N.O.S. Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 It's just dawned on me that I've never come across any pictorial evidence or written reference to these GMCs actually being "AIRPORTED". Can anyone advise if they were ever used in the way for which they were designed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJ G. Miskovsky Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 one of my buddies in North Carolina has one. He showed me some wartime pictures of one being loaded onto a cargo plane. My understanding is they were used in the Pacific Theater due to the island hopping campain, but they required more than one A/C to transport them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 According to "Wheel's and Track's" Issue #22 " whether any of these Jimmies were ever used operationally in tactical or stragic airlifts we have not been able to ascertain. If they have, it will not have been on a grand scale. " I have a photo copy of tb 9x-74 , which shows the exact placement of the truck in two c-47a's and lists the pilots report of aircraft handling characteristics the second comment by the captian says " Care had to be exercised in banks and turns in Flight number One because of the truck's main chassis' C/G being located above the window line.This gave the aircraft a tendency to continue to turn about its longitudinal axis.Turns in excess of 15 degrees bank are not advised" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I take it although they could be disassembled and loaded on to the C47-a aircraft that not many were since it affected the aircraft so markedly . and the max fuel load for the aircraft was limited it to 804 gallons . Not being a expert on c47-a's I have no idea what distance that would be equal to ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I take it although they could be disassembled and loaded on to the C47-a aircraft that not many were since it affected the aircraft so markedly . and the max fuel load for the aircraft was limited it to 804 gallons . Not being a expert on c47-a's I have no idea what distance that would be equal to ? Dakman is the expert, he's flown them enougjh. There was an airportable Dodge, built in Canada and a splitting American Dodge. there is not a lot of room in a C47, especially if your'e used to Jumbos and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakman Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Standard Dak has a main tank of 168 I.G. and an auxiliary tank of 167 I.G. in each wing, giving a total of 770 Imperial = 924.7 US gallons. So recommended fuel amount mentioned above was 120 US gallons below max capacity. Consumption averages out at 80 Imp / 96 US gallons per hour, so to dry tanks it could stay airborne for 9 hours 37 mins, but leaning out and cruising at 1850 RPM, (only if engine was well-tuned and props well-balanced) instead of the normal 2050 RPM would extend this. We never (obviously) flew to dry tanks; I personally never liked to land with less than 120 I.G. (90mins) sloshing around in there somewhere for Public Transport work, though it was normal to always run the auxiliaries dry and switch over just as the engines began to cough, (fastest hand movements to be found on the DC-3 flight-deck, even though you were always poised ready with the electric booster pumps on, and engines hardly missed a beat!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Standard Dak has a main tank of 168 I.G. and an auxiliary tank of 167 I.G. in each wing, giving a total of 770 Imperial = 924.7 US gallons. So recommended fuel amount mentioned above was 120 US gallons below max capacity. Consumption averages out at 80 Imp / 96 US gallons per hour, so to dry tanks it could stay airborne for 9 hours 37 mins, but leaning out and cruising at 1850 RPM, (only if engine was well-tuned and props well-balanced) instead of the normal 2050 RPM would extend this. We never (obviously) flew to dry tanks; I personally never liked to land with less than 120 I.G. (90mins) sloshing around in there somewhere for Public Transport work, though it was normal to always run the auxiliaries dry and switch over just as the engines began to cough, (fastest hand movements to be found on the DC-3 flight-deck, even though you were always poised ready with the electric booster pumps on, and engines hardly missed a beat!). Dakman. Sounds like I have completely missed something in your history, apologies for that :oops: Would I be right in thinking that you flew C47's?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Christ, you are quick Jack :schocked: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakman Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yes Jack, I was Fleet Captain for Intra Airways in Jersey in 1976, and was on them '73 to '81. The info I posted was from the tech manual volume of an almost complete DC-3 start-up kit I still have at home. Having flown more modern stuff subsequently, I still reckon she's my favourite! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie The Jeep Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Christ, you are quick Jack :schocked: Jack's as sharp as a ping pong ball!!! :whistle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I agree on the reserve fuel issue never want to cut things to close in case of unexpected conditions .Your right about having some more capacity on the fuel , the max weight conditions are given as take off weight with front half of cckw and its various items along with crew of five coststing of pilot, co-pilot ,crew chief, radio operator,weight and balance officer plus fuel total 30,514lbs. a max gross take off weight of 31,000 lbs a max landing weight of 26,000 lbs . so they had a margin of 486 lbs to the max take off weight .but given wind and weather conditions the repair and operating condition of aircraft I say there wasnt a whole lot left. fuel u.s. 6 & imp 7.2lb/gal. they break down the fuel as 2 tanks.29 gal ea. max 58 gal , 4 tanks, 2 wing frt.404 gal. 2 wing rear 400 gal.804 gal.total.100-octane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 