousands of injured & imprisoned servicemembers in conflicts from Vietnam to Afghanistan & Iraq I & II.--Ssbohio 15:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

NASA C-141A correction

This was added to the main article. But it really belongs on talk.

Article text in C-141A section:

NASA obtained one of the early C-141As that was modified to house a telescope (the Kuiper Airborne Observatory) for use at very high altitudes. This NASA NC-141A is now in storage at Edwards AFB, CA.

User 64.118.116.241 added:

Not correct. The airplane used as the Kuiper airborne observatory, NASA 714, is not a C-141A, it is designated a Lockheed L-300. It is the only non-military 141 built. Originally registered as N4141A, and used as a sales demonstrator for airlines and cargo operators, it was re-registered as N714A when acquired by NASA. It is not in storage at Edwards, it remains in it's original operating home at Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Mountain View, CA.

I'm sure that's true, but policies require a reference. If you have one list it. I'll see what I can find... -Fnlayson 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I've got that fixed and found a couple references for the L-300. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bump

What's was the lump on the top of the front fuselage for? In-flight refuelling? Jason404 (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. See Image:KC-10 Extender, C-141 (2151958280).jpg. - BillCJ (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

C-141B deliveries

Article states the C-141B deliveries started in December 1979. That's not correct. I was at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska in July and August 1979. We serviced both C-141A and C-141B aircraft that summer. I clearly remember getting my first look at the B model refueling system that summer. Airbosss (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did they all go?

Once they were retired where did they all end up? Are they in reserve retirement somewhere? I would hope they did not end up scrapped.Fishfan99 (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of them have been scrapped, you can find fates at http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html and look under 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
15 aircraft on static display at various museums (see main article); the remainder scrapped50.59.106.156 (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Section Title, "Survivors" vs. "Aircraft On Display"

I'd like to change the title of Section 6, "Survivors" to "Aircraft on Display", but as I'm new to this page, I'd like to get inputs from previous stakeholders first. My reasoning is that having a section called "Survivors" immediately after the "Accidents" section could be taken the wrong way by family members or friends of the aircrew lost in the accidents. I understand the article, and the "Survivors" section, is about the aircraft, but as a linguist and 23-year Air Force aircrew veteran, I take the word "survivor" to denote a human being in the first sense of the word. I have seen similar sections in other articles titled "Aircraft on Display", "Aircraft Disposition", "Surviving Aircraft" and "Survivors". I feel "Aircraft on Display" is best for a general audience such as Wikipedia, and avoids any connection to the lives lost in the preceding "Accidents" section. Uncle Ivan (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Aircraft on display" is fine. Looks like all the entries are for C-141s on public display. Survivors is for remaining aircraft not necessarily on display, etc. per guidelines at WP:Air/PC. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Changes/edits made per your advice. Thanks! BTW, that's my first-ever edit on Wikipedia! I was unaware of the WP:Air/PC page, so it was by chance I went with "Aircraft on display". I do think the term "Surviving aircraft" should be used instead of "Survivors", for the same reasons above, but I'll take that to the WP:Air/PC discussion page. FYI, it was due to a respected colleague of mine (a flight engineer) being a good friend and colleague of those lost in the December '92 accident that led me to the C-141 article. Thank you for all the work you've done on it, and for all your work on Wikipedia altogether! Uncle Ivan (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Aside from those in museums or on static display there are no 'survivors', all the remaining aircraft at AMARG have been scrapped.Bob80q (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The article uses "Aircraft On Display" now. "Aircraft On Display" and "Survivors" can be both valid section labels; use the one(s) that are appropriate for the article in question (general comment). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Fuselage design

I recall reading, many years ago that the Starlifter fuselage design was essentially based on that of the C-130 Hercules. I think it was in an edition of Air International in the mid-80's but my copies have long gone, can anyone else substantiate that?Kitbag (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also seen that information in various publications over the years. The main problem with the C-141 was that it used the same fuselage cross section as the older C-130. I suppose that move saved some money on tooling costs but the USAF paid for it in other ways because there was Army combat and engineer equipment the C-141 could not carry. By the way, the older C-133 turboprop had more cargo volume than the jet-powered C-141A. I remember seeing the 133's come in to land at Qui Nhon in Viet Nam in the 60's. The runway there wasn't long enough for the C-141's to use but it was still possible to deliver large and heavy items from the USA almost to the gate of the nearby Army 58th Field Depot by air with a couple of refueling stops and crew changes along the way. Sadly, a number of C-133's broke up in flight and were lost with their crews. Michou 13 (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Canada

Is the proposed order for four Starlifters for Canada as tankers in the late 1960s worth a mention ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember reading about that. Maybe a short variant entry saying it was a proposed version or something like that. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

MAC-cum-AMC-gained..?

What does this even mean? Very vague/obscure for laypersons, etc.

92.237.146.68 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The phrase/detail is not especially relevant to the aircraft itself, so it has been removed. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

EXACTLY, "laypersons, etc." as too lazy to even bother to research the Difference between the U.S. Air Force's MAC and AMC; as a completely different trains of thought, Tactics, Strategy, Support, etc. as the U.S. Air Force was budgeting more towards Fighters (Upgrades), Fighter Bombers (Upgrades), Bombers (B-1, B-2), and Ground Combat Support Aircraft (Upgrades) and Not Transport Aircraft (Transport Aircraft to Support the U.S. Army and U.S.M.C.) as to emphasize the U.S. Air Force's Combat Role, and deemphasize the U.S. Air Force's Support Role to get more U.S. Congressional Appropriations for U.S. Air Force Fighters, Fighter Bombers, Bombers, and Ground Combat Support Aircraft. This change in mentality, would decrease the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force's Air Mobility Command (A.M.C.) Support Mission of the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, etc., with the U.S. Air Force's Air Mobility Command (A.M.C.) being a downsized U.S. Air Force Military Airlift Command (M.A.C.). As the U.S. Air Force's Military Airlift Command (M.A.C.) established during the Cold War, 1966, previously had a requirement to be capable of transporting by air numbers of U.S. Military Ground Combat Forces using only U.S. Air Force Assets. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. Air Force lacked enough Aircraft to support both the Vietnam War and Europe, so U.S. Civilian Airlines were used to transport U.S. Military Personnel (like Flying Tigers as mentioned in the Article, Pan American (PanAm), Braniff, etc.), while the majority of cargo was transported by U.S. Navy Merchant Marine Cargo Ships; this is why the Requirements (1964) for the C-141 started during the Vietnam War.

The U.S. Air Force's Military Airlift Command (M.A.C.) and U.S. Air Force's Air Mobility Command (A.M.C.) being part of the History of the C-141, the C-141 being absolutely essential during the Retrogrades (Withdrawals) of the Nuclear Weapons of the U.S. Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (I.N.F.) Europe, to comply with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (S.A.L.T.), Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (S.T.A.R.T.), and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (I.N.F.) Treaty. (Before anybody asks) The U.S. Air Force's limited numbers of C-5s were not used because they were not Certified at that time for the Safe and Secure Transport of Nuclear Weapons (also includes the Air Crew to be Certified and Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program (P.R.P.) plus Top Secret Security Background Investigations (T.S.B.I.) cleared; but could transport Pershing 1 and 2 "Missile Sections" and "Missle Components" in accordance with U.S. Air Force Technical Manuals (Regulations). Nakamuradavid (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lockheed C-141 Starlifter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Amend & correct incident record of C141 aircraft

http://c141heaven.info/dotcom/61/pic_61_2778.php Wireflight (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lockheed C-141 Starlifter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_C-141_Starlifter/Archive_1&oldid=985086879"