Farewell US Starlifters

Broken-Wrench · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:37 pm **Posts:** 1197

See Ya Starlifter you big pile of SH%#. You cost me many weekends and 12 hr days ( Only 10 Hr on Sunday) keeping you airworthy. I drink to your demise out of aluminum cans I hope were made from your carcass. Signed A/C mechanic, ART, Norton AFB, Engine Shop, 63rd FMS.

Don Martin · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:41 pm

Broken-Wrench wrote:

See Ya Starlifter you big pile of SH%#. You cost me many weekends and 12 hr days ( Only 10 Hr on Sunday) keeping you airworthy. I drink to your demise out of aluminum cans I hope were made from your carcass. Signed A/C mechanic, ART, Norton AFB, Engine Shop, 63rd FMS.

So I take it you had a "Bad Experience" with a 141? I put in many 12hr days and 6 day weeks as a repair and reclaimation mechanic, but I can't blame the aircraft for it. Bad scheduling for pilot training and a lack of funding for spare parts(READ THAT CANNABLIZATION!) kept us running. That and having to take time to fix C-5s also! I will always pick a 141 to work on(excep for the hydraulic spoiler packs :evil:

. Signed; R&R mechanic, 443rd FMS, Aerospace Systems Branch, Altus AFB, OK.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

Broken-Wrench wrote:

See Ya Starlifter you big pile of SH%#.

You know, there is a reason these are being replaced. Maintenance Man Hours Per Flight Hour, Mission Capability Rate, Mission Availabilty Rate, Fuel Consumption, inability to land on short semi-prepared runways, width and height of the cargo compartment, crew comfort, airdrop capabilities, the fact that they are old technology and falling apart, etc. Also, a lot of the younger pilots are looking forward to an airline career. They will be better prepared in a C-17 with fly-by-wire, high bypass turbofans, and modern avionics.

Dan K · **Posted:** Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:25 pm

http://zeeb.at/oops/C-141spar1.jpg

Yeah, it's time...

TimAPNY · **Posted:** Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:28 pm

So are we blocked from the that website now?

dj51d · **Posted:** Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:48 pm

TimApNy wrote:

So are we blocked from the that website now?

Not exactly. When you click on a link your browser sends a refferer, or the address of the page that contained the link. The site which that image is hosted on is dissallowing loading images if the refferer is from a different domain. In short, if you follow a link from a different site, the request is automatically denied. You can get around this by copying the link address and pasting it into the address bar.

TimAPNY · **Posted:** Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:53 pm

thanks, that is what I ended up doing.

Don Martin · **Posted:** Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:22 pm

Okay guys I guess I have to qualify my statement. I know the 141s are past their prime. Hell, they were old when I was working on them(78-82), BUT, they were Tough AND Reliable. I watch what the jeep pilots did to them every day. I am surprised that they lasted this long without more major problems. They carried the lion's share of airlift for almost thirty years. When the 52's and 135's were sitting alerts 141's were circling the globe every day. All I'm saying is she was a good airplane and deserves a decent retirement. And I can't see the logic in replacing roughly 250 airframes with 100 airframes. That leaves 100 less places you can be. And new technology is wonderful, but..............................

HarvardIV · **Joined:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm **Posts:** 1437

I've heard theyh ad issues with the spar, and some resulting inflight failures. I think that fact resulted in their dismissal.

Chris

Don Martin · **Posted:** Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:04 pm

I can't remember now if that photo was a spar or wing bolt problem. The old girls had a wing bolt problem from way back. There was a TCTO that required periodic re-torquing of the wing bolts with the bolts being replaced during phase inspections, if I remember right.. THAT was a job I didn't care for as it required two people to crawl into the center wing section, one lying on top of the other, to assemble a special torque wrench and check/retorque the bolts. UNFORUNATELY, this was before there were a lot of FEMALE mechanics :shock:

And if someone cut one......................

Broken-Wrench · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:37 pm **Posts:** 1197

bdk wrote:

Broken-Wrench wrote:

See Ya Starlifter you big pile of SH%#.

You know, there is a reason these are being replaced. Maintenance Man Hours Per Flight Hour, Mission Capability Rate, Mission Availabilty Rate, Fuel Consumption, inability to land on short semi-prepared runways, width and height of the cargo compartment, crew comfort, airdrop capabilities, the fact that they are old technology and falling apart, etc. Also, a lot of the younger pilots are looking forward to an airline career. They will be better prepared in a C-17 with fly-by-wire, high bypass turbofans, and modern avionics.

They would say more 12 hour days are on way press on with pride global Warrior. I thought B.S. The good thing was I made up my mind I was going to College and and change my direction in life. I guess I owe that to the 141!

Broken-Wrench · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:37 pm **Posts:** 1197

I remember the army tore up alot of stuff when they deployed. S/M shop worked as much as we did. ALL THE TIME! LIFE WAS HELL

Warbird Information Exchange

Farewell US Starlifters

Who is online