Largest and Heaviest XC-142 VTOL Vertical Takeoff from an Aircraft Carrier -1964

[Yevv]

thank you very much for posting. is there more documentaries about that plane?

[peepeevagi]

Also, i would buy some of these. It'd be the perfect short range aircraft :D

[333DFG]

Very interesting. Thanks for up loading it.

[fendertelecaster8225]

LET ME GUESS, THIS APPARENTLY WONDERFUL AIRCRAFT WAS SCRAPPED BECUASE SOME POLITICIANS BROTHER IN LAW HAD A "BETTER" AIRPLANE IDEA THAT ONLY COST A MERE 25 MILLION MORE DOLLARS

[databaseexpert]

Is Peter Graves speaking? Sounds like his voice!

[volvoxmusix]

thanks for upload, it's kinda hard to find footage from the XC-142! very interesting stuff! i'd love to go to that aviation museum.

[andgate2000]

Looks like a bus with wings......not to fast id guess!

[sablatnic]

@andgate2000

Not as fast as a F104, but quite a lot faster than a bus.

[Barnekkid]

Somehow, this is a more practical looking vtol craft than that stupid deathtrap, the Osprey.

[chrthiel]

@Barnekkid

Death trap? It has claimed fewer lives than the Chinook did during development.

[MultiIPwnage]

2:30 people are cheering and shouting!

[PuertoRicanVideo]

They only made 5 XC-142s, only logged 488 flight hours total, and one crashed killing 3 people. It's driveshaft was problem, it was very hard to fly, and was damaged in hard landings repeatedly.

So why does the Osprey suck?? It doesn't. it is a very capable production aircraft that has been deployed to a war zone, and flown the president. This XC-142 was an experiment that had successes and failures.

All of this information is available from this new invention called Google btw.

[BUCEnGAR]

The reason the Navy cited for not adopting it was that the extremely strong prop wash kicked up to much debris during STOL and VTOL at unprepared landing sites.

I personally think that's a pretty absurd reason, I mean show me a helicopter or VTOL that DOESN'T kick up a lot of debris at an unprepared landing site. I think the payload and extremely short take-off and landing would have made this an outstanding aircraft. I mean look how low and slow it gets during drops, perfect for the frontline

[chrthiel]

@BUCEnGAR

The tilt-wing design exacerbates this problem to the point where visibility gets reduced to zero when landing on soft dirt or sand. As you might have guessed that's a bad thing to happen during the most critical manoeuvre any aircraft is capable of.

[XGCScrappy]

I love my c130's, this a stubby more complicated version of it but I like it. Thank you Mr TiT

[davetileguy]

So how on earth did they fly that thing without a computer?? why has the v-22 crashed so many times if they were flying this thing in 1962??

[TilTuli]

@davetileguy

I recommend that you read the Book: "The Dream Machine" - The untold History of the notorious V-22 Osprey" by Richard Whittle.

[planelander]

@davetileguy because americas youth have become idiots

[leviterande]

@davetileguy people got dummer as technology got BETTER. wow I actually suprised myself how well put that was

[stephenmdweiss]

@davetileguy I'm telling you contracts deadlines and greed.

[peepeevagi]

@davetileguy There's two more engines and a heck of a lot more wing to keep you in control. Plus it's not just the engines that tilt, it's the whole wing.

I guess you could say the Osprey doesn't have enough "wing" to be a true Vtol. It's more of a helicopter than a plane lol

[Grimdopple]

I still like the ymc-130 better, this one has too little explosions.

[legomaster335]

:O, im bout to go see the only surviving xc-142

[NWguy83]

I could see this sort of concept being used in the C-130 replacement.

[zebadee277]

@NWguy83 i think they have a 4engine version of the V22 in mind for that, tho this in some ways looks beter as the V22 rotors are to big to tilt down for standard take off

[chrthiel]

@zebadee277

Why would you want to do standard take-off?

