c133 cargomaster returned to flight status...true?

[w.a. manning]

airliners.net has a pic of N199AB with a caption that it's been
returned to flying status. does anyone have more info on this? that
would be a really amazing (and expensive) undertaking. iirc they only
made a few dozen of these in total. here's a link to the
pics/captions:

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N199AB&distinct_entry=true

well...just googled that tail# and found this:

http://www.air-and-space.com/Douglas%20C-133%20Cargomaster.htm

freakin' awesome - i wanna see that thing in flight!

[WaltBJ]

Must be a bunch of suicidal masochists. When I was at Thule flying
Deuces in 63-64 the 133s used to come in there. But even emergency
leaves couldn't get a ride out on the beasts because right then they
were silently disappearing en route. The two theories I heard was a
stall during cruise-climb on autopilot followed by an in-flight
breakup or one of the props coming off and sawing through the fuselage
or whatever. During that same tour a 133 stalled on takeoff from Goose
Bay - presumed frost atop the Davis wing - and splashed into the fuel
farm. Very little left once the fires were out - certainly not enough
to allow any conclusions. I do have a classmate who flew them - he
doesn't seem to hold any resentment towards the beast since he uses
'C133'as part of his email address.
FWIW there is/was? one in the Pima Air Museaum - it looks like a
salami with wings.
Walt BJ

[Dick Latshaw]

(WaltBJ) wrote in message >...
> The two theories I heard was a
> stall during cruise-climb on autopilot followed by an in-flight
> breakup or one of the props coming off and sawing through the fuselage
> or whatever.

As I dimly recall, (it was 40 years ago) the 133 did not have an
autopilot, so I'd go with theory number 2, which was also the guess at
the time for the disappearances. I, fortunately, never flew the thing,
known back then as the 'Oscar Meyer Weenie Wagon'.

Dick
Former MATS/MAC AC

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(WaltBJ) writes:
> Must be a bunch of suicidal masochists. When I was at Thule flying
> Deuces in 63-64 the 133s used to come in there. But even emergency
> leaves couldn't get a ride out on the beasts because right then they
> were silently disappearing en route. The two theories I heard was a
> stall during cruise-climb on autopilot followed by an in-flight
> breakup or one of the props coming off and sawing through the fuselage
> or whatever. During that same tour a 133 stalled on takeoff from Goose
> Bay - presumed frost atop the Davis wing - and splashed into the fuel
> farm. Very little left once the fires were out - certainly not enough
> to allow any conclusions. I do have a classmate who flew them - he
> doesn't seem to hold any resentment towards the beast since he uses
> 'C133'as part of his email address.
> FWIW there is/was? one in the Pima Air Museaum - it looks like a
> salami with wings.

I'd heard that it was a problem with the location of a fuel tank vent
and the HF slot antenna in the wing. Under the right conditions,
you'd get fuel vapor in the slot - then, when you transmit on the HF,
it would ignite, removing the wing, with generally bad results. Of
course, it would only happen over the ocean, since you didn't need the
HF over land.

IIRC, there are 2 left in possible flying, or returnable to flying
condition - One is up in Alaska, where it was used to haul outsize
cargo for the Alaska Pipeline. The other's somewhere in the desert,
either Tuscon or Mojave, after being converted into a flying
Opthamology Hospital. From what I've been led to understand, though,
All the 133's had pretty much chewed through their fatigue lives by
the time of their retirement in '70-'71. It's probably cheaper and
safer to rent an Il-75 or An-124 from the Ukraine than it is to get
the old beast flying.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (WaltBJ) writes:
> > Must be a bunch of suicidal masochists. When I was at Thule flying
> > Deuces in 63-64 the 133s used to come in there. But even emergency
> > leaves couldn't get a ride out on the beasts because right then they
> > were silently disappearing en route. The two theories I heard was a
> > stall during cruise-climb on autopilot followed by an in-flight
> > breakup or one of the props coming off and sawing through the fuselage
> > or whatever. During that same tour a 133 stalled on takeoff from Goose
> > Bay - presumed frost atop the Davis wing - and splashed into the fuel
> > farm. Very little left once the fires were out - certainly not enough
> > to allow any conclusions. I do have a classmate who flew them - he
> > doesn't seem to hold any resentment towards the beast since he uses
> > 'C133'as part of his email address.
> > FWIW there is/was? one in the Pima Air Museaum - it looks like a
> > salami with wings.
>
> I'd heard that it was a problem with the location of a fuel tank vent
> and the HF slot antenna in the wing. Under the right conditions,
> you'd get fuel vapor in the slot - then, when you transmit on the HF,
> it would ignite, removing the wing, with generally bad results. Of
> course, it would only happen over the ocean, since you didn't need the
> HF over land.
>
> IIRC, there are 2 left in possible flying, or returnable to flying
> condition - One is up in Alaska, where it was used to haul outsize
> cargo for the Alaska Pipeline. The other's somewhere in the desert,
> either Tuscon or Mojave, after being converted into a flying
> Opthamology Hospital. From what I've been led to understand, though,
> All the 133's had pretty much chewed through their fatigue lives by
> the time of their retirement in '70-'71. It's probably cheaper and
> safer to rent an Il-75 or An-124 from the Ukraine than it is to get
> the old beast flying.

You must have missed the lead post in this thread--the one in Alaska is
indeed flying, though apparently only very infrequently.

Brooks

>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster