Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Go To Top | Help | Search 
C5 Crashes At Dover AFB  
User currently offlineDelta762 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 33 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 27906 times:

I just saw on Fox News that a C5 military transport crashed at Dover. Does anyone have any information?

150 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States, joined Aug 2000, 1009 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 27888 times:

Fox just had a live view. Cockpit/forward section broke free and I did not see the tail. But looks like a survivable crash. Hopefully all the crew members are alive and well.

User currently offlineLonghaulheavy From United States, joined Dec 2003, 395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 27879 times:

First pics are just coming in on Fox. It's not on fire, but it's broken in half. It looks like it separated at the joint/seam for the front cargo hatch.

User currently offlineN754PR From , joined today!, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 27805 times:



User currently offlineDiamond From United States, joined Apr 2004, 3078 posts, RR: 71
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 27430 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR
















✈ Some discussions are just not worth having.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5272 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 27409 times:

1. By what logic did the moderators decide to get rid of the thread with 40 posts, in favor of this one?

2. Does this mean that, if more C-17s are ordered, that we will see an extra one or two added to compensate for this C-5 loss?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 27337 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):
1. By what logic did the moderators decide to get rid of the thread with 40 posts, in favor of this one?

Apparently this one was "first."


I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States, joined Aug 2003, 347 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 27309 times:

I don't know if this was mentioned in the other thread, but it seems like there is soot (or at least a stream of something) coming from the leading edge by the missing engine. Is there any official (non-official) word on the difficulties the plane was having prior to the crash?

Fly Safe!

SLCPilot


I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2035 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 27282 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):
2. Does this mean that, if more C-17s are ordered, that we will see an extra one or two added to compensate for this C-5 loss?

I guess this is one way to get Congress to give you more funds.  spit 

User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 2415 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 27226 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):

As cynical as it might sound, but aren't certain mishap rates calculated in the lifetime expectancy?

User currently offlineUnited787 From United States, joined May 2005, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 27159 times:

All appear to have survived, I hope none of the injuries are serious.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/03/c5.crash/index.html


Stephen
User currently offlineJonvesi From United States, joined Oct 2004, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 27115 times:

#2 Engine problems on T-O.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/p...rticle?AID=/20060403/NEWS/60403006


Another link with some clearer PIX!
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/p...rticle?AID=/20060403/NEWS/60403002

04/03/2006 short quote from an article (sorry lost link to this one)

“I can confirm that they [DAFB] are reporting engine failure,” the pentagon spokeswoman said. “The initial suspicion in cases like that is birds. It’s something investigators always look at. It’s a known cause of engine failure.”

[Edited 2006-04-03 19:45:09]


39.8036° N, 75.1653° W
User currently offlineContact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 27046 times:

Location of crash: http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=39.11...82&lon=-75.443777&z=15.4&r=0&src=0

User currently offlineJonvesi From United States, joined Oct 2004, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 26962 times:

Looks Like C-5B 84-0059 tail# 40049 nose# 4059 assigned 436 MAW Dover, in 1990

[Edited 2006-04-03 20:15:53]


39.8036° N, 75.1653° W
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 7319 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 26874 times:

Looking at those picture all I can say is that was one outstanding job by the crew bringing her down in one piece and all surviving... and to land in a field...!!!


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineDL021 From United States, joined May 2004, 10949 posts, RR: 90
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 26874 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thank God there appears to be no deaths. It looks like the airplane did fairly well in the crash, in that there are a few distinct pieces and there doesn't appear to have been a serious fire.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 10):
I guess this is one way to get Congress to give you more funds.

Dude, that's only funny with there being noone dead.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineCadet57 From United States, joined Jul 2005, 6890 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 26838 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
Dude, that's only funny with there being noone dead.

No one is....


Also, construction of the c5 ended in the 90's, they dont make anymore IIRC.... as for the record, the NEWEST C5 at CEF is 25 years...


Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineRG828 From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 26747 times:

Can you patch up something the size of that?

Maybe get in a Lockheed Tiger team and fix it up?

Just wondering, since C5's are quite valuable for the USAF.


Cowboys should not fly, they should take care of horses not horse power.
User currently offlineFlyf15 From United States, joined May 1999, 6008 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 26652 times:

Anyone find it strange that the tail is not attached to the airplane and nowhere to be seen in any of the pictures?


FLYING RULES: 1) KEEP IT UNDER CONTROL, 2) DON'T HIT ANYTHING
User currently offlineCadet57 From United States, joined Jul 2005, 6890 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 26646 times:

Quoting RG828 (Reply 19):
Can you patch up something the size of that?

tha'd be a BIG patch....


no, the aircraft is a w/o now its future lies in the hands of thousands of alcoholics... mmmm beer  Wink


Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 7319 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 26634 times:

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 20):
Anyone find it strange that the tail is not attached to the airplane and nowhere to be seen in any of the pictures?

No. I'm sure they hit hard and it broke off the tail and it's back on the runway. Notice the damage to the slates around the #1 engine.. I'm guessing they hit a light tower or something which knocked off the engine. Also notice the fire damage on-top the wing.

[Edited 2006-04-03 21:46:23]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineJonvesi From United States, joined Oct 2004, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 26599 times:

Aerial videos, show the tail, about 1000 meters to the right ( east?) of the impact point, off the approach end of the runway 32. Tail is in the same field, which used to be a potato farm.


39.8036° N, 75.1653° W
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States, joined Mar 2005, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 26472 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 22):
No. I'm sure they hit hard and it broke off the tail and it's back on the runway. Notice the damage to the slates around the #1 engine.. I'm guessing they hit a light tower or something which knocked off the engine. Also notice the fire damage on-top the wing.

The tail section is behind the AC in the field. The aircraft was on final for the runway, not on take-off. The only engine that is off the aircraft is because of its own impact with dirt.

-Check

User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 2283 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 26460 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!