Tilt the rotor to 30 degrees from the horizontal and you can take off from a short runway at the same fuel cost as a conventional take-off.

The four engine Osprey was a pre-design concept that later evolved into the Osprey, so I doubt anything will come of it.

[ecoputsch]

@chrthiel

With a standard takeoff you can get off the ground with a heavier load.

[chrthiel]

@ecoputsch

If you have room for conventional landings and take-off, you shouldn't be using a VTOL in the first place.

[lycanthropeify]

just saw vids of 130s taking off and landing on the forrestal aircraft carrier*

[crispycritterz]

There were those who were part of the "military industrial complex, and those who weren't. The makers of this aircraft were not. That is why this was not funded, in spite of the fact that it was 20 years ahead of it's time.

[XGCScrappy]

I guess no one ever heard of the Herc.

[Afrocanuk]

This looks like something De Havilland Aircraft should have mainstreem by now.

[PeregrinusFalco]

Lol, @ 2:45 "government procurement necessitudes".

[scobbler1976]

wow, impressive. To think, this was before the conventional use of 'fly - by - wire' systems; mostly hydraulic, I suppose. Kinda makes you wonder what other facinating tech has yet to be released from this era. Now that I think of it, Corning just picked up the rights to manufacture Gorilla Glass - another wonder product of the 60s. Keep 'em coming!

[megashegem]

This plane had alot of vibration problems that's why it was not built.

[danieldeibler]

Well it's better than an Osprey. =P

[gww1]

It looks like it's made of Lego

[dustyleviz]

What the HELL!!!!! Why did this program not continue? Count on the government's red tape to mess it up.

[mbrdej]

@dustyleviz To many rotors. Too little weaponery and transport space. And a little ugly front;)

[jbyrd0861]

@dustyleviz osprey v-22

[EnigmaNZ1]

Work is going on to create a vtol/stol C130. Pity this concept didn't take off back then. Even a partial tilt stol Hercules would have been very useful.

[John28061]

It looks like a Hercules on helicopter steroids.

[AthrunX23s]

So is the Osprey smaller than this?

[flyingmike0373]

because the airforce made it, and they have a blank check.

[moneyman10k]

if this works so well why does osprey suck

[EUROSUN1]

Very cool. Thanks for the post.

[Junkboy888]

Thanks for posting the Video, But how about posting some information about where video was taken, The name of the museum, it's location. I could care less about TIT UL SEARCH ENGINE ....and the garbage posted in the video description.

[TilTuli]

The Video is from Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos CA.

Click on "More Info" to get the link to Hiller site.

Enjoy

[MidShipCivic]

@Junkboy888 You're profile show's you're 16 comment a year ago makes you 15 have some respect lil boy before you get slapped over the internet.

[lst1195]

That is aamazing! I had no idea that technology had bee around so long! They said procurment so I'm guessing it was money that killed the project?

[78720]

they lied bout some thing a 4 eingined aircarft landed and take off from a carrier a C130 did back in the 50s

[DonMeaker]

And the pilot won the Collier trophy, not the kind of thing you do routinely.

[AgonxOC]

@78720 I am pretty sure that was in 60s aswell. Heck the C-130 was not even in service until the mid to late 1950s. You should research a bit more about aviation history.

[Taneth21]

@78720 Did that involved the infamous project YMC-130H were three modified Lockheed Hercules Aircraft for the Top Secret "Operation Credible Sport"?

[hegemoniac]

turboprops operate within 2-5% of maximum output literally all the time, any excess fuel used in hover is negligable

[RacerLamboMurcie18]

wow, those must be some pretty powerfull engines, only tihng is they would suck gas like hell, so they wouldnt be able to hover for more than ten minutes, as it takes more power to hover a plane, then to fly in forwards flight... so the concept or rescuing more peoplein one aircraft would be almost impossible without mods to the plane, and even with mods, it would still be hard to last very long, interesting though, its one of those things that are built just 2 show it can be built,cool vid 5*