Graham Robson sent me this image and explained:
"Thought you might like these, as part of your string on N3276U. These shots are of the C-119 that didn't make it to Namibia for that movie, but was ready to go.
131706 had been a resident of South Western Alloys since at least 1982, when I first visited Tucson and there it remained, until the movie project emerged, when it moved across to DMI. This is where these pics were taken, the first in April 2004, at which time Don Howell of DMI did say the aircraft fuselage was originally meant to go to Africa but the movie producers then said they didn't need this one...
By April 2006, when I took the other pictures, it is interesting to see that the nose numbers had been over-painted. The fuselage pod was still there in April of 2007, when I last visited."

More about C-119s used for Flight of the Phoenix click HERE...

I browsed to 1979 - 1983 (Vol. 1-18) of Propliner magazine, but found no images of this N801W.

Bob Reid offered the following theory:
"I am wondering if the date on the photo may be incorrect? N801W has always been registered to a Beech 65!
The aircraft in the accident as shown below was a drug runner and I recall this accident well, as I was working for the State of Arizona as an investigator..
The C-119  exploded on impact, as it was filled with 55gal barrels full of avgas. There wasn't much left.
The  N number on the photo taken by Steve may have been fictitious?
NTSB Identification: LAX79FA059 - 14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation
Event occurred Sunday, July 08, 1979 in CASA GRANDE, AZ
Aircraft: FAIRCHILD C-119L, registration: N1040E
Departure point: Chandler,AZ.
Type of accident: no.1 engine failure during flight cruise, emergency landing, made an intentional wheels up landing off airport in open field, fire broke out after impact.
Note: no mention of the operator. See also ASN report.
Fact remains that the date is earlier than the alleged date of photography and quoted tailnumber is different than the N801W roughly painted on.
Images of N1040E to compare? N1040E was also a Lockheed Learstar, see 1970 photo.

I thought you might enjoy what Jay Carter wrote me:
"I flew mostly out of Anchorage from 1977 to 1984. In particular, the C-119 Boxcar N9027K was one of the airplanes that got my attention.
In the summer of 1982 I flew that one along with 5 others that belonged to Jack Gifford's Flying Service.
Late in the season, I was departing Dillingham at about 3 am for ANC. We used to carry up to 24,000 pounds of fish, but we only had about 18,000 this night. It was September, so it was dark at 3 am now. The 30 inch check on run-up came up just a wee bit short of the 2600 RPM that is supposed to show at 30 mg... But it was close.
So we let off the brakes and rolled for takeoff. Right about V1, FO Ken Johannssen, calls out that the number two is failing! It still showed positive BMEP, so there was really no choice but to rotate and go...
Number 2 indeed was working itself backward, so I called for "Throttle, mix, prop, feather, check for feather, check for fire". Checklist complete, started my turn back, and Ken says "yep, she's on fire"...
We had fire bottles on those. It's also incredibly loud at takeoff in a 119, even with one in feather. It climbed, but not much. Went downwind at about 300 ft. I knew the airport well enough to make a visual turn to a rounded base leg. Rolled onto a short final but couldn't see the runway. There is a river on short final so I knew right where I was but couldn't see the runway. Ken and I spotted it about the same time, and I was not lined up exactly right. Ken says better go around. No way! I skidded it over, called for gear down, was in the flare, nose gear still up, said don't worry about the nosegear Ken we are gonna live, and right as the mains hit, the nose wheel came down and locked!
Made the first turn off.
The Boss was there. He said nice job, but I have one question. I asked what?. He said how come you didn't use the Pilot controlled runway lights here at Dillingham that were installed last year? Dunno boss, I never flew here at night..
I had made the take off without runway lights before so I wasn't too worried about the TO. But it sure would have helped to land!!
True story.
But the best part of my Alaska experience was flying with Merrill Wien in 1977. I see that his son Kent sent some pictures that you used on your website. The Wien Family were the best and most influential Alaskan aviators that I ever had the pleasure of knowing.

See N9027K on my Anchorage 2006 report

I browsed to 1979 - 1983 (Vol. 1-18) of Propliner magazine, but found no images of this N801W.
There is no reference of N801W (afaik) in Alwyn T.Lloyd's book about the C-82 packet & C-119 Flying Boxcar; but then the amount of info on the civilian careers of these aircraft is limited.

Bob Reid offered the following theory:
"I am wondering if the date on the photo may be incorrect? N801W has always been registered to a Beech 65!
The aircraft in the accident as shown below was a drug runner and I recall this accident well, as I was working for the State of Arizona as an investigator..
The C-119  exploded on impact, as it was filled with 55gal barrels full of avgas. There wasn't much left.
The  N number on the photo taken by Steve may have been fictitious?
NTSB Identification: LAX79FA059 - 14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation
Event occurred Sunday, July 08, 1979 in CASA GRANDE, AZ
Aircraft: FAIRCHILD C-119L, registration: N1040E
Departure point: Chandler,AZ.
Type of accident: no.1 engine failure during flight cruise, emergency landing, made an intentional wheels up landing off airport in open field, fire broke out after impact.
Note: no mention of the operator. See also ASN report.
Fact remains that the date is earlier than the alleged date of photography and quoted tailnumber is different than the N801W roughly painted on.
Images of N1040E to compare? N1040E was also a Lockheed Learstar, see 1970 photo.

Fairchild C-119G N15501 (c/n 10955) has been registered on 23Jan07 to Hans O. Lauridsen, who has various large aircraft to his name and intended to start an airmuseum (the website www.lauridsenairmuseum.com was not online in Sep08 and this cannot be good..?)
N15501 participated in the remake of the movie Last Flight of the Phoenix (starring Dennis Quaid); more about this HERE...

In June 2009 I received word that N15501 was being prepared for a ferry flight to Buckeye,AZ. They needed to change a fuelpump before they could take off. At Buckeye (a suburb of Phoenix) it will join the collection of Hans O. Lauridsen who is working to get an aviation museum started.

Ralph Pettersen recently went to the Hagerstown Aviation Museum (Hagerstown, Maryland) and made some fine shots of these ex-H&P aircraft (date of visit 23Dec08)

After a 5 day journey from Greybull, Wyoming to Hagerstown, Maryland the crew landed the C-119 for the last time on Sunday 16Nov08. For many years it had been stored with Hawkins & Powers at Greybull and C-119 N8093 faced a dim future had it not been for this worthy initiative to preserve it here..

Frank Lamm interviewed before departing to Hagerstown: YouTube

This military cargo plane was donated to the museum in 2006 and was one of more than 1,000 C-119s produced by Fairchild Aircraft in Hagerstown.. It will join the museum's C-82 N9701F (below) as a centerpiece in a growing collection of Fairchild aircrafts, museum President Kurtis Meyers said during the ceremony upon arrival of the Flying Boxcar.

It took almost two years and about $95,000 to restore the plane to flyable condition for this ferry flight.Last-minute repairs and weather forced its flight crew to reschedule the homecoming several times but in the end the arrival at Hagerstown was there.
C-82 Packet N9701F, an impressive beast...

Hermen Goud sent me this image of Fairchild C-119 N3560 (c/n 10957), reading on my C-119s at Battle Mountain webpage how this Flying Boxcar crashed on 10Jun78..
This photo was taken in May 1976, operating as Tanker 140 for Hawkins & Powers, at Tucson Int'l Airport.
That fateful day in June 1978, N3560 had a runaway propeller on no. 2 engine shortly after departing Greybull, for a test flight. A belly landing was carried out and the subsequent damage made it a write off.
In 1979 parts of the aircraft were reported to survive at Greybull,WY but I have no sightings after that date.

Hermens website is www.aviaslide.eu

http://belmilac.wetpaint.com/page/Fairchild+C119F-G+Flying+Boxcar+(Packet)

In June 2009 I received following request:
"In your travels or aircraft research have you any information on C119 display aircraft in The Kingdom of Morocco?
I have googled one C-119, located at Marrakech (Menara Int'l) Airport, Morocco. I have been given to understand there is a second one at "Kenitra Airport", also in Morocco.
I have referenced documentation (Canadian) that these aircraft may be ex RCAF aircraft, which were processed back to the USA from Canada, refurbished in the USA and delivered to Morocco during the 1962/1963 (also 1966) time period...
My understanding is that these aircraft (13 ?) were flown by the 1st Air Transport Squadron of the Royal Morocco Air Force at that time.
Any assistance on your part in identifying these display aircraft would be greatly appreciated."
John Carleton

Reply: 'SURVIVORS' by Roy Blewitt (Gatwick Aviation Society, 2007) has 2 C-119s in Marocco listed-
1. CNA-MH C-119G (c/n 11283) Marrakech - Menara AB
2. CNA-MN C-119F (c/n 10943) Kenitra AB
Sightings date from 2003 and 2006 resp.

Paul Stefaniak
Ohio

Some details can be found on www.aviationarchaeology.com (thank you, George!). It concerns C-119G 51-8086, of 48TCS/313TCGp, was based at Sewart AFB,TN and the pilot's name was Thomas H. Frondorf.

Frank Lamm wrote on 28Jun09:
"I flew the "Flight of the PHOENIX" plane (N15501) this week. From Wickenburg, AZ to the Buckeye Airport in Phoenix, about 35 miles.
Since the plane had not been flown but once in 3 years I decided to leave the gear down ...but removed the pins! It is a "dog" flying with the gear down! No problems though.
The owner is determined to get it certificated to fly again for Display etc. Maybe some day we can fly it to a C-119 reunion!"

A 'thread' developed:
Les wrote: odd to see a three bladed prop on there.
Jim: First thing I noticed in movie and photos was the three blade prop. I thought the 3350 and 4360 engines all had 4 blades?
Frank replied: The people at the museum call this an F model. Chuck has all the info on the F model. This plane originally had the 4 blade Aero Products prop on it but when they were getting it ready for the trip to Africa for the movie, they felt that the 3 blade Hamilton Standard was a more reliable prop or at least required less routine maintenance. I must say however that after 8 years and over 3000 hours I wave never had a prop problem with the Aero Products prop.
Then Lee: In a nutshell, the AeroProduct prop was replaced with the Hamilton Standard (3-bladed) prop for reliability and safety reasons.
As everyone knows, the 4-blade could "runaway". That meant that it would go to an uncontrollable flat pitch that created a huge amount of drag. That proved to be too deadly, over the years.
The 3-blade could NOT runaway! If it lost oil pressure, it would go to a fixed pitch that permitted continued use of the engine, albiet without pitch control (think Piper Cub).
There was a decrease in the thrust when the conversion was made, the equivalent of about 200 HP. The jet engines more than compensated for the decrease in thrust.
No C-119s were ever lost due to prop failure after the conversion.
Chuck (Lunsford) added: I flew the C 119 models G, C, and CF. One item I have not seen mentioned is that with the four blade Hamilton Standard you had to carefully preflight not only the entire blade but with particular attention to the tips for any bulge caused by internal slippage of the nylon filler.
If a bulge occurred it could set up harmonics that would lead to blade tip failure and then you will probably bail out or crash. Also I recall a directive that under no condition would you ever make a lead pencil mark on the, I believe zinc coated, blade as it could set up an electrical condition eventually leading to blade fatigue and possible failure.
Any comments on this?

"I am doing research on a paper that involves the C-119 that left Mitchell Airport here in Milwaukee and was lost on June 6th, 1965.
What has interest is that my uncle was on that plane, Norman Mimier. I was two years old."
Norm Kopp

[Aviation Safety Network has no details on a C-119 crash that date; it does have an item on a C-119 which disappeared on June 5th during a flight from Homestead AFB,FL to the Bahamas and never arrived -Webmaster, Oct, 2009]

Bob Schenk wrote me in Nov.2009:
"I saw a C-119 crash at Ft. Polk airstrip around May of 1964. It does not show up on the C-119 crashes web sight linked to your site.
Ft. Polk is an army base in western Louisiana, about 100km north of Lake Charles and the Golf of Mexico.
The C-119 landed hard, breaking the left tail boom and right landing gear. It slid off the runway to the right and stopped with its nose in some pine trees.
This happened when I was at a rifle range, a mile or so off the end and to one side of the runway.
The C-119 took off toward us and as it passed you could see the angle of climb being reduced...
It never climbed more than a few hundred feet as it circled around and made an approach to the runway. On final it was noticeably crabbing into the wind, when it was within less than 50 feet above the runway, it quickly dropped while still crabbing.
After the impact the plane appeared intact except for the broken boom and collapsed right landing gear.
It was still there, nose in the trees, several weeks later."

"Would like to know anything further about this incident."

"I was a crew chief on CH-37’s for the Iowa National Guard in the late-1960’s. The CH-37’s were the last of the large piston powered helicopters, with 2 R2800 engines and one 72 ft diameter 5 blade main rotor. Noisy, hot, and high maintenance."
Bob

Chuck Lunsford shared his opinion on this incident:
"All I know about it is mostly scuttlebutt and rumor, most recently discussed at our 12th Troop Carrier Squadron reunion in Sept. 2009. Emphasizing the rumor bit: allegedly a student crew chief topped off the water/alcohol injection tank with 115/145 avgas. One of these liquids will float on top of the other (I don't know which one--I was only a radio operator) but speculation is they had enough water to get it off the ground and then fuel was injected. In 1964, it would have been a C-119G. The engines were Wright R-3350 Turbo Compounds and the water injection was engaged just before the takeoff roll, so no problem would have shown during the run-up. They were lucky to get it around and back to the runway.
I think the reason you can't find any record of it is because the aircraft was probably repaired and put back into service. All the records on the net only show a written-off airframe. If we knew the tail number, we could inquire at Kirtland AFB, or at Maxwell AFB, but without the number it would be almost impossible to find."

Bob responded to this:
"I'm surprised the Ft Polk C-119 would be repairable.The right gear must have been wiped out and left boom was on the ground.  Also there may have been damage to the right engine and wing.  I could see parts of trees being thrown in the air by the right prop as it came to a rest in the trees.  There was no sign of smoke or other distress other than a low fly around.  The approach to landing seemed ok except for the crab angle and sudden drop."  

Chuck: "You could be right, maybe it was written off and perhaps salvaged for parts, but I've learned of situations where they did some pretty drastic repairs, e.g. replacement of both booms and empennage on a bird that did a 360 on an icy runway in Norway and skidded into a snow bank, a gunship that had 14 feet of the right wing shot off by ground fire, was repaired and put back into service, etc."

SUGGESTIONS ON THE IDENTITY OF THE C-119 INVOLVED WILL BE WELCOMED - EMAIL

Gary identified the tailnumber by the original photo as 18065; that would make it USAF 51-8065.
C-119G-FA 51-8065 (cn 10959) went to Brazil AF under MAP as 2300 (serial).

Gary wondered: "...what the open doors are on the bottom of C-119 51-8065 just aft of the last cockpit window aft edge, on the photo above? They appear to be to far back and large for the gear doors."
Chuck Lunsford replied: "Those are the doors of the Paratainer delivery system-- a method of delivering bundles without leaving the clamshell doors on the ground.
The bundles moved from back to front. The outer doors opened electrically or hydraulically--I don't know which-- and the inner doors were opened manually. The bundles were hung on the monorail on the roof of the cargo compartment and when the button was pressed, a motor moved the bundles forward until they were over the door and dropped through... The chutes were static line.
You should know that the paratainer system was rarely used. I personally flew C-119s as a radio operator for 3 years, did a lot of drops of troops and equipment, but never saw it used. I don't think it was a reliable system-- too many things to go wrong. The bundles could hang up on the rail and there may have been a communications problem, as the controls for it were operated by the crew chief, not the pilot. It was a good idea, but didn’t work well in practice."

I have some additional information about the item from Andre Swygert about the development by the 433rd of the Sling Shot method of heavy cargo drops from the C-119. This information is from my remembrances of more than 40 years ago. I do not have any documentation or photographs.

1. I flew as a loadmaster or observer on several flights during the development of Sling Shot.
2. The Air Reserve Technicians (ART's) in charge of the loadmasters at the 433rd during this time were Elmer Schilling
and Carl Depp. I believe both were master sergeants at the time although one or both may have been senior or chief master sergeants.
3. It would be great if one or both of these men were responsible for the Sling Shot idea, but if my memory and knowledge are correct, a colonel whose name I cannot remember was the driving force behind Sling Shot. This colonel was a pilot and was very hands-on with the development.
4. One of the major development problems was determining the correct weight cord to secure the static line for the cargo chute to a cable running overhead from the front to the rear of the cargo bay. If the cord was too weak, it would break before the cargo chute opened and the load would crash to the ground. If the cord was too strong, it would not break and the load would not eject from the rear of aircraft correctly.
5. Sling Shot used two cables, a strap, two pulleys and the overhead trolley system. The movable head on the trolley system was placed in the appropriate position toward the rear of the aircraft based on the size of the load. Each cable was routed from the trolley head through a pulley on each side of the floor at the rear of the cargo bay. The cables were then attached to a canvas strap behind the last (most forward) pallet of cargo to be dropped creating a sling shot appearance.
6. As mentioned above, a static line was connected from the cargo chute that was connected to top of each pallet to the overhead cable in the cargo bay.
7. When it was time to drop the load, the trolley was activated from the cockpit. The "bomb bay" doors were deactivated so they would not open. The trolley head moved forward, shortening the cables between the pulleys and the strap, and thereby moving the load toward the rear of the aircraft.
8. I do not remember the incident with the watermelon trucks, but I do remember one incident when pallets landed very close to a farmer's house.
9. We would usually fly at 300 feet over South Texas prior to arriving at the drop zone in Hondo and then climb to 600 feet nose-up just before dropping our load. Flying at 300 feet over South Texas on a hot summer day can be rather bumpy.
10. Our standard load during testing was four 55 gallon drums of water in a canvas bag sitting on top of a 4' X 4' sheet of plywood. I do not remember the maximum number of these pallets that we could carry but it may have been four.
11. The 55-gallon drums would look like smashed beer cans if the cargo chute did not open properly.
12. I remember one test that made a real impact. I was flying in a C-119 that was to take photographs of the test drop from another C-119 of a sled holding 20 or more 55-gallon drums. The test was to simulate dropping a jeep. The cord connecting the static line to the overhead cable was too weak, and when the load went out of the back of the aircraft, the cargo chutes failed to open. It looked as if a bomb exploded when the sled and water barrels impacted with the ground.
13. The system was very accurate after the bugs were worked out.
14. It is too bad that this system was not developed earlier in the useful life of he C-119.

As a C-119 loadmaster in the 433rd I also participated in live paratroop drops at Hondo, kicking smaller simulated cargo bundles out of the rear of the aircraft with and without the clam shell doors at Hondo, the test drops of small experimental parachutes at Camp Stanley near San Antonio and two hurricane relief flights to New Orleans. We were required to wear parachutes whenever we flew without the clam shell doors. The "old heads" advised us not to use the safety straps that were available as they were just long enough for one to fall out of the back of the aircraft and be beat to death against side of the aircraft. Also we were cautioned to stay away from paratroopers when they were jumping because they would take you with them. We would open the paratroop doors and enclose ourselves between the open paratroop doors and the back of the aircraft (within the clam shell doors).

The 433rd has several photographs of C-119's in the history section of their web site -

http://www.433aw.afrc.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=3503

Those were the good old days,

Michael Marke
San Antonio, Texas

Pablo Romero sent me the following details of a C-119 crash in Spain.

Early in the morning a broadcasting by local radio informed us of a plane crash, at about 8 kms from town. Fortunately the whole crew had jumped with parachutes from the plane and all had landed safely.

The people of Cáceres celebrated the good fortune of the American crew, which was invited by the city council for a 'Spanish wine ceremony'.

The crew members were: Capt. Guillermo (Williams) Adams (aged 37), Lieutenants Thomas Johnson (27), Jhon Mattheso, Sergeants Clement Seric (22) and Merven Strang (32).

The picture shows 3 crew members, accompanied by some Spanish military authorities, plus an American representative of the US Embassy at Madrid, amidst the wreckage of the C-119 Flying Boxcar; the plane crashed at only 7 meters from a small house where a family of shepherds were sleeping and fortunately no one was injured.

I wonder if any member of the crew of that flight C-119C-18 tailnumber 50-0163 has ever read this comment or is recognized in the photo by anybody.

I hope that above history is interest to you and your readers. Please let me know if somebody can identify any of the Americans crew of that plane.

I would like to add that the plane had departed from Frankfurt (Germany) with destination Azores Islands and when they were west of Finisterre (Spanish NW coast), one of the engines was gone. In an attempt to reach Lisbon´s airport, they continued flying south over the Portuguese coast, but the foggy weather and the loss of altitude made them change course in order to avoid any mountains. And while going east, they were looking for Cáceres airport. When they arrived at Cáceres, the heavy fog prevented them from finding their alternate destination and fuel starvation made them decide to leave the C-119 by parachutes."

aviation-safety.net/database

Wayne:
I just spent a couple of hours reading through your C-119 pages and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Another name for the 119 was "propellor driven wheelbarrow".
I was stationed at Dreux-Senonches (frequently misspelled Senoches) AB for three years beginning in March, 1956. I was an A/C Reciprocating Engine Mechanic and worked in the Engine Buildup shop. I estimate that I built or supervised the building of as many as 280 engines during that time. A few of them were P/W R-2800 models for the C-123 birds, while the majority were Wright R-3350-89A Turbo-Compound models for the C-119G. Every C-119 engine that I worked on had an ID tag with that label.
Various websites, including yours, mistakenly identify the 3350's on the 119 as the -85 model. I think this came about due to some sloppy editing on some website, which will go nameless, where a description of the C-82 was followed by a similar description of the C-119. Evidently, the author did a copy and paste and then replaced "2800" with "3350" leaving the "-85".
One author, on another site, even claimed these engines did not have superchargers. It is true they did not have turbo-superchargers as used on the B-29, but they were equipped with internal, gear driven two-stage, two-speed superchargers just like the B-29 and the Super G Connie. The turbines in the exhaust were geared to the crankshaft through fluid couplings and provided an additional total of 450 horsepower at takeoff power.
The following line is from your website:
"YC-119F: As C-119C, but with two 3.500 horsepower, R-3350-85 engines. One built."
I need to do a thorough search for the -85 but until now I haven't found a description.
As stated in your C-119 article, the C-119 C-F models were equipped with R-4360 Pratt and Whitney 28-cylinder engines. I do not know which dash number engines these were, but the least powerful of the 4360's produced about 3,000 hp.

Wayne:
If the YC-119F was equipped with two R-3350-85 engines, it would have been severely underpowered since these engines were rated at only 2,500 hp each. See, this Wiki article for a table of R-3350 models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-3350
Your writing says the engines on the YC-119F were rated at 3,500 hp which would have been in the proper power range for the application. The R-3350-89A was rated at 3,500 hp. While I don't know for certain, I believe the engine used on the YC-119F was the -89A just as I saw on all the G models that I serviced at Dreux.
The "Y" designation indicates that the YC-119F was a prototype and the -85 engine may have been used in resizing the engine nacelles for the later installation of the -89A.

Chuck:
Here is what little I know; keep in mind I'm not an A&E -- I've just done a ton of research on the C-119.
The C models carried R-4360-20WA engines.
The F modification came in the middle of the 1951 assembly line run and the F called for R-3350 Turbo Compound. My Dash-1 says the G model could have -85, -89 and -89A. All three Turbo-Compound. It lists the -85 at 3200 BHP at 2900 RPM, and 3500 BPH at 2900 RPM with water injection. Only small modifications changed it to -89 and -89A--with no change in BHP. One big change to the -89 was the addition of armor-plated housings for the PRTs so the passengers and crew didn't get riddled with turbine buckets if one of the PRTs let go.
I think the error comes from the fallacy that people like to talk about the C-119 had the same engines as the B-29. They assume it was the same engine--it was not. I can't tell you which version it was, but it wasn't turbo-compound. The other fallacy is the 3350 was inferior to the 4360. Not so-- they were well rid of it and its maintenance problems, engine fires and the Ham Standard props that kept getting out of balance and throwing blades and ripping the engine from the wing. The biggest problem they had with the 3350 was old 4360 pilots over-boosting on takeoff.
There was a group of C models modified to F on the assembly line that retained the 4360s -- the 51-82xx group. The 60th had almost all of them at Rhein-Main and they referred to them as C/F models--unofficially. Officially they were C models. We had engineers who made the transition from Cs to Gs, and they are about 50-50 about which was the best engine. Do you remember the plugs in the tops of the cylinderheads? The B-29 was fuel injected, the C-119 was not. One of the least happy things was to blow one of those plugs and have the fuel ignite on the plug wires. If it happened at night, it was like the 4th of July inside the nacelle. I had a couple of those--not a serious emergency, but we didn't waste any time getting down.
So, I believe the Air Force and Fairchild welcomed the change to 3350s with the F model--it was not a situation where it was a stop-gap half measure as some say, or that LeMay wanted all the 4360s for SAC. The 3350 gave a shorter takeoff run and a longer range because it used less fuel. The AeroProducts props mated to it had a runaway problem, finally addressed by the Air Force in 1970 (closing the barn door after the horse was gone) with the Ham Standard 3 bladed props from the Connies (which also carried the 89-A), but the APs weren't quite as dangerous as the Ham Standards on the 4360s.
You might fill me in on something I never quite understood. The engine had the three PRTs putting power back to the crankshaft, but we also had a supercharger ? for high altitude that as I understand it, had nothing to do with the PRTs. I don't think it was a turbo charger. I used to watch them pull the power back, fiddle with the mixture, and after they engaged it, the engine note changed. I don't think it was done below 15,000 feet.
I got to Dreux/Senonches (also called Dreux/Louvielliers) from August of '56 for 3 years flying as a radio operator with the 12th Squadron. You probably worked on some of the engines that always brought me back safely. Thank you very much for your fine work !! Attached, an excerpt from my book about you guys over there in the big hangar.

Wayne:
I have located a few other internet sources for Wright engines, but most of them are not detailed enough to distinguish differences between 3350 modifications. The Wright online histories are mainly concerned with the development of the company and its aircraft models, its association with Curtis, and, of course, the first flights of the Wright Flyer. I accept your Dash-1 as the authority.
There is a lot of information out there and much of it is erroneous. A prime example is the tale about Le May issuing the edict concerning the use of the 4360. This is so patently ridiculous that I wonder that anyone would actually publish such a tale. I know there is always a political component to the military's acquisition process (see, the KC-x fiasco), but the idea that a man as intelligent as General Le May would issue such an order is absurd. Imagine hanging 4360's on a B-47.
Although the 29 and the 119 both used 3350 engines there were several differences. The B-29 used mechanical fuel injection (as you pointed out), it used turbo-charging (helpful for high altitude) rather than the exhaust-driven PRT, and, of real interest to mechanics, these engines had a hard-wired engine analyzer. I would be surprised if that were the extent of the differences. Every one of the -89A's had the mounting bosses for the fuel injection pumps - covered with bolt-on cast aluminum covers.
The 3350's on the 119 had a hard-wired ignition analyzer. The difference being that the 29 version could pick up mechanical problems on a cylinder to cylinder basis as well as ignition problems on a spark plug to spark plug basis. You may recall the cannon plug connection for the analyzer above the radio op's table. My memory is hazy about where the connections were actually located, but I recall that when we analyzed ignition we always used the radio op's table.
A confusion factor pertaining to the fuel injection system related to the 119 being equipped with a "direct injection" carburetor. In most carburetors, the fuel is mixed with the incoming air in the throat (venturi) area. In the direct injection system, the fuel is metered by the carb but is injected directly into the back of the crankshaft-driven supercharger where it is mixed with the air and distributed to the cylinders via the intake manifold tubes.
The crankshaft-driven supercharger, common to most if not all 3350's, was driven through a gear train and was a two-stage, two-speed unit on the 119. In tech school at Shepard AFB, we were familiarized with the B-29 version and my fuzzy memory informs me that the B-29 engines had the same two-stage, two-speed supercharger but I wouldn't swear to it.
Two-stage means that there are two impellers (fans) in the induction system, the output of the first being the input to the second. The two-speed feature was controllable from the cockpit with a toggle switch for each engine labeled "lo" and "hi". Part of the start up procedure was to check that the blowers were in "lo" before cranking. Thus, when the flight engineer switched to "hi" at altitude he was causing an increase in manifold pressure.
At Dreux, during takeoff, the maximum manifold pressure was something like 59 inches of Hg in low blow. Going beyond that value would be to over-boost the engine with, possibly, very bad results. At Dreux, which is about 600 feet above sea level, a representative atmospheric pressure would be about 29 inches Hg. Since the manifold pressure would be the sum of the static pressure and the boost pressure, the blower was adding about 30 inches Hg to the pressure.
Atmospheric pressure drops about 1 inch Hg per 1,000 feet increase in altitude, so at 10,000 feet the 119's manifold pressure in low blow would drop to about 49 inches if the throttles were advanced to takeoff power. During cruise, the power requirement is much less than for takeoff, but the greater the altitude, the less the air density and the faster the bird has to go to generate the lift required to hold the altitude. The amount of power output by the engine is directly proportional to the manifold pressure. A 20% reduction in manifold pressure means a 20% reduction in power!

You may ask, "How does he know about this stuff? He was just a freakin' mechanic."
After my AF hitch, I made it to the Los Angeles, CA area where I enrolled at Northrop Institute of Technology, and I eventually majored in Applied Mathematics and minored in Aerospace Engineering obtaining my BS in 1977. (Yeah, it took me a while.) During my school years and subsequently, I was employed by The Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, CA. (Note the logo at, http://www.aero.org/.) For the last 23 years of my 33 at Circle A, I was employed as an engineer in varying capacities, finally retiring as an Engineering Specialist, Level 2 working in Orbit Analysis and space flight digital simulation.

Dreux/Senonches (also called Dreux/Louvielliers). Here is a picture I took of the Hangar 4 area--on 31Dec2006. You can still see the mess hall you mentioned, but you can also see the French are letting it all go back to nature. Photo: © Chuck Lunsford

Chuck Lunsford
Author of "Departure Message" & "Boxcar Down: The Albanian Incident"
Reviews available at the link : http://tinyurl.com/fjyme

External links:
N15501 on Mojave Weblog (Feb.2005)
C-119 crashes in Aviation Safety Net database
12th T.C. Squadron A webpage with lots of information on the C-119
Last commercial C-119s, now in Alaska
C-119 Census at OldProps
C-119 information by David Steiner
Joe Baugher's USAF Serial Number Search Results: C-119
Joe Baugher's Navy & Serial Number Search Results: C-119

He also wrote a novel, featuring the C-119 Flying Boxcar, called "Boxcar Down, the Albanian Incident"

Both books can be bought through Amazon.com