Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records  
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7567 times:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123167592

Results have to be verified still; but this has been a month under the covers planning.

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7493 times:

Ok now quickturn it and do it again and surge that bad boy. Stick in the schedule and fly it everyday and see how it likes it.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7481 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 1):
fly it everyday

They have actually done this for the most part on local flights. The down time that its been having are either scheduled, repairing bird strikes, or updating software. Seem that they have gotten most of the leaks fixed finally. They are trying to get 9024 up to par before next month when they start OT&E October 1st.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6387 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7394 times:

C-5M unofficially sets 41 wordl records...

Quote: The results are pending certification by the National Aeronautic Association and should be finalized in about a month, said Kristan Maynard, the NAA official observer who documented the world record attempt. The NAA is the record-keeper for U.S. aviation.

Assuming that Mr. Kristian Maynard has done his home work, and the records are approved by the NAA board (National Aeronautic Association) in Washington DC, then the NAA will submit the claims to the FAI (Federation Auronautique International) in Lousanne, Switzerland.

And when the FAI finds no mistakes made according to their record rules book, then those records will be approved by the FAI. And then no aviation world record can be more official than that!

A few years back a B-1B set a similar long string of world records, but they were more "speed with payload over distance" oriented thean this one which is "climb and altitude" oriented.

Further back, shortly before the SR-71 Blackbird was retired it also set a long string of world records. The USAF obviously didn't want to unvail its ultimate performance figures while it was still in service.

During the last 60 years the Americans and the Russians have constantly competed about having the highest number of current world records in the FAI record books in Lousanne.

You can check out current records at http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/

Since there is not one single world record yet in the caterory of planes with take off weight above 500,000 kg, then we can assume that the Europeans (Airbus A380) are less eager to produce world records.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7264 times:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Fea...ation/Pages/Box091509retiring.aspx
Just read this about the additional C-17s being bought that poor performing C-5A's will be retired.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineSpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7202 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 3):
Since there is not one single world record yet in the caterory of planes with take off weight above 500,000 kg, then we can assume that the Europeans (Airbus A380) are less eager to produce world records.

Huh? I find a whole bunch, all held by the An-225.



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7033 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 4):
Just read this about the additional C-17s being bought that poor performing C-5A's will be retired.

Yeah, alot of talk has spread over at Stewart IAP about replacing their fleet of C-5As to C-17s. I don't think they are going to retire all of the A models, but there are a couple dozen that really just need to go. The really bad ones are spread out in the fleet. Stewart has the worst C-5A around (cough8212cough). I don't think any other jet can match up to its low airframe hours and high down time. I think its going to be spotty on which jets are going to go bye bye. I think the ones that have already been reskinned, repaired with the CBBF and AMPed are safe at this point. That still leaves plenty to go down the tube. I wouldn't be surprised if Wright Patterson trys to get 17s next, or even Travis to give up their Bs and Cs. This will indeed, be interesting!


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4085 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6934 times:

Galaxy...you are a great source of information on all things C-5.

What is the composition of the fleet at Westover these days?

Thanks!


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6903 times:



Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 7):
What is the composition of the fleet at Westover these days?

I think I might have OCD of the C-5, lol.

Westover has 16 C-5Bs, all AMP modified. They are also doing Minor ISOs for the entire C-5 fleet (sharing that responsibility with Stewart). Dover is handling the Major ISOs.

With the possible retirements coming, I hope everyone starts catching the A models on camera more often before they go bye bye. I've been collecting the tail shots for 3 years now, and there are still a couple that I don't have...I just hope I get them before they get decomissioned!


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6387 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6752 times:



Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 5):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 3):
Since there is not one single world record yet in the caterory of planes with take off weight above 500,000 kg, then we can assume that the Europeans (Airbus A380) are less eager to produce world records.

Huh? I find a whole bunch, all held by the An-225.

Right, the An-225 holds about a hundred world records in the >500 tons category. I don't know how I mistreated my browser to find none. Sorry!

All the C-5M records claims can now be studied at http://records.fai.org/data?c=3 - click on id numbers 15547 to 15587 on the right hand side of the page.

From all these record claims we can see that the C-5M climbed from brake release to 12,000 m altitude or roughly FL390 in 23 minutes and 59 seconds with an 80,000 kg payload. That's pretty impressive.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4373 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6541 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 9):

From all these record claims we can see that the C-5M climbed from brake release to 12,000 m altitude or roughly FL390 in 23 minutes and 59 seconds with an 80,000 kg payload. That's pretty impressive.

I wonder how the 744 Freighter's performance with a similar payload would compare ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2085 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6516 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 10):

I wonder how the 744 Freighter's performance with a similar payload would compare ?

And the 747-8F ?
IMHO, Boeing can improve these records easily during the certification of the 747-8F
If the certification team can combine it with the actual test-flying, Boeing can do the extra effort, for PR reasons.
But I don't think they are interested to trow away a lot of money at this difficult times for some record hunting.

