C-119 firebomber

[sandiego89]

C-119G N8093 my C-117D/R4D-8 N8538R and C-119L N3003 at Anchorage in 1981. Both Boxcars had STC’s making them C-119G-3Es (for 3 engine). I flew about 150 hours total in the Doug, mainly on the Fish haul and a few hours in each of these Boxcars. I’ll have to make a thread on my Fish Haul experience one of these days. It offered excellent opportunities to kill yourself, but was a definite adventure.

Those would be great stories Larry!

Regarding the jet on those 119's was it used regularly for takeoffs? Did it make a noticeable difference?

[Larry Kraus]

The short answer to both questions would be YES. Also, the Boxcar had really abysmal single engine performance immediately after take-off. Here’s a page from the C-119G pilot’s manual:

654A4EB2-5B23-4DD9-9B70-524A039B09BC by tanker622001, on Flickr

And from the C-119B manual

E3258071-0685-45B4-887C-9BCFF958B7BE by tanker622001, on Flickr

When I was flying a B-17 out of Porterville we used to claim that the only reason that the jet was used on take-off in the Boxcar was to act as a glorified fuel dump to help it get off the ground. J-34 jet engines are relatively primitive and (as with all jets) the thrust at low air speeds is not very spectacular compared to that at say 400 knots. Any time that the Boxcar had a load of any significance the jet would be used both to improve take-off performance and to make the first minute or two of a piston engine failure considerably less fatal.

During the Fish Haul we had 115/145 avgas supplied for our use and the Boxcars had ADI available and used water injection on heavy take-offs. Here’s N3003 taking off from Egegik Beach southwest of King Salmon on one of the very few good weather days during the 1981 Fish Haul.

944C8698-F3D5-41C1-AC05-C71966CA0979 by tanker622001, on Flickr

In all fairness to the Box, the P-2s also used both jets on every loaded take-off and water injection when it was available. After about 1990 ADI saw much less use in P-2s. Sis-Q Flying Service flew DC-6B’s for several years on contracts requiring carrying 3000 gallons of fire retardant. That was pretty iffy on a hot day and they used water injection all the time. The saving grace with tankers being that the retardant load could be dropped in a few seconds if a failure occurred during or shortly after take-off. That made the Go-No Go decisions a lot less stressful.

I once saw one of Sis-Q’s mechanics filling up a 5 gallon ADI can from a garden hose at La Grande. He said not to worry because the methanol was just to prevent freezing. When TBM Inc. first got C-123K’s one of the mechs mixed up ADI in a 10 gallon crock using water, methanol and a dash of oil (corrosion protection) from a recipe in the maintenance manual. It reminded me of my dad brewing beer in the basement when I was a kid.

Last edited by Larry Kraus on Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Mick G]

. I asked if I could take some pictures of the airplane, and they said that would be fine. So, owned by Hemet Flying service -- Tanker # unknown and airport unknown.

That's N13746, Tanker# 87 in your pics. You can see the Dash Plaque on your two cockpit photos.

Cheers.

[Neal Nurmi]

Larry -- I too would be very interested in a thread about the fish haul. I'm old enough to remember when the Super DC-3 was a big deal -- I remember thinking that it looked great with the tall tail and gear doors in the pictures I saw in "Aviation Week", which was the only aviation resource I had as a kid. These big props have become more interesting to me as I dig through my old files.

Thanks for the ID, Mick -- I've added it to my files. Not being a pilot, it never occurred to me to look for that dash plaque.

And Sledge -- in 25 years of wandering the back roads of California only twice have I gotten drop pictures like these. It requires having the equipment (both were aviation photography trips so I had fairly long lenses), a canyon area with highway, and no cops or ground personnel cordoning off the area. It does require some caution and common sense, as fire can move fast in that terrain. On one of the occasions I got to see this C-119 and one of H and P's PB4Ys make drops and on the other occasion a Neptune and a DC-6. I've been lucky to have had this much.

[Lt51506]

Photo #1 I believe was Paso Robles. Thanks for sharing these...brings back the memories!

[Neal Nurmi]

That sounds like a good possibility. It's funny -- I have no memory of the trip or what I was doing down there, but I sure remember the airplane. No wonder my wife thinks I sometimes have a weird sense of what's important. I'm glad WIXers are enjoying some of this old stuff. These old slides do bring back memories for me too.

[Lt51506]

You may like "Airtanker Memories" in the photo gallery. Something I started several years ago but had to quit due to health issues at the time.

[Larry Kraus]

Flying the Super DC-3 was an interesting experience as the airplane was a mixture of pretty ancient technology and some that were relatively new. I’m currently in Florida and my photo albums from the Fish Haul are in Oregon. That said, I have scanned most of the pictures and have them available and I took pictures of each page of the albums to reference the captions that I wrote when things were fresh in my memory. So, some time soon I’ll get things together and post the story.

Here is my Super 3 and H&P’s Boxcar on Egigic Beach ready to load totes of freshly caught salmon. All materials for buildings and other facilities were flown in on the Boxcars

47BC0857-70AA-468D-A284-15F4CDA5F6D9 by tanker622001, on Flickr

B8E1F0CD-71CF-4177-B739-86FD95C41F75 by tanker622001, on Flickr

[Hooligan2]

Love these threads - and looking forwards to the one on fish hauling!

Modern aircraft are so dull in comparison....

[sandiego89]

The short answer to both questions would be YES. Also, the Boxcar had really abysmal single engine performance immediately after take-off. Here’s a page from the C-119G pilot’s manual:

Larry, thank you so much for the detailed reply on my inquiry on the jet- great stuff. Those manual entries emphasizing the straight and level, the 100FPM climb and cargo jettison (if possible) get your attention!

[aerovin]

The saving grace with tankers being that the retardant load could be dropped in a few seconds if a failure occurred during or shortly after take-off. That made the Go-No Go decisions a lot less stressful.

From sometime in September 1971, Los Angeles Times:

[Neal Nurmi]

I had completely missed the "Airtanker Memories" thread -- that thing is dangerous. I spent a bunch of time last evening when I should have been doing other things digging through that material, and I still haven't finished it. Thanks for all that work, Lt51506 (I have no other name). If your health has recovered I'd like to see more.

Another interesting discussion would be round engine bush flying (to exclude the Cessnas and Cubs on floats). The "fishermen flying" (as against fish hauling) scene is also interesting with Beavers, Otters, Twin Beeches and Norsemans, and then there is the Northern mine and Dew Line support stuff which is closer to Larry's lines of work. There have been a lot of interesting airplanes working the North over the years.

[sledge39]

.
Anouther "right place at the right time" drop photo

...The rest of the story on this pic...

https://fireaviation.com/2020/02/15/ont ... -children/

Ontario Air Tanker Base was closed after a jettisoned load of retardant landed on homes and children (1977)

sledge39 (aka JD Davis)

[Chris Brame]

I found the same article, but it was a PBY not a B-17 (which makes the engine trouble aspect even more critical!). Did you get an early edition? Date was October 14, 1971:

[sledge39]

.
Here's the 'Airtanker Memories' thread in case anyone has trouble finding it...

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=40156