Galaxy5007 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 392 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3838 times:
I am getting some inside information that the USAF intends on retiring 8 C-5As that are "bad actors". This would follow up on my post in the C-17 line thread after discovering a mysterious aircraft swap between Wright-Patterson and Lackland that they preparing for some AMARG inputs. 70-0453 is a total hunk of crap. It has been in and out of depot the last 8 years and has maybe put on about 600 flight hours in that time. It used to be a Dover bird, but we gave it to Lackland when they sent 9004 to Robins for the structrual anyalysis teardown inspection to determine the life remaining on the A models. Stewart and the NY congressmen are trying everything they can to get 13 C-17s there and get rid of their C-5s all together. Stewart has at least 2 bad actors (68-0212, and 69-0021 are the ones I am thinking). Lackland may have one other jet they might get rid of; also a former Dover bird; 0466. Wright-Patterson has 9003, which has been through all of the "problem repairs" and it is still on the ground 98% of the time. Its been @ Dover for a major inspection for 2 and a half months now. Anyways, below is my compiled list of worst actors in MY opinion...AMC might be looking at something different to get their list. The top 3 are almost a sure thing to be canned. From then on, its in the air. I know a few As are safe for sure, which I can list later on. If 68-0216 wasn't a C-model, it would be in slot 4. That jet is a piece of crap as well.
1 Rwessel: Does this mean the AF has finally produced some actual documentation on the "bad actor" group of aircraft as congress requested? Several non-USAF anal
2 ZANL188: From my point of view, 30 year USAF Logistician/Transporter - retired, they're ALL bad actors. Just recently had a C-5B take a hydraulic dump on my r
3 Galaxy5007: The USAF apparently has a list now, but hasn't presented it to congress (at least not to my knowledge). I'm sure the criteria consists of the low air
4 ZANL188: Point taken re: the crews - however folks are going to be more anal at home station because of the availablility of MX. No point in taking a sick jet
5 Revelation: And this year's Senate took money from the maintenance budget and used it in part to buy 10 more C-17s. The House threw on 3 as well. And I don't see
6 Boeing767mech: Interestin reading about the C-5's. But I have a couple questions. Being that I have only been in commerical aviation and not miltary aviation I have
7 Hawaiianhobo: Haha, its soo funny you mention 216, we tried to use her last week for an SCTS mission and got pulled off of it on her first leg cause of a MX proble
8 TF39: Thanks for the info Galaxy5007 Wow! I remember most of those "bad actors" from the late 80's Most of the even #'s were at Travis at the time. Some thi
9 Galaxy5007: 40 years old and only 16-18K flight hours on the bad actors. Not sure about cycle count. I do know that 68-0216 (that POS C-model that should be cann
10 RedFlyer: Gee, you don't by any chance work for AA, do you? I always thought comparison of life-cycles between military transports and commercial transports we
11 JohnM: I think the current process is the "rot on the vine" theory. Reduce manning, the manning that you have has a very high FNG count, stop doing interior
12 TF39: I don't think you're wrong as the original design spec for the A models was 30,000 flight hours but with the original wings structural problems, that
13 Galaxy5007: Thats correct. When the new wings were installed they upped it to 40K hours, and the 9004 project confirmed that it could go further than that. The t
14 Na: Why are military aircraft constructed to such low numbers (roughly 50% of a civilian jet)? How does this compare to a C-17?
15 RedFlyer: Military aircraft do not fly as often as civilian aircraft, it's as simple as that. Even though the youngest of the venerable B-52's in the inventory
16 Boeing767mech: I was at an airshow in Edwards AFB in 2001 and NASA had Balls8 on display. I talked to the crew chief and he said this B model had 2000 hours on it,
17 Galaxy5007: You guys have to remember that the military aircraft take a beating unlike civillian aircraft. The military aircraft don't get to land on smooth civil
18 XT6Wagon: Might still make the list depending on what they find in teardown.
19 JakeOrion: The more I hear about the C-5, the more I think it would be better to just design a replacement or do a C-17 stretch...