[Edited 2009-09-19 02:19:26]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6302 times:

I bet an Evergreen 741 would give the M a run for the money. That won't work.... the 747s are too busy flying all over the place at max MTOW.....Maybe Myth Busters can do a 747/ C-5M challenge segment.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6297 times:



Quoting JohnM (Reply 12):
Maybe Myth Busters can do a 747/ C-5M challenge segment

But that's just a challenge, there is no myth related to that comparison to bust. Wish there were, that is a pretty cool show.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6166 times:

It sounds like the RERP (C-5M) program may be on the chopping block again.

C-5 upgrade might not fly in Congress

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=35682


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6387 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6116 times:



Quoting JohnM (Reply 12):
I bet an Evergreen 741 would give the M a run for the money. That won't work.... the 747s are too busy flying all over the place at max MTOW.....Maybe Myth Busters can do a 747/ C-5M challenge segment.

Honestly I don't see any 747 version which is able to climb to 12,000m (close to 40,000 feet, 39,474 to be exact) in 24 minutes. And do it with a 80,000kg payload (176,000lbs) which corrensponds to roughly 900 pax.

You can put any number from 100 and up behind 747, and it won't work, no way! And why should it be able to do it? It was designed for something else. It is for instance some 10% faster than the rather slow C-5.

But the C-5M did it.

Since these records were in the category 400,000 to 500,000kg TOW, then the weight at brake realease had to be at least 400,001kg (881,000lbs). Only the 747-400ER has a MTOW sleightly exceeding 400,000kg, so that is the only 747 version (except the yet to fly -800) which can even play in the same record category.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6077 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
But the C-5M did it.

Since these records were in the category 400,000 to 500,000kg TOW, then the weight at brake realease had to be at least 400,001kg (881,000lbs). Only the 747-400ER has a MTOW sleightly exceeding 400,000kg, so that is the only 747 version (except the yet to fly -800) which can even play in the same record category.


I am wondering if the Russians will make an attempt with a AN-224 or AN-124. The 748 attempting would be a great sales pitch.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12339 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6065 times:



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 14):
It sounds like the RERP (C-5M) program may be on the chopping block again.

C-5 upgrade might not fly in Congress

The meat of the article is, "The administration requested $606.9 million for C-5 modernization, but the House committee cut $56.6 million as "funding ahead of need," while the Senate panel cut $45.1 million for the same reason.".

So Congress is holding back 10% of the funds yet the AF web site is in a panic.

It does seem that the A models will be in the desert before the avionics upgrades happen, so perhaps it doesn't make much sense to upgrade them, does it?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineTF39 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6041 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
Since these records were in the category 400,000 to 500,000kg TOW, then the weight at brake realease had to be at least 400,001kg (881,000lbs).

Hi - I went to the link you sent earlier (cool link btw) and for record 15587 the subclass shows "C-1s (Landplanes: take off weight 250 000 to 300 000 kg)"

What I was thinking is this C-5 was not fully loaded with fuel. Just guessing here but probably less than 120K pounds of fuel which would fit into that category?

empty weight: 374,000 lbs
cargo: 176,000 lbs
---------------------------
total ZFW: 550,000 (I think that's quite a bit below max ZFW depending upon g's used to calculate)

So for a 1.5 hour flight, it doesn't say how much fuel they put on board but I'd doubt if it was filled to approach MTOW. If it was, THAT would be extremelly impressive! But even loaded to a takeoff weight of 650-700K lbs, it's still very impressive. Given that I wonder what the 747-400F or 747-8 would be able to do for the same takeoff weight?

Also, any idea what the weight of the cargo was lifted to 2000 meters?


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5995 times:



Quoting TF39 (Reply 18):
Also, any idea what the weight of the cargo was lifted to 2000 meters?

176,610 lbs was the cargo weight.

I don't think they were aiming for max MTOW during this attempt. However, I agree, that a full fuel load, and a maximum wartime or beyond payload weight would be a record setter in itself. I wonder if they will attempt that or not. I don't think they will anytime soon as they are going to start OT&E next week.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6387 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5992 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
Since these records were in the category 400,000 to 500,000kg TOW...



Quoting TF39 (Reply 18):
Hi - I went to the link you sent earlier (cool link btw) and for record 15587 the subclass shows "C-1s (Landplanes: take off weight 250 000 to 300 000 kg)"

Sorry, my bad, it was in the 250,000 to 300,000kg category. That changes the whole picture, and it certainly gives the 747 a posibility to compete.

Quoting TF39 (Reply 18):
Also, any idea what the weight of the cargo was lifted to 2000 meters?

I am pretty sure that all 41 records were broken in just one flight, a flight with 80,036kg payload. The B-1B and SR-71 have earlier broken such a whole burst of records in just one flight.

When records were broken also in the 35,000kg, 40,000kg etc. categories, and not just the 80,000kg category, then it is simply because 80,036 is greater than all these numbers, and no plane has previously performned better with 35,000 or 40,000kg etc.

Quoting TF39 (Reply 18):
So for a 1.5 hour flight, it doesn't say how much fuel they put on board but I'd doubt if it was filled to approach MTOW.

