Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lockheed C-5 Pax Config?  
User currently offlineC5LOAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8549 times:

I fly the C-5 for the Air Force, and all the guys i talk to were kids when the jet came out. So I was always curious why the a/c wasn't configured for pax when it was built. It's huge and it could have been a double decker like the A380 couldn't it? I think it could have been a big competitor for the 747. Was it the design, or did airlines simply not like the way it looked? Any thoughts?


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8522 times:

This Time Magazine article from 1968 talks about Lockheed's consideration of a 1000-seat "L-500", derived from a cargo civilian L-500, in turn derived from the C-5 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,712157,00.html

Boeing originally figured the 747 was going to primarily attract cargo customers. Not surprising that Lockheed thought the same.

It's the only easy reference I've ever found. Maybe some old Lockheed experts here have more information.

-Rampart


User currently offlineFlexo From St. Helena, joined Mar 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8468 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 1):
Boeing originally figured the 747 was going to primarily attract cargo customers. Not surprising that Lockheed thought the same.

To add to that, back then it was largely seen as certain that supersonic transport would be the way of the future for pax travel. Well, we have all seen how that turned out unfortunately.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8395 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have seen a model of an AA Cargo L-500 freighter. It would load and unload from the nose and rear ramp and then had two large cargo doors on the top deck - one behind the cockpit and one ahead of the tail.

I expect that, like the A380-800F, the drawbacks of trying to load, unload and balance two decks worth of cargo outweighed the extra payload volume and weight that could be carried.

I can see Lockheed and Airbus... "And we would have succeeded to, if not for that pesky Boeing and plane called 747!".


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8405 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For the same reason the C-130, C-141, C-17, Il-76, etc never took off marketing wise as pax birds.... They were built to haul cargo from unimproved strips. This means that a pax version would have to haul around a lot of unnecessary structural weight..... bad economics....


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10601 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8385 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):

It would mean alot of extra structual work just to have a second level for cargo. There's just room enough for 75 pax up there as it is, so that would have to be completely reworked.

BTW, to the OP............I was at Travis when we got our first C-5 in '70 or '71. Seems the wing commander was flying in the first one and on landing, one of the mainwheel bogies failed to swivel into place and they blew all the tires on that bogy. Since they had had fire troubles and some other problems with the C-5 before it went into operation, everybody bailed out of it pretty quick.

[Edited 2008-09-19 14:54:43]


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8369 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mayor (Reply 5):
It would mean alot of extra structual work just to have a second level for cargo. There's just room enough for 75 pax up there as it is, so that would have to be completely reworked.

I've never seen the internals and it's been almost two decades since I've been up-top on a C-5. I imagine it would be closer to the lower holds on a 747 freighter in terms of average freight dimension.

The biggest issue is the wingbox cutting your upper cargo deck in half (hence the need for two doors). You have that same issue with the wingbox on a 747 freighter, as well, but at least there you don't need to lift your pallets and ULDs a half-dozen or more meters into the air.  weightlifter 


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10601 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8358 times:

One other thing.......if I'm not mistaken, the 747 was originally in the design competition with the C-5 for a cargo a/c for the Air Force, not the other way around.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineC5LOAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8354 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 5):
There's just room enough for 75 pax up there as it is, so that would have to be completely reworked.

Not necessarily, if the environmental compartment wasn't there and with just a couple of mods, you can put prob. 150 pax on the upper deck.



"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8115 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
They were built to haul cargo from unimproved strips.

An "unimproved strip" as it applies to a C-5 would be an airfield without a Starbucks outside the main gate.  Smile

Seriously, I'm pretty sure that baby needs nice, smooth pavement.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 7):
One other thing.......if I'm not mistaken, the 747 was originally in the design competition with the C-5 for a cargo a/c for the Air Force, not the other way around.

Boeing did compete in the CX-HLS program, but not with the 747 (which came years after Lockheed won the RFP).

Big version: Width: 500 Height: 229 File size: 16kb
Boeing CX-HLS Concept


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8091 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
An "unimproved strip" as it applies to a C-5 would be an airfield without a Starbucks outside the main gate.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure that baby needs nice, smooth pavement.

Although it's seldom used this way the C-5 was designed for unimproved strips. In fact part of the recent C-5M testing involved "offroading" at Edwards.

It ain't got all those wheels to taxi around on 18 inches of concrete.....  

You won't see the 787 doing this kind of testing at Edwards...

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/p...EDMARTINC5MSUPERGALAXYPROGRAM.html

Courtesy Lockheed


[Edited 2008-09-19 17:48:36]

[Edited 2008-09-19 17:49:05]


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10601 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7889 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Boeing did compete in the CX-HLS program, but not with the 747 (which came years after Lockheed won the RFP).

Well, they were both introduced in '69 or '70. Looking at that picture, it looks like a 747 with a high wing. How much trouble would it have been to re-design it into the 747 that we all know?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7797 times:



Quoting C5LOAD (Reply 8):



Quoting C5LOAD (Reply 8):
Not necessarily, if the environmental compartment wasn't there and with just a couple of mods, you can put prob. 150 pax on the upper deck.

