Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:11 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:54 am 
Offline
WRG Editor
WRG Editor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Haverhill, MA & Johnston, RI
Image
British Paras board a Blackburn Beverley via the rear loading stairs, 1959.
Source: british-eevee

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.


Image

Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

Follow us on Twitter! @WIXHQ


Last edited by Scott Rose on Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Spelling and description errors


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:44 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm
Posts: 1377
They'd be paratroopers from one of the army Parachute Regiment's Brigades: not RAF.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:37 am
Posts: 84
Location: Grimsby, UK
That should be spelt Beverley - as is the Yorkshire town the aircraft was named after.
M-62A


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5228
Location: Eastern Washington
An odd aircraft.
Note that because of the high wing it has fixed gear...rare for a large four engine type.

I saw the one on display at the RAF Museum, Hendon which has since been scrapped, leaving only one survivor at a privately owned museum.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:40 pm
Posts: 1454
They probably could make use of a parachute if they fell off the top of the ladder!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:12 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm
Posts: 1377
The Beverley was in essence the XC-120 Pack Plane but without the detachable part. The paras are entering the top 'passenger' level, while the lower level was for cargo and jumping from!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:56 am
Posts: 843
The performance of the Beverley was such that it could carry a tank to the end of the runway or a load of ping pong balls around the world!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:48 am 
Offline
WRG Editor
WRG Editor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Haverhill, MA & Johnston, RI
More pics added...

I don't know why but I find this aircraft very interesting

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.


Image

Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

Follow us on Twitter! @WIXHQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:18 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3399
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Because it is. The Bev was the RAF's version of the C-123 "Old Shaky" and was used by the RAF all over the world, flying many airmen and soldiers from the Island to places all over the Empire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:05 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5228
Location: Eastern Washington
CAPFlyer wrote:
Because it is. The Bev was the RAF's version of the C-123 "Old Shaky"....


"Old Shaky" was the C-124, aka the Globemaster...actually, the Globemaster II.
The C-123 was the Fairchild Provider.

While the two aircraft filled broadly similar roles or missions, the
C-124 was in a completely different class, technically.

Douglas C-124.......Blackburn Beverley
Empty weight:
101,165.......79,234
Gross weight:
194,500.......135,000
Range:
4035 (with 26375 lbs of cargo).......1300 miles
Max Speed:
271.......238
Cruise speed:
230.......173

Really no comparison.



Data from: U.S. Military Aircraft Since 1909 and Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3399
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
John, thanks for fixing my designation error. That's what I get for not proof reading before posting.

Also, I know the C-124 is significantly larger and more capable, but as you said, they fulfilled the same role for their countries. The Brits didn't have anything bigger until the massive Short Belfasts came online years later, much as the C-124 was replaced itself by the C-133. While the Brits had a much more far-flung Empire, they had many connections and land along the way to the far reaches, so having an airplane with a shorter range per leg wasn't an issue. For the US, having to cross one ocean or another meant we had to build bigger and longer ranged aircraft. Two solutions for the same issue - supplying and supporting the troops.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:32 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5228
Location: Eastern Washington
To be sure, the Brits had different requirements, they could hop-scotch their way to the Far East, India and Australia, so that accounted for some of the choices when writing requirements.

Their main personnel transport in the 50s was the H.P. Hastings, a large four engine type and anachronistic tail-dragger based on the wartime Halifax bomber.
Smaller transports included the Vickers Valetta, which unbelievably had soars cutting through the cabin, again pretty old-school for the 50s.

The one area they did excel was the Argosy, a four engine twin boom turboprop..probably a bit more capable than the C-119. But by the time it was in widespread service, the C-130 had arrived and must have outperformed it as the Brita were early Hercules customers. Oddly, most civil customers for The Argosy were U.S. freight firms with DoD LOGAIR contracts....so in a way the U.S.military was a prime customer of the type.

The Belfast, like the C-133 was bought in modest numbers and remained in civil use after its military retirement. Unlike the C-133, I believe it was used as a troop transport. I haven't read the C-133 book and don't know why it wasn't used as a personnel transport...either it's safety concerns or with the C-141 on the drawing board it wasn't needed in that role.

Also, the RAF bought examples of UK airline types for personnel transport to overseas bases, notably the Brittania 4 engine turboprop and Andover twin-turboprop (which differed from civil variants by having a rear loading ramp) and of course the Comet.

My father flew '124s so I have a strong interest in the type. I have his Dash-1 and a large 1/72 metal desk model of it. I would have loved to fly in one, but I missed it by about a decade. But I did get to fly in '130s and '141s...a decent, but not as romantic, substitute. :)

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 2:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 278
Location: Perth Western Australia
The Beverley looks like it would have offered good rough and short field performance.
Was this the case?
If so another point of differentiation from the C-124?

_________________
Chris Mellor


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:24 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm
Posts: 1377
Rick65 wrote:
The Beverley looks like it would have offered good rough and short field performance.
Was this the case?
If so another point of differentiation from the C-124?


Not sure on its performance, but the Beverley was used on some VERY rough strips in the Middle East: in fact I suspect a lot of these weren't really strips at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:20 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5228
Location: Eastern Washington
You're correct, I have seen photos of the Beverly on some unpaved strips in the middle east. What's not appreciated by many is the RAF was fighting insurgents in places like Aden in the 50s.

I don't believe it was designed for extreme STOL operations, but rather it could use the unprepared strips because of its size, weight and configuration (high wing, fixed gear)...so it was. And there was the fact that the RAF didn't have anything better at the time so it had to be used.

It comes across like a medium airlifted pressed into service in a strategic or long range role.

Crews used to joke about the 124's speed, or lack thereof (the flight deck didn't have a clock, just a calendar) but the Beverly was even slower. At least RAF crews enroute to Singapore or Hong Kong had plenty of refueling stops in exotic locales to pass the time, unlike 124 crews heading across the Pacific from Travis, McChord or Larson. Their flights must have been extremely tedious with only stops at Hickam and Wake Island to enliven it.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AG pilot, hurricane_yank and 67 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group