20 EBJ1248650: Takes up back to the question of whether a stretched C-17 would be a suitable replacement for the C-5. Add to that the question of whether it would b
21 KC135TopBoom: Don't be so sure. Congress has an uncanny ability to force the USAF to park or retire airplanes after they spent millions on modifications. Look at t
22 Galaxy5007: Although you have a strong case considering the past aircraft; I believe that they are strategically planning the AMP on certain C-5s. The x-fer of 0
23 Jhooper: You feel how you will about C-5 aircrews, but having personally flown every tail listed above, if we weren't about moving the missions, none of these
24 Hawaiianhobo: Amen! That sounds like my last trip to Mildenhall! I still haven't run across anyone in my Sq who likes to delay the mission for anything and as fun
25 Galaxy5007: You are taking my comment the wrong way and perhaps I didn't make it clear that I meant from home station. Once crews are out in the stream, yes, the
26 KiwiRob: Does anyone know the reliability of the AN-124 compared to the C-5?
Jhooper From United States, joined Dec 2001, 6123 posts, RR: 18 Reply 27, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2335 times:
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 25): You are taking my comment the wrong way and perhaps I didn't make it clear that I meant from home station. Once crews are out in the stream, yes, they get credit and do what they need to do. But as a former maintainer, watching crews write every little drop of hydraulic fluid, oil, water, as an EOL, or a broken clamp as a safety issue because a cannon plug wire could become chaffed and start a fire to avoid flying a local or going down range when they know they are going to get stuck down range when they rather be home; Thats where my backing comes from.
Whatever dude. I don't know what outfit you were in, but unless you're qualified to accept the responsibility of an aircraft commander, your claims are pretty much baseless. The last word is yours.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
Galaxy5007 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2290 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 26): Does anyone know the reliability of the AN-124 compared to the C-5?
Not sure of it, but again, comparing civillian and military standards makes it irrelevant. The AN-124 is out to make money for the carriers, the C-5 isn't.
Quoting Jhooper (Reply 27): I don't know what outfit you were in, but unless you're qualified to accept the responsibility of an aircraft
I was based @ Dover AFB as a hydraulics specialist and did alot of crew chief tasks as well. Why don't you go write up that slat clutch brake assembly again...you know that one that leaks from the built in weep holes? Cut me some slack dude. I gave you credit for getting the jets rolling as you could do so down range...I was just referring to home station launches.
Speaking of which, There were several months in 2005 in a row where we had a 96% home station departure rate for missions; TA had a 92% rate for nearly 6 months around the same time frame. However; when they factored in the local training mission reliability rate of 53%, it dragged down our over all MC rate to 65-75% depending on the month. I don't have the data anymore or access to it, but I definately remember it (mainly because we got comp days for busting our butts on the line). We still had A models and were flying double locals every day, sometimes with another jet doing a local.
The C-5 isn't as unreliable as it used to be. It has improved quite a bit over the last decade. The bad reputation however, will never go away after the FRED days of the 70s and 80s.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
Bingo From United States, joined Nov 2006, 353 posts, RR: 1 Reply 29, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2264 times:
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 19): The more I hear about the C-5, the more I think it would be better to just design a replacement or do a C-17 stretch...
C-17 Stretch?
Swap the engines for GE90-115s and put in a 12 meter plug for a stretch....That would boost it from 161,760 lbs of total trust to 461,200 lbs of total thrust....and give it enough room to haul 2 Abrams...
Not likely to happen but who would have thought the BUFFs would still be flying?
TF39 From United States, joined Jul 2006, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2249 times:
Quoting Bingo (Reply 29): C-17 Stretch? Swap the engines for GE90-115s
Forget about just being able to back up using it's reversers; - it'd be the first airplane in history that can takeoff backwards using full reverse thrust
Galaxy5007 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2164 times:
Quoting TF39 (Reply 30): Forget about just being able to back up using it's reversers; - it'd be the first airplane in history that can takeoff backwards using full reverse thrust
A C-17, whether its stretched or not, will never replace the C-5. A new aircraft will have to be made to replace the C-5; one with a high wing design so they can kneel it.
I think the USAF would be fine with 70 C-5A/M/Ns and 230 C-17s. Who knows, maybe they'll change thier mind and RERP a few more A models after retiring 25-30 of them and the M proves itself. The only problems plaguing the M models now are legacy issues.
The other big time consumer of maintenance on the C-5 is all the sheet metal work that has to be done. There really isn't much you can do about that.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1964 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2151 times:
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 31): A new aircraft will have to be made to replace the C-5; one with a high wing design so they can kneel it.
Why would a new aircraft have to kneel? C-5 only had to do it to assure fuselage ground clearance on rough terrain - a capability that is seldom, if ever, used.
C-17, C-141, & C-130 don't have it and don't need it.
Kneeling gear caused far more problems than it was worth.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 31):
A new aircraft will have to be made to replace the C-5; one with a high wing design so they can kneel it.
Why would a new aircraft have to kneel? C-5 only had to do it to assure fuselage ground clearance on rough terrain - a capability that is seldom, if ever, used.
C-17, C-141, & C-130 don't have it and don't need it.
Kneeling gear caused far more problems than it was worth.
Actually, we kneel the C-5 on a regular basis. It's a capability that's used all the time to accomodate the cargo (particularly rolling stock/vehicles), even on good pavement.
I bet you're thinking about the Low Pressure Pneumatic System (LPPS) which was used to DEFLATE the tires to accomodate rough terrain. This capability is no longer used.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28616 posts, RR: 72 Reply 34, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2065 times:
Well I hate to bring up something that at the time was a bad idea from the Clinton Administration meant to kill the C-17 but since from what I have heard a large amount of the time, the C-5 doesn't use off-airport capability, and a lot of the cargo would actually fit quite nicely on a commercial pallet, why not revist the idea of a military 747 transport.
It would reduce the need for the more expensive C-17 (more still would be needed) but the 747 could be used to run bulk cargo from base to base faster and with a larger base of operational knowledge then the C-17 or C-5A/B/C generates.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1964 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2051 times:
Quoting Jhooper (Reply 33): Actually, we kneel the C-5 on a regular basis. It's a capability that's used all the time to accomodate the cargo (particularly rolling stock/vehicles), even on good pavement.
Yes, I know. But you wouldn't need to kneel except for the need to provide ground clearance for rough terrain... Way back in the day the C-5 was supposed to land over rocks, boulders, tree stumps, etc. but has never been used in that fashion. The kneeling gear was designed to provide the additional fuselage clearance, yet still allow an easy offload.
The fact that you need to kneel on a regular basis (and the accompanying mx headaches) is why I say the kneeling gear was more trouble than it was worth.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Galaxy5007 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2034 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 35): Yes, I know. But you wouldn't need to kneel except for the need to provide ground clearance for rough terrain... Way back in the day the C-5 was supposed to land over rocks, boulders, tree stumps, etc. but has never been used in that fashion. The kneeling gear was designed to provide the additional fuselage clearance, yet still allow an easy offload.
The fact that you need to kneel on a regular basis (and the accompanying mx headaches) is why I say the kneeling gear was more trouble than it was worth.
The whole purpose of the kneeling system isn't for ground clearance, it was installed so you could lower the aircraft for easy on/off-loading of the plane. The C-5 was never supposed to land on boulders and tree stumps...where ever you heard that is beyond me, but its incorrect information. The smaller cargo planes don't need it because they aren't as long. Try having a C-5 taking off in knelt level and you can pay the bill to repair the scraped underbelly and rear cargo doors/ramp. To maintenance folks, having the clearance to go under the plane in normal mode saves a crap load of walking when having to do stuff. The kneeling system is pretty reliable. That again is a misconception of the C-5 because of the original pneumatic system that always broke. That was replaced long ago. Kneeling of the forward gears for tows so there isn't so much stress on them helps alot as well.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 34): why not revist the idea of a military 747 transport
How about not. Not going to happen; tired of talking about the darn 747...not going to happen.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
Jhooper From United States, joined Dec 2001, 6123 posts, RR: 18 Reply 37, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2030 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 34): and a lot of the cargo would actually fit quite nicely on a commercial pallet, why not revist the idea of a military 747 transport.
I don't know what percentage, but a huge amount of palletized military cargo already travels by commercial 747 (Kalitta, Evergreen, etc). It's actually the preferred way to ship alot of that stuff, because it's airlift capability that's paid for already, whether or not they're moving large amounts of cargo. And frankly, the contractors can do it cheaper, faster, and better than the USAF can. However, outsized cargo can't go by 747 and has to go mil air.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
Flighty From United States, joined Apr 2007, 4618 posts, RR: 2 Reply 38, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2042 times:
The C-5 is a neat platform when its unique capability is required.
When not required, the C-5 seems to have no justification at all. For pallet cargo, what a joke. Just hire FedEx or Atlas. Or buy some nice BCF 744's. This isn't a unique battle need, carrying some pallets worldwide. It can be done with normal gear.
But yes, the C-5 does fill a need, no question about that.
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 36): The C-5 was never supposed to land on boulders and tree stumps...where ever you heard that is beyond me, but its incorrect information.
Sure it was built for slightly rough terrain. Some people call little rocks "boulders" but we are talking about why is the C-5 required over a more normal cargo aircraft, if all it gives is a bunch of headaches and unique expenses (or worse yet, duty interruptions).
It just bugs me when people say we should keep a particular solution on-line, but eventually mediocre performance is just tolerated. With so much money, we can afford whatever is needed to get the job done. Probably for less money IMO
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1964 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2034 times:
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 36): The whole purpose of the kneeling system isn't for ground clearance, it was installed so you could lower the aircraft for easy on/off-loading of the plane.
If it didn't need the ground clearance, you wouldn't need to lower it to ease the loading.
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 36): The C-5 was never supposed to land on boulders and tree stumps...where ever you heard that is beyond me, but its incorrect information.
Take a look at the original specs...
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28616 posts, RR: 72 Reply 40, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2019 times:
Quoting Jhooper (Reply 37): And frankly, the contractors can do it cheaper, faster, and better than the USAF can. However, outsized cargo can't go by 747 and has to go mil air.
Yeah but there are still places the commerical operators, or more specficly their insurance carriers won't let them go.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Galaxy5007 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (1 month 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1883 times:
Quoting Jhooper (Reply 41): Quoting L-188 (Reply 40):
Yeah but there are still places the commerical operators, or more specficly their insurance carriers won't let them go.
You'd be suprised at some of the holes they can fly to.
That, and the 223 C-17s and thousands of C-130s are for. When its too big for them, thats when the C-5 comes in.
I was @ Dover AFB today and confirmed 8219 has Lackland markings and is in full throttle AMP mod. All three M models are on the ground there as well, two having legacy issues, and a third there for scheduled maintenance. It was quiet there for the most part other than that. 69-0008 from Stewart came in, and QTed out in an hour and 20 min...now that was impressive!
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3859 posts, RR: 1 Reply 43, posted (1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 28): Not sure of it, but again, comparing civillian and military standards makes it irrelevant. The AN-124 is out to make money for the carriers, the C-5 isn't.
The An-124 started out as a military freighter and is still in service with the Russian Air Force. In fact, the civilian An-124s are mostly converted units sourced from the military.
Anyway, in contrast to the C-5, there don't seem to be horror stories regarding its reliability.
Flighty From United States, joined Apr 2007, 4618 posts, RR: 2 Reply 45, posted (1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1814 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 43): Anyway, in contrast to the C-5, there don't seem to be horror stories regarding its reliability.
It's all about incentives, man. Nothing compares to airline / commercial freighter duty for aircraft. The aircraft have to be reliable and tolerate tremendous repeated workloads. The dispatch reliability of airliners can be over 98%. Military does not insist on this reliability so the vendors do not work hard enough. IMHO.
Sure, the C-5 is an old bird but so is a 747-100. You can make a 747-100 run like a top because it's a commercial platform. I wonder if the C-5 would have worked a ton better if only there were more of a commercial base to its operations. Running 10+ hour per day utilization really knocks the cobwebs out of an aircraft, judging by commercial fleets. And they do have high dispatch %. Look at, say, NW or UA 744s for example. They run.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3859 posts, RR: 1 Reply 46, posted (1 month 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1722 times:
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 44): In contrast, I haven't heard much of anything about the AN-124. I'm sure the Russian AF wasn't as strict on maintenance as the USAF either.