Where would you put all that ducting in the environmental compartment? The C-5 wasn't designed for pax; it was designed for outsized cargo. I'm curious to know how much all those people from Hurricane Katrina secured with cargo straps down in the box enjoyed listening to all that noise. Personally I wish the USAF had went with the Boeing design. Sure it would have cost them another $300M in the short term, but most people agree it was a superior design and maybe FRED wouldn't have lived up to it's name.



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineJetjeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7650 times:

There was talk of the c-5 as a pax version but never got that far. If im not mistaken
you can drop pax seats in like the old 727 qc and i believed it was used in the vietnam
airlift and we lost one. They are still amazeing aircraft to watch and seem larger than the 747
I really hated lockheed got out of the passenger department



i can see for 80 miles
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10601 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7606 times:



Quoting Jetjeanes (Reply 13):
There was talk of the c-5 as a pax version but never got that far. If im not mistaken
you can drop pax seats in like the old 727 qc and i believed it was used in the vietnam
airlift and we lost one. They are still amazeing aircraft to watch and seem larger than the 747
I really hated lockheed got out of the passenger department

You can do the same thing with the C-141. I rode back from Shemya AK to ANC on a 141 on those rearward facing seats. I believe they just connect to the tiedown fittings in the floor.

To do a pax version of the C-5 would also amount to a HUGE amount of work for any sound deadening.

Also rode in a 141 once on an airdrop mission in the side seats. Quite a rush as that load zips out the back end as you're sitting there.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineC5LOAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6745 times:



Quoting Jetjeanes (Reply 13):
If im not mistaken
you can drop pax seats

yes you can put a seat pallet configuration on there. They do not use it anymore simply b/c they wouldn't carry that many pax anymore. But with it in there you can fit approx. 270 pax in the cargo box plus another 75 in the upper back, plus another 20 in the upper front part. But like Mayor said it would take a lot of insulation and also putting windows in the fuselage in order to make it a pax airplane.



"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6611 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mayor (Reply 11):
Well, they were both introduced in '69 or '70. Looking at that picture, it looks like a 747 with a high wing. How much trouble would it have been to re-design it into the 747 that we all know?

There were significant differences between the CX-HLS and the 747-100. Many threads have discussed and there is a very good book written about it.


User currently offlineRdwelch From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6416 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 5):
BTW, to the OP............I was at Travis when we got our first C-5 in '70 or '71. Seems the wing commander was flying in the first one and on landing, one of the mainwheel bogies failed to swivel into place and they blew all the tires on that bogy. Since they had had fire troubles and some other problems with the C-5 before it went into operation, everybody bailed out of it pretty quick.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 14):
You can do the same thing with the C-141. I rode back from Shemya AK to ANC on a 141 on those rearward facing seats. I believe they just connect to the tiedown fittings in the floor.

Wow...goose bumps!!! Terminal leave over 20 years ago, did a jump on a C-5 Travis-Tinker-Dover and I remember getting out of the aircraft after sitting backwards for a couple of hours and having no sense of orientation.

C5Load, keep up the good work.

Gus


User currently offlineKanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3756 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5605 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mayor (Reply 11):
Well, they were both introduced in '69 or '70. Looking at that picture, it looks like a 747 with a high wing. How much trouble would it have been to re-design it into the 747 that we all know?

The fuselage mock-up for the CX-HLS was similar to a huge C-97 and comprised of two stacked cylinders, the lower one being larger ... when they lost the bid and eventually decided on the 747, nothing was salvaged from the old mock-up... I don't recall seeing the wing box in the mock-up although with the requirement of low ground profile for loading tanks, it had to be a high wing.


User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2907 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5528 times:

While we're talking here about pax versions, why weren't they offered/bought as civil freighters? They were built to be just that, so they would be pret-a-porter so to speak.

The Antonov 124 is popular as an oversized cargo hauler, so what about its American counterparts?



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10601 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5491 times:



Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 19):
While we're talking here about pax versions, why weren't they offered/bought as civil freighters? They were built to be just that, so they would be pret-a-porter so to speak.

The Antonov 124 is popular as an oversized cargo hauler, so what about its American counterparts?

With the problems that the C-5 had, including wing stress, it's doubtful that any airline would want to deal with that. With the kind of stuff that airlines were hauling, widebodied freighters would do just fine. I''m not really sure if Lockheed seriously tried to market it to civilian buyers.
I think they would have done better if they had tried to market the 141 that way, but I don't think they tried that, either.

The Antonov 124 was built as a military a/c, only since the breakup of the Soviet Union has it been used as a civilian freighter.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 19):
The Antonov 124 is popular as an oversized cargo hauler, so what about its American counterparts?

As stated earlier the economics just aren't there. The AN-124 fits a small niche market that, as I recall, the Antonov design bureau was able to develop as a result of having frames available that had no other use. Easy to operate them below cost and establish a market, quite another to build commercial versions in sufficient quantities to make it a profitable manufacturing venture from the start.

