Talk:Fairchild C-123 Provider/Archive 1

Untitled
This image (left) may be helpful for those researching this aircraft. v/r Chitrapa 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Still operational?
Is this aircraft still operational, I can't find any info on that in the article. It has quite a lot of miles on its meter though. --MoRsE 09:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at this article about "Turbo Provider". If I understood it correctly, at least one C-123 is still operational. You can also look at photos on Aviation.net, maybe someone caught one in flying condition? --Piotr Mikołajski 10:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the C-123 is still operation I would guess it would be in the hands of private firms who do movie work (such as the Con Air reference), fire bombing, or something similar. I don't think any are still operational in a military role, but I could also be wrong about that.  -- Thatguy96 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to find some photos on Airliners.net, but it's difficult to find anything quickly. At least one C-123K is still used - registered as N546S. It's civilian registration but aircraft can be used by some kind of agency, needs checking. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 16:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just spotted a C-123K on Heroes episode 14 of season 3 at 34:15, which aired on Feb. 2, 2009. No idea which one it is because it has fresh light grey paint and no markings visible other than a safety message behond the left crew door.  There were no scenes of flight other than an apparently simulated rear view of takeoff but it was taxiing with props turning and the turbojet pods closed and inactive. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Might find http://www.warbirdregistry.org/c123registry/c123registry.html useful and the FAA (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/acftinqSQL.asp?striptxt=C123&mfrtxt=Fairchild&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0&cmndfind=submit&modeltxt=C-123 lists 15 still registered although they are not all active. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just A Note I Jumped out Of A C123 At Fort Benning, In 1980 Sep-Oct 1980 when I was At Jump School, Right Before I Was Assigned To The 82nd Airborne Div. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSparta (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please give credit where credit is due on first paragraph.
Note on introductory paragraph: Changes were made because although Fairchild likes to take credit for development of the C-123 as a powered aircraft, this development was indeed done by Chase, with all materials and fully operational prototypes turned over to Fairchild for production. Chase engineers developed the Boundary Layer Control system, as well as essential elements of the airframe, the powerplants, and cockpit control system design. Fairchild only put it into production. This is on authority of the son of one of Chase's design engineers who developed the new tail structure and worked on the BLC system, as well as cockpit instrument placement. Please give the Chase engineers credit for their hard work!


 * Fine, but keep the details in the Lead short. THat's what the main text is for. And remember to cite your sources if you add any more details - and sons of engineers aren't verifiable sources, you'll need published works. - BillCJ (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just tweaked the intro to include Chase, interestingly Chase actually built the first five C-123Bs (with FY52 serials). MilborneOne (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that works better than what I had. Do you think we ought to do an article on the XCG-20 itself? Is there enough info to do one justice? - BillCJ (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They were only two XCG-20/XG-20s that became the XC-123 and XC-123A that are dealt with in the opening paragraph of this article so I suspect not much more to say about them. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken. I was under the impression there had been more than 2, but hadn't done any research of late. No offense if the info in the article was from you, but I try to verify what's here ratehr than accept it by blind faith. We've both been around Wiki long enough to know not everything written here is accurate. In this case the text was right, and my memory was wrong! Not the first time for that either! Oh, thanks for adding the variants list- definitely needed. - BillCJ (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Squadron/Signal's book "C-123 Provider in Action", ISBN 0897472764, is an excellent source of verified information on all of the C-123 variants built by Chase, including the Pantobase and jet prototype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.8.69 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture
I was under the impression that a popular culture section was a place to list the provider’s achievements (no matter how big or small) in a nice organized paragraph. Not just a sentence. It would be an insult to the pilots of Air America to have a line like “C123s are sometimes used in movies where scenes call for large cargo aircrafts,” true; Hollywood has done that in James Bond and xXx. However Air America (the real one) flew C123’s, so this line is misleading.

Why can’t we list its cameo appearances in numerous James Bond films, Ford commercials, and Heroes? This aircraft was only used in those rolls because it was a large cargo plane, and that would be an appropriate reference for that one line. But don’t go selling the provider as if Hollywood only uses it because it is big. Sell this article as if you are selling a product, you want every one to like the provider!

Civilianised aircraft / Accidents
The article needs a section on civilian use of the C-123. A section on accidents should also be added. This image of the recent crash could then be added. Mjroots (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The XC-123A and the facts
Folks,

I hate "Cit. Need" tags. They almost always cause me to pull my remaining hair out trying to find the source. Thought I remember the source about the B-47 jet engine pods (the inner wing pods built for the B-47), but did find the reference that the XC-123A was the first official jet powered military transport the USAF flew. But the statement about the XC-123A being rejected because of engine ingestion problems while landing or taking off from dirt strips is untrue. In the early era of jet engines they took a long time to power up (the need for JATO bottles on bombers) and did not have thrust reversers (with piston engines you could reverse the props on landing). The XC-123A was a USAF idea, that since they already had the B-47 logistic and parts pipeline for the XC-123A, they could also have a cheap high speed transport for critical personnel and supplies. But they found out that with the straight wing and bulky fuselage there was not much gain in speed and a drastic reduction in range. The XC-123A was never envisioned as a tactical transport that could get in an out of short and rough landing strips. And that is stated in another publication that if I can not find soon I will loose the rest of my hair.  Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

VC-123B
General Westmoreland's C-123, known as the "White Whale" was originally a B model. I don't know if it was modified or a replacement VC-123K took its place, but there was a VC-123B. I'd suspect that whatever source was used for the VC-123K would mention its predecessor. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional accident
https://www.vanderbiltcupraces.com/blog/article/mystery_friday_foto_49?fbclid=IwAR1w2xabc8etI6MhDtfTZhKcbW504Pc32SItfvW30uL38jI-1hV-1M4uuAs Jcpny1 (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)