That might be true or not, I suspect we'll never know. The Russians are generally more secretive. However, the commercial carriers seem to be doing fine.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 45): It's all about incentives, man. Nothing compares to airline / commercial freighter duty for aircraft. The aircraft have to be reliable and tolerate tremendous repeated workloads. The dispatch reliability of airliners can be over 98%. Military does not insist on this reliability so the vendors do not work hard enough. IMHO.
You've got a valid point here.
I'd add that the An-124 has the advantage of being more than a decade younger than the C-5. Just as an example, its FBW system should be easier to maintain than the C-5's hydraulic/mechanical flight control system.
Of course, the C-17 should then be even more reliable, which I think is the case.
Cargotanker From United States, joined Oct 2009, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1714 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 43): Anyway, in contrast to the C-5, there don't seem to be horror stories regarding its reliability.
I've heard rumors that it is as bad or worse, but nothing confirmed. There used to be a few locations where an AN-124 was in perpetual 'broke, awaiting repairs' status for months on end. I saw one in Gander in the late 90s that was there for months and I think Dallas Love had one for awhile, too. I've also heard that their 'crane' inside the cargo hold is notoriously unreliable, and that they (Volga?) want to switch to rollers and rails like 'normal' cargo planes.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3859 posts, RR: 1 Reply 48, posted (1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 47): There used to be a few locations where an AN-124 was in perpetual 'broke, awaiting repairs' status for months on end. I saw one in Gander in the late 90s that was there for months and I think Dallas Love had one for awhile, too.
I'd attribute that to the financial state of its operators back then and the unavailability of spare parts which can still be a problem with aircraft of Soviet origin. Just my two cents.
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 47): and that they (Volga?) want to switch to rollers and rails like 'normal' cargo planes.
That would defeat the purpose of carrying heavy and outsize loads. For palletised freight, the An-124 is simply the wrong aircraft.
Cargotanker From United States, joined Oct 2009, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1684 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 48): That would defeat the purpose of carrying heavy and outsize loads. For palletised freight, the An-124 is simply the wrong aircraft.
The rollers can flip over if you need them to, then you have a flat floor to drive tanks, bulldozers, whatever else that is outsized. My point is that the AN-124s use this crane system to load cargo that is supposedly heavy and unreliable.
Galaxy5007 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1680 times:
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 47):
I've heard rumors that it is as bad or worse, but nothing confirmed. There used to be a few locations where an AN-124 was in perpetual 'broke, awaiting repairs' status for months on end. I saw one in Gander in the late 90s that was there for months and I think Dallas Love had one for awhile, too. I've also heard that their 'crane' inside the cargo hold is notoriously unreliable, and that they (Volga?) want to switch to rollers and rails like 'normal' cargo planes.
I remember hearing it was a POS a decade ago....probably because spare parts weren't funded. The AN-225 was built using alot of the same parts the AN-124 has, and you see that thing doesn't fly but a dozen times a year.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 45): Running 10+ hour per day utilization really knocks the cobwebs out of an aircraft
I can vouch that when the C-5 stays in the air, the better its reliability rate is. Once it lands for scheduled maintenance, it breaks hard, then it takes forever to get it back up to that great running condition.
Quoting A342 (Reply 46): FBW system should be easier to maintain than the C-5's hydraulic/mechanical flight control system.
I agree completely; the rigging of everything takes a long time. EVERYTHING on the C-5 is mechanical, linkages are what make the C-5 work. The C-5M is the only C-5 with an electronic control system, and its isolated to the engines only. I'm sure it would be massively expensive to upgrade it to a FWB system, so thats probably why it hasn't been proposed before.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
Galaxy5007 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (3 weeks 5 days 11 hours 43 minutes ago) and read 898 times:
Another base transfer occurred sometime within the last couple of weeks...I can't post the jet (directly) that went to Wright-Patterson, but its not on my list. In fact, one on my list transferred to Lackland; 9005. So I can assume that 9005 is safe. So, currently Lackland has 8214, 8219, 8220, 8221, 8223, 9002, 9005, 9006, 9007, 9014, 9016, 9026, 0445, 0446, 0456, and 0466. You should be able to figure out the jet that got transferred by that and some photo searching.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Sep 2005, 392 posts, 
I don't know what outfit you were in, but unless you're qualified to accept the responsibility of an aircraft commander, your claims are pretty much baseless. The last word is yours.
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3859 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
