> "Ken Kozlowski, a former C-133 crew chief who served as chief mechanic and flight engineer on a privately owned Cargomaster that flew until 2008. Through monastic devotion to understanding every system on the C-133 and by developing his own maintenance procedures, Kozlowski kept the civilian Cargomaster flying as a bush airplane—and slamming onto remote Alaska gravel runways—nearly 40 years after the Air Force let it go."
My favorite part so far.
EDIT: Adding another interesting bit:
"Was the Cargomaster dangerous? Ten had crashed, and 61 men had been killed. In 1964, the C-133’s accident rate per 100,000 flying hours stood at 2.7, while the C-130’s was 1.9. The overall Air Force rate was 7.7."
7.7 is higher than I would have expected. I wonder what planes are pulling up the numbers? The article makes this plane sound like a mysterious and dangerous machine, but 2.7 is well below 7.7...
Fighter planes. Today, we have few accidents, but during the Cold War, it was common. "F-100 Super Sabre fighter had an average of 21 Class A mishaps per 100,000 hours"
F-16 Flight Mishap History (1975-2018). Lifetime Class A rate is 3.39. ("Class A Mishap. A mishap resulting in one or more of the following: 1. Direct mishap cost totaling $2,000,000 or more ($1,000,000 for mishaps occurring before FY10). 2. A fatality or permanent total disability. 3. Destruction of a DoD aircraft. NOTE: A destroyed UAV/RPA is not a Class A mishap unless the preceding criteria in “1” or “2” are met.")
Thanks for the link! Haven't gone through all the historical data, but a data point that stood out: F-100 hit 1724.1 in '85. I suppose numbers like that could bring averages up in a hurry.
My favorite part so far.
EDIT: Adding another interesting bit:
"Was the Cargomaster dangerous? Ten had crashed, and 61 men had been killed. In 1964, the C-133’s accident rate per 100,000 flying hours stood at 2.7, while the C-130’s was 1.9. The overall Air Force rate was 7.7."
7.7 is higher than I would have expected. I wonder what planes are pulling up the numbers? The article makes this plane sound like a mysterious and dangerous machine, but 2.7 is well below 7.7...