Lockheed even built a commercial prototype of the C-141 - went no where. NASA bought it to as an airborne telescope platform.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineFanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2002 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5426 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 1):
This Time Magazine article from 1968 talks about Lockheed's consideration of a 1000-seat "L-500", derived from a cargo civilian L-500, in turn derived from the C-5

The L-500 existed at least in the minds of model makers. Entex (for those of us old-timers who remember the company) released a kit of the L-500 back around the time the Galaxy first took flight. I also found a pair of models made by the very talented Dutch model maker, Maarten Matthys Verkuyl. I have pictures here:

http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2930363610048918155OIScQS and the next picture.



The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5384 times:

The L-500 passenger version would look like an oversized Bae-146. Lockheed was in a jam with the 747 coming out as well as the DC-10 a few years later.

They didn't give up on a jumbo pax plane and came up with the L-1011; though it sales were limited, it was a great aircraft nonetheless.



The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineTF39 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4620 times:

I think another reason why it wasn't configured for pax was the airport infrastructure back in the 70's couldn't have easily handled the volume of proposed passengers at the time. Imagine a couple of L500s arriving within 10 minutes of each other  Smile I suppose the Lockheed engineers had a head start to the issues the Airbus A380 engineers would face decades later  Smile Also, I can't find anything noting if Pan Am was the only commerical operator even remotely interested in the L500.

From a design perspective, I could still envision the double-decker concept, although I wonder if a pax version would actually raise the level of the current cargo floor a few feet higher in order to increase the (current) bilge area for passenger baggage and containers? The current bilge area would be insufficient for that as it's only about two and a half feet high from what I recall (when I removed/installed those pesky floor panels  Smile ) But if the cargo floor was raised, that would also eat into the remaining upper deck space and I'd imagine it would still only be a single aisle like it is today. And you're still constrained by the wing box. However, if you eliminated the rear cargo ramp/doors, I'd bet there'd be plenty of volume to recover from not only where the rear doors were but also the hayloft area (if it's still called that). There's plenty of unused space back there!

Also, I'd suppose a pax version would have needed to have more reliable/efficient engines installed and even then, the 747 still has a faster cruise speed and longer range (unless the airlines wanted to give a go for inflight refueling  Wink ) When the B's came out, I never could quite understand why the CF6 engines weren't installed at the get-go instead of the improved TF-39s. Anyway, I was never bored on a C-5 from a maintenance aspect.


25 C5LOAD : That is something I could never understand. The B models started coming out in '83 and by then a/c manufacturers had made significant progress and im
26 ZANL188 : Too far aft from a CG standpoint. If it could've been used Lockheed would have moved the bulkhead further aft in the first place.... There is a lot o
27 TF39 : There's another interesting point I ran across today when looking through a Warbird Tech book on the C-141 (chapter 3). If I'm not reading the materia
28 Post contains links and images Rikkus67 : It's not impossible to convert a cargo aircraft into a passenger one, just highly improbable. Lockheed converted a HURCULES into a passenger carrying
29 ZANL188 : Southern Air Transport used to operate a combi L-100. 18 seats, lav, minibar, and a FA...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
RAF Avia An72-Pax Config. No Windows? posted Tue Mar 15 2005 16:56:55 by Sevenair
Saha Air Pax-config. 707s posted Sat Jun 12 2004 12:36:10 by Pe@rson
CEO Can Foresee EK Flying 850-900 Pax A389's posted Fri Aug 8 2008 08:17:15 by Art
TAM's Fleet Seating Config Questions... posted Mon Aug 4 2008 12:26:58 by JJ8080
AsiaX Charging Pax By Their Weight posted Sun Aug 3 2008 22:36:16 by Qantas767
Question Re: Pax Stranded At FRA Due To LH Strike posted Sun Jul 27 2008 22:01:12 by Boeing747_600
Delta 73W Config? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 22:05:26 by DJEmbraer
PAX To Lanzarote End Up In Turkey! posted Mon Jul 21 2008 08:53:30 by Cumulus
SunExpress Pax No's Up 35% To 1.8mil, 1H 2008 posted Mon Jul 21 2008 06:02:09 by TK787
LH's U.S. West Coast Config Help..... posted Tue Jul 15 2008 21:13:52 by Azncsa4qf744er
AsiaX Charging Pax By Their Weight posted Sun Aug 3 2008 22:36:16 by Qantas767
Question Re: Pax Stranded At FRA Due To LH Strike posted Sun Jul 27 2008 22:01:12 by Boeing747_600
Delta 73W Config? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 22:05:26 by DJEmbraer
PAX To Lanzarote End Up In Turkey! posted Mon Jul 21 2008 08:53:30 by Cumulus
SunExpress Pax No's Up 35% To 1.8mil, 1H 2008 posted Mon Jul 21 2008 06:02:09 by TK787
LH's U.S. West Coast Config Help..... posted Tue Jul 15 2008 21:13:52 by Azncsa4qf744er