the second aircraft load had same crew and fuel its load totaled 30,645 lbs. leaving 455 lbs from max take off weight of 31,000 lbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakman Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Interesting these wartime aircraft weights. In the 70's the max take-off weight was 12,700kgs/27,998lbs, yet the max landing weight was 12,200kgs/26,896lbs. So in wartime the allowable take-off weight was more, and the allowable landing weight was less. Explanation? Well, only a guess, but wartime Daks were fresh out of the factory with smooth skins, less wrinkles, (I kid you not), and therefore with only a couple of coats of paint were more likely to stay airborne in the case of one engine failing, (airframe drag etc.), at the higher weight. Also the margin of performance on one engine was probably not that required post-war in civvy-street. The remaining engine, also being younger, was more likely to deliver design power in a more reliable manner for longer when being thrashed in order to stay airborne on one engine. Ours were literally a wing and a prayer! As to the higher post-war landing-weight, well, over the years the centre-section/fuselage girders were massively reinforced, to the extent that these over-engineered items quite routinely had cracks in them which were merely x-rayed at intervals, no big deal. The outer wings were monocoque, and the fillets around the joints to the centre-section each had 376 nut-and-bolts, (far better than one big bolt!), and were reinforced as time went on. When a wing was replaced, the bolts were torqued-up, we flew one circuit waggling the ailerons, we landed, the bolts were re-torqued, varnished and maybe covered over with a fillet. They were never touched again. Also, ours were modded with good disc brakes, whereas wartime Daks had nasty unreliable drum brakes. Geez, if I'm boring you with all this, please say!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 Geez, if I'm boring you with all this, please say!!!!!!!!! Heck No!!!! Mind you, I would never have imagined an innocent query re. GMCs would develop into a full-blown Dakota debate :rtfm:. And, it did not get political! I think my question has been answered, thanks all. Looks like Wheels and Tracks came up trumps again... Please carry on with Dakota-speak :whistle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 So who'se going to be the first to start a restoration then? Does that mean we start laying a landing feild behind the club house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakman Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 The only way to make a fortune in aviation is to start with a bigger fortune. Come the elusive lottery (big) win, then funnier things have happened. Oh, and if I do win guys, you'll be the first to know! (Sometimes I can tell AWFUL lies..................!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeEnfield Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Oh, and if I do win guys, you'll be the first to know! (Sometimes I can tell AWFUL lies..................!) :rofl: :whistle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 You can keep going on the Dakota facts as I have not spoken to a Pilot with first hand experience flying them :-) You just never know Who exactly wrote the manual and what margins they gave them selves , or why they were changed , everything you said makes sense . The stowage illustrated of the CCKW is complete in every detail and includes the fuselage floor beam and cargo tiedown locations in inches from the fuselage nose. it lists the pilot as M.D. Watson ,Capt.,AC the W and B officer C.B. Wood,Capt.,AC for the 4 test flights between 3/31/44 and 4/15/44 one flight for each half of the truck with min. fuel and a second set of flights with max range fuel . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Dakman what would you guess for an average distance for an aircraft loaded as I have described , I know that crosswinds ,headwinds or tailwinds would all effect the distance flown . I curious if the C47-a/DC-3 would have had the range to cover the distance's between some of the island chains in the Pacific , Maybe they used three aircraft or more to lighten the cargo weight and carry more fuel ? would they have mounted additional fuel tanks? or pumped fuel from drums while in flight ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakman Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Given all the factors already described, a good, new Dak @ full-load should manage 130kts indicated, so allow say 125-135kts average. In the 70's a full-loader would manage126kts indicated. I'll leave you to work out the possible ranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joris Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Here a picture of an air portable GMC, taken today in the Marshall Museum, netherlands: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) So who'se going to be the first to start a restoration then? Does that mean we start laying a landing field behind the club house? Tony B My CCKW353H-1 is currently under going a complete restoration and should be rolling again in a matter of 6-8 months or so. will post pic's when I have them . Edited May 17, 2008 by abn deuce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Also I wouldn't mind having that Airportable Clark dozer in the background or a para troop bicycle the perfect item's to go with my airportable CCKW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joris Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Also I wouldn't mind having that Airportable Clark dozer in the background or a para troop bicycle the perfect item's to go with my airportable CCKW. Wow you sure look at those pictures thoroughly! :bow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 But has anyone come across an original split body on a preserved airportable? Can't remember whether the one at Overloon had bolted joint - it was certainly in 2 bits :whistle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.