We can be pretty sure that it carried the absolute minimum fuel needed for that climb to 12,532m and land again. with ZFW at 550,000lbs it was already qualifying for the 250,000 to 300,000kg category with practically no fuel.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

747 classic. RR power about the same thrust as the C-5M. The 744 almost 10,000 lbs more thrust per engine than the M. The 744 would easily best the M record attempt. The 748 would be competitive using only 3 engines. On top of that, the 747 would do it all day, every day. I don't think the 747 world cares about some PR attempt, they don't need PR, the results tell the tale.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12339 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5955 times:



Quoting JohnM (Reply 21):
I don't think the 747 world cares about some PR attempt, they don't need PR, the results tell the tale.

Yes, and showing up the USAF probably isn't a wise business decision.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2085 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5894 times:

For the record braking flight during certification of the 747-8 the following weights are involved :

Estimated OEW = 421,200 lb (191,100 kg)
MZFW = 717,000 lb (325,000 kg)
MTOW = 975,000 lb (442,000 kg)


Payload = 177.000 lb (80.000 kg)
Actual ZFW = 421,200 (191,100) + 177.000 (80.000) = 598,200 lb (271,100 kg)
Estimated T/O fuel = 61800 lb (28.000 kg)

Actual TOW = 660.000 lb (299,100 kg)

This will be a rocket T/O and climb to 12000m , with all FWD boostpump low press lights illuminated, due low fuel load.
We will see if Boeing wants some positive PR.

[Edited 2009-09-24 02:07:52]

[Edited 2009-09-24 02:08:42]

[Edited 2009-09-24 02:11:22]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4373 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5754 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 9):

From all these record claims we can see that the C-5M climbed from brake release to 12,000 m altitude or roughly FL390 in 23 minutes and 59 seconds with an 80,000 kg payload. That's pretty impressive.

Not bad but a 744F could beat it, some unofficial research comes up with a time of 16 minutes to FL390 with the same payload and a take off weight of 600,000 lbs.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
25 Bhill : Wouldn't runway length come into play with a C-5/B747 competition?
26 Max Q : That would be fun to see and talk about funny, not many Aircraft out there that would consider 60,000 pounds of fuel as a light fuel load. Long live
27 747classic : Both aircraft will depart with full rated T/O thrust ( for 5 minutes, max. certified in normal conditions), despite the relative low TOW, to obtain a
28 Tommytoyz : You guys are making a strong case for replacing the C-5s with 747-8Fs. A widened front loading opening could be developed cheaply to match the openin
29 JarheadK5 : How are you going to load two M1 Abrams main battle tanks into a 747? How are you going to load two CH-53E helicopters into a 747? How are you going
30 Tropicbird : You use the C-17's for this lift, that is what it was developed for. With the 747, the USAF logistics experts will use it to fly non-oversized cargo.
31 JarheadK5 : C-17 only fits one M1, one H-53E, or (I think) two H-46, H-3, or H-60. Non-oversize cargo already goes via KC-10 and civilian carriers, along with th
32 Tommytoyz : 1. You design a larger loading door 2. Buy lift equipment that can lift 120,000 lbs, transportable on a C-17, C-130 or 747 3. Alternatively, use a li
33 JarheadK5 : The H-53E is too tall to fit in the 747. So is the H-46, H-47, and a boat-load of other equipment I'm not even going to list. Not financially realist
34 Tommytoyz : 1. The C-5's wings and fuselage were carefully evaluated and examined by experts, who concluded that there's another 30 to 40 years of useful life in
35 Galaxy5007 : Each additonal C-17 added to the original 180 is costing the USAF roughly $264 million a piece; not counting spare parts, LAIRCM modifications and th
36 Galaxy5007 : $264M per aircraft in FY 2003 dollars. Currently, its at a cost of $328M FY08 dollars.
37 Post contains links Galaxy5007 : http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123177537 All 41 records have been made official
38 Mayor : It would be impossible to do anything even closely resembling a combat offload from a 747, no matter what model. Offloads of that type JUST TAKE LONGE
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-5M 86-0013 Unofficially Sets 41 World Records
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
C-5M Update - Feb. 13, 2009 posted Fri Feb 13 2009 10:35:05 by TropicBird
Lockheed Delivers First C-5M Super Galaxy To Usaf posted Fri Dec 12 2008 06:54:18 by Galaxy5007
World War II Fighter Question posted Wed Sep 17 2008 13:00:11 by Blackbird
F-86/FJ-2 And J-47 Engine Question posted Mon Aug 4 2008 19:52:25 by Blackbird
FJ-Fury / F-86 Question posted Wed Jul 30 2008 20:07:36 by Blackbird
World Record Sky Jump Attempt: 130,000FT posted Sun May 25 2008 21:42:35 by RedFlyer
Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft? posted Tue Apr 29 2008 15:57:24 by Comorin
Question: What Was World's First Turbofan Fighter? posted Fri Dec 21 2007 19:31:57 by FlagshipAZ
SR-71- The World's Fastest Jet Fighter... posted Mon Nov 26 2007 12:31:41 by MadameConcorde
Status Of Current 707's In World Air Forces. posted Sun Sep 23 2007 12:36:53 by CV990

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format